Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

CowboyT wrote:Well, as the author of the piece, I never said the NRA was a racist or even extremist organization. Not quite sure where you got that from.

From your article:

I'm referring to pro-2A liberals like my Dad, a black man. He is firmly on the side of the Second Amendment. For two decades, he tried to get me to understand the need for the right to carry. He urged me for a long time to get "a permit to carry," as he calls it. And he encourages others to do so.

He also despises the NRA or anything that smacks of it.

and

My Mom, a white woman and fellow California liberal, isn't too hot on the Democrats anymore, either. She's disgusted by Dianne Feinstein and has been for years. I took Mom to the range a couple of times, and she found that she enjoyed it! But she, too, sees us as "wingnuts" and wouldn't want to be anywhere near a gun show or an NRA function.

Your father despises the NRA. Then your mother thinks "wingnuts" in connection to gun shows and the NRA. And then:

Over the last couple of years, I've been to quite a few gun shows. Now, I'm no more a fan of President Obama than I suspect many other firearms enthusiasts are, for quite a few reasons. However, it's probably not a good thing that I'm seeing targets with his head as the bullseye. Nor is it good for us as a pro-freedom movement when I'm manning a pro-gun advocacy booth and hear people referring to President Obama as "Sambo".

You hear racists comments at gun shows. You are using literary techniques to paint the NRA as racist by association. Now maybe you didn't intend to do that, but the connection is easily made by the reader.

So you want me to be more accepting of liberals in the gun community. Ok, why do they (or at least your father and mother) hold low opinions of the NRA? As long as we are breaking down stereotypes here, why is it they have such a negative -- and in my opinion, incorrect -- view of the NRA?

Well, in part, I think we can blame mainstream media bias for animosity toward the NRA. No, not everyone is going to agree with their mission, or everything they say, or everything they do. Some feel they're too large. Some see them as a beaurocracy (sp?). Some people, like me, get tired of all the emails selling car insurance, life insurance, etc. I am tempted to join their wine club, though. I'm such an elitist. But, then there are also the people like me (and now my wife - that was actually a pretty easy sell) that recognize that the NRA serves a fundamental and necessary purpose, and that is to uphold and defend the 2A. They're vocal, yes. And they have the numbers, influence, and presence to be able to do so (uphold and defend the 2A) rather effectively. Though I have disagreed with some of their stances in the past, I will still continue to support the NRA and I will continue to keep my membership in good standing, stereotypes be damned.

Is the NRA racist? No. Organizations are not racist. People are racist.

I had no idea the NRA had a wine club.

Oh, I don't agree with the NRA on everything either. I don't agree with my wife on everything as well. That's just how it is.

But I've read enough blog posts and progressive rants that I know a lot of "liberals" will use the term "NRA" to mean the entire gun-owning culture. They most likely don't know better.

So here we have a liberal suggesting that gun owners be more accepting of liberals, but the viewpoint given speaks fairly ill of the NRA. Yeah we should be more accepting of liberals, but is it not a two-way street?

LFS wrote:
So here we have a liberal suggesting that gun owners be more accepting of liberals, but the viewpoint given speaks fairly ill of the NRA. Yeah we should be more accepting of liberals, but is it not a two-way street?

I think we're on the wrong street.

I'll settle for tolerance. I don't require anyone to accept my points of view.

Threadjack: http://www.nrawineclub.com/

Sorry... I was using "tolerance" and "accepting" interchangeably. Sloppy on my part. My point still stands. We aren't the only ones who need to open our eyes. I'm very curious why CowboyT's father will have nothing to do with NRA.

LFS wrote:Sorry... I was using "tolerance" and "accepting" interchangeably. Sloppy on my part. My point still stands. We aren't the only ones who need to open our eyes. I'm very curious why CowboyT's father will have nothing to do with NRA.

Might be a generational thing (I'll leave it at that - not willing to keep tossing race around). Understandable, but maybe unfortunate. I'm sure that as the times change, the NRA will continue to change, as well. And, hopefully peoples' attitudes towards the NRA and gun owners in general will also evolve.

There is nothing wrong with liberal's owning guns. However, often you see people calming to support the Second Amendment and also be a full blow "Obama loving tax and tax-and-spend liberal". If you vote for someone against the second amendment your not supporting it. Maybe America does need abolish parties but I doubt it happens anytime soon.

Jakeiscrazy wrote: Maybe America does need abolish parties but I doubt it happens anytime soon.

No, I don't think the parties are the problem. I think it's the people that comprise the parties.

I have some liberal views, and I have some conservative views. Neither party seems to really align with all of my views. Maybe we need to add a third, viable party. Maybe it's our outdated 2-party system that needs an update. But, I don't think "abolish" the parties is a solution.

Grr double post. I hate doing that.

I heard, I think, that 3rd party votes are rising. I don't know the exact numbers. The problem is it is so pricey to run.

Jakeiscrazy wrote:I heard, I think, that 3rd party votes are rising. I don't know the exact numbers.

I wouldn't doubt that. In general, I think people are pretty fed up with both parties' shenanigans, and I do think that in my lifetime we'll see a third, maybe even 4th party arise - on that might even make it into the primary debates!

Sotiris wrote:Because with very few exceptions, politicians with the "D" next to their name tend to vote anti-gun. So the pro-gun democrat voter tends to get drowned out by the party.

Exactly. This isn't the first time this has come up and I still stand by the following.

Gun owners do not hate liberals. We hate their policies because by and large, they target us for government force. Not trying to pull the victim card here, but how many gun owners do you know who would be happy if the federal gun laws went away? It isn't gun owners that are trying to force anyone to do anything. We just want to exercise our liberty without some liberal sticking a government gun to our head if we don't exercise it exactly how they think we should.

Liberals can think anything they want so long as they aren't trying to use the force of government to restrict gun ownership (in this case).

Honestly, I think most of us could care less what personal feelings liberals had about firearms if they weren't always trying to get some new restrictive gun law past. How much time do you spend trying to get a law past that forces all liberals to own guns, train with them to a basic level of proficiency, qualify for the militia, etc. What do you mean you don't? That's the point.

Historically, gun owners have been on the defensive because we just want to be left alone to exercise our liberties. It is the liberals who think they know how to run our lives better than we do who have forced this battle.

It isn't gun owners who are backwards and closed minded about firearms, it is the liberals. Every once in a while we get through to one, but by and large they have already decided they have a right to tell us what to do. They can pry them from our cold, dead hands if they still want them.

This is a tough crowd and many of you obviously have too much time on your hands. Its hard to read all these posts, but I digress...

One of the problems here is Cowboy calls himself a liberal which many of us see as a dirty word. I know Cowboy personally and he is definitely not a liberal like Pelosi or Reid or Frank. Cowboy is a liberal in the true sense of the term before it got perverted by the far left and socialism. Maybe he should call himself something different or maybe we should all think differently, anyway.

The problem with the perverted liberal is they dont care about guns or our Constitution. They only care about getting things their own way and will pervert whatever they can to get that done, especially the Constitution.

Out of one side of their of their crooked mouths they scream religious freedom in support of the ground zero mosque while out the other comes a torrent of hatred for Christians, guns, and pro lifers.

The current struggle we face is not about labels. It is about the very foundation of what we believe in and the hope it will be there when we wake up tomorrow and when our children wake up 30 years from now. And, in some cases the struggle IMO isnt really over ideals anymore. Its about winning and making a point. My guess is there are alot of liberals and conservatives that have lost sight of their true calling and only scream to see who can do it the loudest and longest. Time to get back to basics folks. What do you really believe in, why, and who will help you get there.

For both sides it is not the government. They will screw us all in the end and strip everyone bare. Better we ban together now and find our common roots before its too late...

zephyp wrote:One of the problems here is Cowboy calls himself a liberal which many of us see as a dirty word. I know Cowboy personally and he is definitely not a liberal like Pelosi or Reid or Frank. Cowboy is a liberal in the true sense of the term before it got perverted by the far left and socialism. Maybe he should call himself something different or maybe we should all think differently, anyway.

For the record, I never thought Cowboy was engaging in anything other than an intellectually honest dialog. He raises a good point, and this is a very good conversation to have.

@LFS and @Zephyp:

You're right, and I use the word in that spirit. A true liberal, as I was raised to be in San Francisco, has a very strong "live and let live" attitude. Basically, as long as you're not hurting other people, thus stepping on their rights, your life is your life. This was Jefferson's view. BTW, true liberals also tend to be fiscally somewhat conservative. We don't like it when our government officials waste our money.

@Everyone:

You all would be surprised at how many liberals out here think this way, like Zephyp describes. We're just not reported on in the mainstream media the way the McCarthys, Feinsteins, and Lautenbergs are (gee, big surprise there!). We're the folks that our movement needs. I assure you, such people can be brought to a pro-2A position, if we're good ambassadors for it. And that's the key--being good ambassadors for it.

CowboyT wrote:@LFS and @Zephyp:

You're right, and I use the word in that spirit. A true liberal, as I was raised to be in San Francisco, has a very strong "live and let live" attitude.

Would these be the same SF liberals who thought Obama was one of them when he made derogatory comments about the rest of us clinging to our guns and Bibles?

CowboyT wrote:Basically, as long as you're not hurting other people, thus stepping on their rights, your life is your life.

Unless you believe in God and/or own guns of course. Then you're just a backwards hick that needs straightened out and correct by your superiors who know better than you do.

CowboyT wrote:BTW, true liberals also tend to be fiscally somewhat conservative. We don't like it when our government officials waste our money.

Ah, yes...they problem is they don't view taking everyone else's money to give away on welfare programs as "wasting."

CowboyT wrote:You all would be surprised at how many liberals out here think this way, like Zephyp describes...We're the folks that our movement needs. I assure you, such people can be brought to a pro-2A position, if we're good ambassadors for it. And that's the key--being good ambassadors for it.

I'm not surprised (just as I wouldn't be if you said that there are many Republicans who like most of the platform, but hate guns...both are true) and they are welcome. Just like everyone else.

Sadly, in many cases, it seems that they have some ammunition, and from a non-social-conservative, non-Republican point of view, it's pretty good ammunition. My Dad and I talk about this on a regular basis. The ammunition is well known: Christian fundamentalist, intolerant, bigoted, Confederacy-worshipping, redneck wing-nuts. And there's some truth to it.

So much for tolerance. You pride yourself on tolerance because you have no problem with a Muslim fundamentalist, but heaven forbid if they are Christian! This isn't most gun owners and you know it, so quit giving this close minded view any validity. Good ammo my foot. This is just liberals hating those who aren't like them...guess that makes them intolerant and bigoted.

If you were really open-minded and tolerant you would crush this propaganda, not support it. This is the drivel left-wing politicians use to get elected. Don't get me wrong, the right does it too and both are wrong. However, your piece supports this view of gun owners as racist, religious, uneducated, jerks. We are not.

Here's what I propose.

1. We can stop referring to President Obama by those hateful names. That right there will be a big help.

2. Engage with liberals in a relaxed, friendly manner. Remember, this is about the Second Amendment, which actually is a non-partisan issue. It's a bedrock principle of our legal system and our very nation. Discuss it as such, free of Democrat/Republican junk.

3. If you have children who shoot, be proud of them! If one of your kids got a blue ribbon for marksmanship (e. g. the Boy Scouts), brag on the kid. "How was your weekend?" "Pretty good, actually, my son got a blue ribbon for marksmanship at the local competition! I'm so proud of that kid!" Who dares say "ewwww!" to any parent so proud of his or her child's success? If the kid does it again in next month's competition, brag on the kid again. That's your kid, after all!

4. If you get into a "debate" with an anti-gunner, then do what I do. Tell that person my Dad's story. It goes like this.

1. That isn't a gun owner thing, that is a politics thing. I seem to recall Bush being called quite a few choice names. Both sides shouldn't do that as the office deserves some respect. Bush wasn't a good president, but President Obama is turning out to be in the lead for worst ever. Never before have we had someone so out of touch with Americans, spending Trillions like there is no tomorrow (ironic isn't it?), and generally incompetent. Those aren't names, those are observations.

2. I'd love too just as soon as the liberals quit projecting their closed minded view of us as. It is hard to have a polite discussion with someone who thinks you are a racist, intolerant, bigoted, religious (and thinks it is a bad thing), uneducated, hick. Again, most of us don't hate liberals, we hate their policies because they just won't leave us alone...especially when it comes to our guns. They truly think they know how to run our lives better than we do and it stems from their view of us. We are too backwards and dumb to be tolerated.

3. I like this, but I've seen even that turn south (pun intended) because of the irrational fear and hatred of guns.

4. Tried that and it doesn't work...we are white people and don't get robbed, remember? I'm not kidding either. If you go down that path, most anti-gunners will revert to the liberal position that because of the color of my skin I can't understand X. X could be anything used in a similar example as your dad's story. Who is the racist then?

I'm a live and let live guy. I don't care what you do as long as you aren't hurting someone. Unless you're into BDSM, but that's something else

Anyway, I'd personally prefer not to have gov't all up in my business. Seems both sides of the political fence want to do that.

Jim

gunderwood wrote:

CowboyT wrote:Sadly, in many cases, it seems that they have some ammunition, and from a non-social-conservative, non-Republican point of view, it's pretty good ammunition. My Dad and I talk about this on a regular basis. The ammunition is well known: Christian fundamentalist, intolerant, bigoted, Confederacy-worshipping, redneck wing-nuts. And there's some truth to it.

So much for tolerance. You pride yourself on tolerance because you have no problem with a Muslim fundamentalist, but heaven forbid if they are Christian! This isn't most gun owners and you know it, so quit giving this close minded view any validity. Good ammo my foot. This is just liberals hating those who aren't like them...guess that makes them intolerant and bigoted.

+1 for gunderwood.

People of all stripes have prejudices, rely on stereotypes, and fallback to polemicized talking points. Both sides... gun owners and gun grabbers.

gunderwood wrote:

CowboyT wrote:You all would be surprised at how many liberals out here think this way, like Zephyp describes...We're the folks that our movement needs. I assure you, such people can be brought to a pro-2A position, if we're good ambassadors for it. And that's the key--being good ambassadors for it.

I'm not surprised (just as I wouldn't be if you said that there are many Republicans who like most of the platform, but hate guns...both are true) and they are welcome. Just like everyone else.

Then instead of proferring all sorts of reasons why either it isn't your row to hoe or that it just won't work, do something constructive and help me with this. If people like you don't, we will eventually lose. But if you will, then we just might win.

Here's an example. You said, "I'm not surprised...and they are welcome. Just like everyone else." That position is not going to change things in our favor one bit. You're referring to those who are already pro-2A. The goal here is to get those who aren't necessarily pro-2A to start coming pro-2A. We need to welcome them, too. Now, if you don't want to help with that, then OK, that's your choice. But I hope that Zephyp and others will. If you do decide to come around, then I'd most certainly welcome you in this effort as well.