I'm a leftie. Can I join the NRA?

[CharonPDX]

Peter DeFazio. Not really a true liberal, more of a centrist Dem. Pro-gun guy. He earns my vote everytime.

DeFazio is a good old-school Oregon politician, in the vein of Hatfield and McCall. Schrader has shown himself to be extremely pro-gun as well. Now if only we could convince Blumenauer.....

 

[huntpotter]

Hi All,
First off, I know I "can" join the NRA. I'm wondering if I can do it without harming, hindering or otherwise going against my other political principles. I really don't want to sidetrack the discussion by going into the validity of those other beliefs. So, hopefully we can leave it at this:
1) I cherish the second ammendment and the rights that it grants.
2) For better or for worse gun rights are the domain and political property of the political right.
3) I'm a leftie in almost all other ways. Not a democrat, they aren't anywhere near far enough left.
So, here is my fear. Every dolar that I give to the NRA goes into the pocket of someone who, while they fight for my second ammendment rights, is also working against gay marriage, or is trying to dismantle labor unions, or is a climate sceptic, etc.
Again, please, let's try to stay on topic. Can a leftie, in good conscience, join the NRA?

I joined the NRA years ago with a lifetime membership. They sent me a hat and bumper sticker that says, "I Am The NRA"

So I guess, since I am the NRA, I'll step up and make the call.

No, Don't join the NRA. We don't want you. Sorry for the hard truth, but you had to ask, and that's our decision.

 

[Bacchus]

Of course we want him. I'm the NRA, too. The NRA is about RKBA, not about Ds and Rs.

The more members we have, the stronger we are. We should not be driving prospects away just because they have different views on matters not pertaining to NRA.

 

[iomatic]

I joined the NRA years ago with a lifetime membership. They sent me a hat and bumper sticker that says, "I Am The NRA"

So I guess, since I am the NRA, I'll step up and make the call.

No, Don't join the NRA. We don't want you. Sorry for the hard truth, but you had to ask, and that's our decision.

So, a policy of inequity and segregation is what you think will work?

Where's that facepalm button?

Just.

Wow.

 

[Trlsmn]

Trust me Rufus, being that I am a pro gun liberal I face that conundrum and think about it daily! I thank you for your understanding. I had to join the NRA because it was required to join the range in my area. That was a hard check to write. I sleep at night because I know that the NRA is fighting for our right to bear arms.

You can think about it daily but come election day you liberals seem to stop thinking!

 

[locobob]

I joined the NRA years ago with a lifetime membership. They sent me a hat and bumper sticker that says, "I Am The NRA"

So I guess, since I am the NRA, I'll step up and make the call.

No, Don't join the NRA. We don't want you. Sorry for the hard truth, but you had to ask, and that's our decision.

Yeah well I'm the NRA too and I want everyone interested in firearms and the 2nd amendment to join. The more broad based the NRA becomes - the safer our rights will be.

 

[VW_Factor]

I didn't read through this entire thread, I feel it may already be a train wreck.

I read something in the OP that disturbs me.

The government and documents didn't "grant" The People our rights.

We were born with our rights and created our government. The created has no ultimate authority over the creator.

Thanks for asking. Please take your /fail elsewhere.

 

[The B]

leftists are anti-gun because they're anti-liberty. they're anti-individual. the Constitution is nothing more than an anchor to progress- a piece of 200 year old trash written by fat treasonous rich white slave-owning men who knew NOTHING of strife or hunger or disparity and certainly had no right to presume to know anything about freedom, while owning other men.

while some of their points are valid (its a shame the Fathers had to be slave-owners- totally kills their credibility with leftists), they fail to miss the truth of the cause- that there is nothing more sacred on the face of the earth than individual liberty. collectivism is nothing more than a steep couloir to tyranny.

i think you should re-evaluate why you call yourself a leftist, and re-think what it means to be a leftist. you'll probably discover you're not really left at all, OP. if you believe in the Constitution, you're a "classical liberal," and very much far RIGHT, not left.

 

[unionguy]

I have the same dilemma. (To those who've attacked you with the standard labels and put downs...I'll respond in kind: I support unions because I believe workers also deserve some measure of liberty on the job. And, I want working people to be able to afford to buy guns. The way all the income gains are going to the rich...that isn't good for broad gun ownership.)

To you, I'd say: our best course of action is to continue to push the Democratic party to supprt gun rights. Already, the party is splitting on the issue with less and less support for "gun control". Better than sending 30 bucks to the NRA, write some letters and make phone calls to Democrats and tell them to leave this issue alone.

 

[The B]

I have the same dilemma. (To those who've attacked you with the standard labels and put downs...I'll respond in kind: I support unions because I believe workers also deserve some measure of liberty on the job. And, I want working people to be able to afford to buy guns. The way all the income gains are going to the rich...that isn't good for broad gun ownership.)

To you, I'd say: our best course of action is to continue to push the Democratic party to supprt gun rights. Already, the party is splitting on the issue with less and less support for "gun control". Better than sending 30 bucks to the NRA, write some letters and make phone calls to Democrats and tell them to leave this issue alone.

unions only support collectivistic liberty for some people, totally denying the same liberty of others.

 

[doubletap007]

we dont want liberals,or mans married to other mans owning guns....we dont want them shooting back at us when shtf do we?
keep the sheep unarmed and we can save precious bullets.didn't we learn from the anti american yanks vs.the american patriots?

 

[MikeE]

leftists are anti-gun because they're anti-liberty. they're anti-individual. the Constitution is nothing more than an anchor to progress- a piece of 200 year old trash written by fat treasonous rich white slave-owning men who knew NOTHING of strife or hunger or disparity and certainly had no right to presume to know anything about freedom, while owning other men.

while some of their points are valid (its a shame the Fathers had to be slave-owners- totally kills their credibility with leftists), they fail to miss the truth of the cause- that there is nothing more sacred on the face of the earth than individual liberty. collectivism is nothing more than a steep couloir to tyranny.

i think you should re-evaluate why you call yourself a leftist, and re-think what it means to be a leftist. you'll probably discover you're not really left at all, OP. if you believe in the Constitution, you're a "classical liberal," and very much far RIGHT, not left.

The Preamble to the US Constitution (my emphasis added):

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Those damn founders, falling prey to collectivist thought. Too bad Ayn Rand wasn't hired to write the document. Then the Preamble might have looked like this:

Me, the only person that counts in the United States, in Order form a more perfect set-up for Me personally, establish My Justice, insure domestic Tranquility for myself, provide personal protective services for Me, promote my personal Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to myself and my Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for my very own state of America.

 

[dmancornell]

^

The union was a union of *states*, not a union of people. And of course there is nothing sacred about the union of states, despite what the Lincoln cultists like to think. It is an agreement that can be abrogated as the states see fit, i.e. stay only if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. State can pass bad laws, but that's the entire point of the original system, people can simply move to another state if a state law is unbearable. With the federal hegemony we don't even have that choice.

As for "the general welfare", that is so vague that can be interpreted in any way. What's for certain is that if the Founding Fathers wanted a massive totalitarian state that can rob person A to benefit person B's welfare in return for person B's vote, they would have said so in the first 10 amendments.

In any case, the leftists can join the NRA because the NRA suits them, they are a bunch of kowtowing big-government statists. The same goes for the warmonger jingoists on the right. I'm giving my money to libertarian pro-gun causes.

 

[CharonPDX]

Good luck with that. His NRA grade is "F".

Yeah, he's most likely a lost cause.

How about pro-gun Democrats who live in Oregon's First Congressional District, are you going to vote for Suzanne Bonamici? Her NRA grade is a "D". She co-sponsored a bill that would have outlawed the sale of most firearms in Oregon and made it illegal for gunsmiths to rebuild most firearms in Oregon Oregon Senate Bill Sb0659 Gunsmithing Ban Bill

I'm in CD1, and I had been hoping for (and voted for in the primary) Bill Witt, an absolute 100% grade A pro-gun Democrat. Bonamici is an enigma, she has the 'D' voting record, but has made pro-gun-rights statements. I've written her campaign manager asking for her to make a public statement during this race, and have invited her to the Gun Owners Caucus grow shoot next month. (She went to a Pink Pistols shoot a few years ago.) I'm hoping to get a chance to let her know that CD1 is a heavy pro-gun district. Even in the heavily Democratic parts of the district. (For example, the Multnomah County Sheriff a few years ago released statistics on the number of CHLs per ZIP code in Multnomah County. My ZIP code, which is one of only a few Multnomah County ZIP codes that are in CD1, was top of the list. Not far East Multnomah County, not inner SE Portland, but outer SW Portland.)

This is the dilemma for liberal Oregon gun owners: are you going to help send yet another anti-gun Democrat to Congress? If you are going to support her, are you going to contribute to the NRA and SAF to help make sure she doesn't contribute to making things worse for you and your fellow gun owners, liberals, independents, and conservatives alike?

I'm a SAF member, and am reconsidering my opposition the NRA. I'll probably wait until after the 2012 election cycle to make sure they don't just act as a branch of the Republican party as they did for many years (but seem to be shying away from - some executives public statements notwithstanding.) The real problem for many pro-gun liberals/progressives is the priority of issues. You can either choose someone who agrees with you 90% of the time, but gun rights aren't in that; or you can choose someone you DISAGREE with 90% of the time, but that you DO agree with on gun-rights. For me, gun rights are important, but not necessarily the most important issue. Likewise, even if it were the single most important issue, odds are the other issues combined would outweigh it. If we brought back an old-school Oregon Republican like Tom McCall or Mark Hatfield, it would be an easy choice. (Or a nice Oregon Democrat like Schrader and DeFazio.)

Rob Cornilles has been a chameleon. He hasn't made *ANY* statements on gun rights, one way or the other. He has changed his tune on a lot of issues between the last election and this one. For example, last time around, he called himself "The original Tea Party candidate," this time around, he's trying to sell himself as an "independent Oregon candidate", distancing himself from even the label "Republican". If you're pro-gun, you have the choice between a "barely for private ownership of guns by vote, statements that are mildly pro-gun" vs "no idea at all." As the OFF says, not much to look forward to in this election cycle.

 

[BSG 75]

I'm a SAF member, and am reconsidering my opposition the NRA. I'll probably wait until after the 2012 election cycle to make sure they don't just act as a branch of the Republican party as they did for many years (but seem to be shying away from - some executives public statements notwithstanding.) The real problem for many pro-gun liberals/progressives is the priority of issues. You can either choose someone who agrees with you 90% of the time, but gun rights aren't in that; or you can choose someone you DISAGREE with 90% of the time, but that you DO agree with on gun-rights. For me, gun rights are important, but not necessarily the most important issue.

I understand. I think if pro-gun liberals are going to vote for anti-gun candidates because of their positions on other issues they need to both try to work within their party to make it less anti-gun, and also support groups like the NRA and SAF and OFF to mitigate what anti-gun politicians they support are doing to all gun owners. Support for more gun control is a losing issue politically Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban and liberal politicians better wise up.

 

[CharonPDX]

I understand. I think if pro-gun liberals are going to vote for anti-gun candidates because of their positions on other issues they need to both try to work within their party to make it less anti-gun, and also support groups like the NRA and SAF and OFF to mitigate what anti-gun politicians they support are doing to all gun owners. Support for more gun control is a losing issue politically Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban and liberal politicians better wise up.

Bingo. (Which is why I find it funny when pro-gun conservatives decry the mere existence of pro-gun liberals. On this issue, we're on the same side, you should be happy about it!) A brand-new Gallup poll has gun ownership at its highest rate since 1993, with a 40% gun ownership rate among Democrats and Democratic-leaning respondents. I'm sending this poll to every one of my Democratic elected officials.

 

[deen_ad]

I understand. I think if pro-gun liberals are going to vote for anti-gun candidates because of their positions on other issues they need to both try to work within their party to make it less anti-gun, and also support groups like the NRA and SAF and OFF to mitigate what anti-gun politicians they support are doing to all gun owners. Support for more gun control is a losing issue politically Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban and liberal politicians better wise up.

That's why politicians won't come out and say which way they lean, supporting gun ownership will cost them votes, not supporting gun ownership will cost them votes. Then they have to decide which will cost them more. Notice that Obwan hasn't come out at publicly at all, although we all know his "leaning"

 

[drew]

That's why politicians won't come out and say which way they lean, supporting gun ownership will cost them votes, not supporting gun ownership will cost them votes. Then they have to decide which will cost them more. Notice that Obwan hasn't come out at publicly at all, although we all know his "leaning"

I look at voting records before anything else. If they have one, it's tough to run away from it.

 

[Jamie6.5]

No longer relevant

 

[The B]

"Moral imperatives" vary from culture to culture (and person to person), and one must answer only to their conscience in satisfying their own.

For those reasons Partsproduction deserves to be allowed his beliefs free from belittlement and comparisons, as befits the Constitution and the BoR. The rule of law.
Would you toss that out Both Eyes?
Make no mistake. Destruction of (the) morals of American society (and all opposing gov'ts/societies) is written in the communist manifesto, and was a focal point of stalin's efforts against the U.S. This is documented!

"Categorical Imperatives" are at the root of the OP's question, and can be at the heart of the answer, within the framework of the 2ndA, and it's position in the BoR.

What many here seem to be afraid of, is that defending gun rights through the efforts of the NRA will spill over into political imperative.
That need not be the case, depending on the candidate, or the issue(s) said candidate supports.
The NRA has been, and still is the strongest voice in D.C in defense of gun rights. Their lobbying (ILA) arm is well funded, but far from the largest or most well funded.
One must look to the trial lawyers and insurance lobby for that.

Yes they (the NRA) do give to candidates, and they give to both sides of the aisle, depending on the candidate's stance and voting record on gun rights.
Who can argue with that criteria?

i've studied deontology, and i have no idea what you just said.