I know this sounds crazy but how about a liberal or democrat gun rights forum

[Joe Link]

They have ZERO desire to reach across the table

This is absolutely true.

I'm not talking about compromising on our gun rights so that we all 'just get along' (with fewer rights), not by a long shot. The 2A couldn't be more clear in the writings of our forefathers. Most rallying against it are merely using it as a scapegoat for societies ills, usually caused by the same illogical thinking that put them on the anti side of this issue. I have no desire to sit down with the Ginny Burdick's and try to come to some agreement. That, in my mind, is purely a waste of time.

What I am talking about is judging someone's position on the 2A before they make it clear. If someone were to come on here and introduce themselves as a lifelong gun owner who has always voted and worked for Democrats, a very large portion of our members would waste no time tearing him or her to shreds. And where does that leave us? Again, what good does it do? We're so used to these combat politics forced on us by the media that we're blind to the opportunity, in a sense making us the sheep. This is how our opponents want us to act. They want us to salivate on our keyboards, so they can point at us while convincing people on the fence (the people we need for our cause) that they don't want to associate with or be one of those people. Most don't realize how effective this is, and we constantly play right into their hand with the childish nicknames and other playground tactics.

You can't tell me there aren't Democrats out there with stronger pro-2A records than some of those with an R after their name. If we attack them for their label, what will the likely outcome be? Politics is not a black and white, I'm right you're wrong sort of game, and this isn't the movies. You don't get to aggressively point out all of someone's flaws, then expect them to see the light and join you. Real people get hurt, and hold grudges, and tell their friends, and resent you and your cause. Rather than making excuses and pointing out more flaws, we should use a little more tact to try to avoid that negative interaction in the first place.

Many gun owners I talk to also insist that if a person believes in any restrictions on the 2A, they're not <insert phrase of your choosing here>. First, people change. I've said it many of times, when I was in high school I thought the government should own/run everything, literally a communist ideology. As I got older and learned about human nature, and realized why this great plan on paper didn't work, I completely shifted, eventually arriving at the opposite end of the spectrum as a libertarian. A gun owner who believes in background checks, or waiting periods, or whatever else at this moment may one day come to realize the error in their thinking, just as I did. Do you think that is going to happen if we as gun owners ostracize them for their current opinion? Or would it be more effective to welcome them with open arms, love them like a brother of the cause, and appreciate the fact that they're on our side of the line?

Again, do not read this as me trying to play nice with those who have made their position clear. I'm saying that until they do so, we need to treat people with more courtesy and respect.

 

[308]

People do change. I know of at least (3) guys who would verbally berate some Christian guys at work and even throw things at them across the shop (this was 20yrs ago) and (1) right before he died told his wife how sorry he was for doing it. The other (2)..oddly enough, go to my church now.

On the firearms side, I had an opportunity to put a F/A suppressed MAC10/45 in the hands of a very liberal young lady who didn't like 'guns' and after the first mag dump she would hardly let anyone else shoot the thing. We couldn't load mags fast enough for her.

People do change for the better sometimes, and you are right Joe, we need to treat people with more courtesy and respect. It's just so darn hard at times

 

[Joe Link]

It's just so darn hard at times

Believe me brother, I know

 

[Sstrand]

Pro-2nd amendment democrats would be seen by their party the same way the republicans see TEA the party.
A THREAT to be silenced at all costs . . .

Sheldon

 

[etrain16]

308 and Joe, I'm with you on treating people with respect, so long as they are giving the same courtesy. I don't think that's too much to ask. But start messing with my rights (2A or otherwise) and I am less likely to extend that courtesy. As I said before, they could extend an olive branch by simply walking away from gun control, period. That would go a long way with me.

 

[Morpheus]

Maybe I missed it but the initial post seemed to be about pro-gun liberals. People who are pro-choice, pro-national health care, pro-gay rights, pro-government safety net, pro-public education, pro-Obama and pro-gun. I know, it might be hard to believe but they do exist. There are a lot more of them than most people realize.

I don't think the initial post was about anti-gun liberals. It is about pro-gun liberals . It is about how we the 2nd amendment supporters have a common goal. We need to encourage them to speak up . We need them to come out of the gun closet. Those are the ones that we need to be super vocal within their own party. They are the ones that need to shout down (or preferably debate down) the irrational fear based statements. Because if conservatives do it, they don't listen. And WE need to support them.

I don't have to agree with everything someone believes to support their beliefs we have in common.

 

[WAYNO]

How does a lib claim to be pro-gun, but then support the politicians and the party that wants nothing more than to completely undermine the 2nd Amendment. Ya cannot be both and have both.

How would the the libs and Dems react if I was campaigning to support their Right of Free Speech, but then work to undermine the Constitution that their free speech rights would only be good after a background check and then only be good two days a week, and only in your home state?

WAYNO.

 

[Joe Link]

How does a lib claim to be pro-gun, but then support the politicians and the party that wants nothing more than to completely undermine the 2nd Amendment. Ya cannot be both and have both.

How would the the libs and Dems react if I was campaigning to support their Right of Free Speech, but then work to undermine the Constitution that their free speech rights would only be good after a background check and then only be good two days a week, and only in your home state?

WAYNO.

Are you saying pro-gun Democrats don't exist, citizens or politicians?

 

[WAYNO]

Vehemently Pro-Gun and Democrat is an oxy-moron. You cannot be pro gun and at the same time elect the lawmakers that would remove our Rights. The best these folks can be are Democrats that have an interest in guns but will not fight to keep them.

I am surrounded by folks that are gun owners and hunters, but are also union members. Their union tells them to vote strictly within Democratic party lines. They are convinced, and they do so. They also continue to profess to be pro-gun, but their head is in the sand. They argue that O'bama and others aren't going to take our guns away, and further, they argue common sense restrictions are okay. Yep, they say they are pro-gun, but only as far as it satisfies their own personal interests.

WAYNO.

 

[Joe Link]

That's the sort of blanket generalization I'm talking about in my posts.

Senator Betsy Johnson (D) cast the deciding vote against background checks in the Oregon Senate.

I'm not asking everyone to agree with me though, I understand why people think this way.

 

[shibbershabber]

They have ZERO desire to reach across the table

And thats just it. Elected fools that sit along aisles dont want to reach across. They are the problem, the diehard idealists with their heads in their... clouds... THEY are the problem.

There are far more gun toting people that align with the Democratic party that we all assume. Just like not everyone who votes Republican is in complete lockstep with the party line.

Unfortunately, because of lack of compromise we find ourselves here. Maybe once the old guard of Clinton era Democrats is gone the party can shift??? If they had half a brain and left guns alone they could probably turn a lot of red states blue.
How many union guys are tree hugging, Prius rolling card toting liberals? Ive met more than a few of them on the range, at gun shows, in the woods, etc. The average working man is a pro gun guy. Unfortunately they want to keep their high wages and good bennies so they have to vote Democrat to keep it whereas the Republicans want the free market to pay them as little as possible. Unless you are really into politics or particular issues, like guns... youre probably going to support the guy who wants to maintain that status quo that is going to keep the money coming in... especially guys looking towards retirement.

Thats just one example. There are far more people that fall in the middle of the road and a lot of them have guns... but they get swayed by other wedge issues that are bigger to them than their 30rnd mags.

These people need to be engaged and educated. While they may vote for politicians who dont like guns, look at the atmosphere in Washington... there is no momentum for gun control at the moment. I say its we have been hounding them and letting them know we dont want more control.

But its the state level ballot measures that are going to bite us... Just look at WA? Private sales gone and the legislature didnt even lift a finger.

Thats where the fight is now. Your friends and neighbors.

 

[PrDubi]

liberals to me are hypocritical. They want guns but only for themselves.

 

[Jim Colvill]

liberals to me are hypocritical. They want guns but only for themselves.

Lilberals don't want your guns. We have our own.

Now, authoritarian corporatists...that's another story.

 

[PrDubi]

tell that to your friends then... because eveey single one Iknow makes an exception to the rule.

 

[Jim Colvill]

tell that to your friends then... because eveey single one Iknow makes an exception to the rule.

I have been, son. One even purchased his first handgun Sunday.

 

[etrain16]

Lilberals don't want your guns. We have our own.

Now, authoritarian corporatists...that's another story.

Just curious, and I'm not intending this to be a poke at your party affiliation, but an honest question. If the corporatists are the ones truly pulling the strings on gun control, do you have any thought as to why so many from a particular political affiliation seem to be so eager to go along with them? And if so, how do we convince them to stop doing that? I would hope that people from all sides could stand up to this type of attack rather than get on board with the big-money folks who seem to have some need to take our rights away.

 

[rdt]

not everyone who votes for a democrat is a liberal.

I'm sure many of you are familiar with libertarians who cannot really be called conservative but nevertheless find themselves voting republican.

it's another un-democratic side effect of our two party system. people end up voting for the side they hate less or abstaining in disgust.

another really dumb side effect is that we all (me too) tend to characterize people's politics, and by extension their character, by their voting record.

why do people go along with the anti gun agenda? people tend to adopt the opinions of those they previously agreed with on past issues. any organization with domination on its agenda encourages thoughtless agreement so "both" sides do it. the corporatists are running both sides anyway. the appearance of 2 sides also encourages thoughtless agreement. more importantly it discourages solidarity and discourages seeing each other as worthy humans. but that's homo-ivory-tower talk, right?

anyways misuse of the label liberal is one of my pet peeves so here goes. "liberal" has a very specific definition in political science. it indicates a world view, and it's far from the only one "on the left."

breifly, a person is not a liberal unless: they believe ideas create reality (not the material world); they believe the basic social unit is the individual (not the family or group or class). there are other identifiers but for me this explains alot. like their dependence on technocracy, bureaucracy, regulation, and edumacation to solve social problems. remembering these two traits also helps me know when to walk away from a so-called discussion.

to get back on topic, a true liberal has no need for guns because exchanging ideas between individuals should be enough to solve every problem.

to their mind, our pro-gun position is merely wrong-headed ignorance. of course for us, it's based in the grit and blood of the real world and our various or vicarious real experiences of the real world. but they cannot acknowledge that our position has merit or a legit origin because it calls into question the self-affirming foundations of their soothing worldview.

for true liberals, the existence of guns suggests the existence of unrecconcilable conflict between humans, and that suggests that they are conveniently deluding themselves.

 

[Jim Colvill]

Let me think on this when I have more time to collect my thoughts and keep the fraking cat off my keyboard

 

[PrDubi]

Don't want to deal with it.

 

[Jim Colvill]

^^^^ This is why rational discourse is impossible here. Thanks PrDubi. I will go back to my coffee shop and argue pro 2A with my commie friends; at least they they don't ridicule me like that. On that note I will unass the AO