Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

[zephyp]

Hmm...I actually hadn't planned on coming back here. Some of you may prefer that I didn't.

Hey T. Glad you are back and hope you stick around. No reason for you to run off and to my knowledge no one wanted or wants you gone...

[dems4guns]

Hey Cowboy T good to see you back and hope you stay around

Several discussions have gone on in this and other threads about this very topic,

On one side we have folks that believe with every fiber of their being that the Federal Government should back off and not regulate firearms; and on the other hand there are those that believe in what they call sensible regulations (and seem extreme to others). Here both points of view are talked about; (I think this is what you intended this thread to do) that is not the problem; the problem is when politics gets involved.

Both sides of the camp have their ideology and want their points considered in the discussion and this is a good thing. One of the problems that I have seen that continually seems to drive the discussions to a political nature is the perception that 99% (I am just guessing here) of the Anti-Gun regulations or the blocking of the Pro-Gun regulations come from the Left (Liberals, Democrats, or Progressive). This perception can and has made for a difficult task in maintaining a civil discussion at times. I know the Political portion of this is something that must be discussed, but it should be discussed not by just by pointing a finger and saying this is a problem but offering a solution to the problem, and then discussing the solutions that are brought forward understanding that there are those that will never budge. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and ideology and no one should be forced or be brow beaten into changing their stance. Our goal as a Pro 2A community should be to educate and support our stance with Facts that can and have been verified by independent parties.

Moving to the middle ground may seem to be the right tactic and would force both sides to give up their hard-lined stance if only there is a centralized common ground from which to start.

I know I am sticking my head on the chopping block here but the thing is that we all value our 2A right to bear arms and we all have a love of shooting be it for whatever reason, and if that is not a common place to start from then I don't know what is.

Just my .02 worth

Vern

Well said!!!!!
I am in total agreement.
Dems4Guns

[CowboyT]

Hey Cowboy T good to see you back and hope you stay around

Several discussions have gone on in this and other threads about this very topic,

On one side we have folks that believe with every fiber of their being that the Federal Government should back off and not regulate firearms; and on the other hand there are those that believe in what they call sensible regulations (and seem extreme to others). Here both points of view are talked about; (I think this is what you intended this thread to do) that is not the problem; the problem is when politics gets involved.

Well, it was really more of what we can do to bring more folks over to our side of the 2A. I'm one of those who believe the Federal Gov't should back off. In this, I share Philip Van Cleave's beliefs. My ultimate goal is to get others who may not think so to gradually open their eyes to the logic of this position.

Both sides of the camp have their ideology and want their points considered in the discussion and this is a good thing. One of the problems that I have seen that continually seems to drive the discussions to a political nature is the perception that 99% (I am just guessing here) of the Anti-Gun regulations or the blocking of the Pro-Gun regulations come from the Left (Liberals, Democrats, or Progressive). This perception can and has made for a difficult task in maintaining a civil discussion at times. I know the Political portion of this is something that must be discussed, but it should be discussed not by just by pointing a finger and saying this is a problem but offering a solution to the problem, and then discussing the solutions that are brought forward understanding that there are those that will never budge. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and ideology and no one should be forced or be brow beaten into changing their stance. Our goal as a Pro 2A community should be to educate and support our stance with Facts that can and have been verified by independent parties.

Agreed here, and therein lies the problem. The 2A is a not a Democrat or Republican concept, but rather a Constitutional concept--a concept of freedom. This is why I suggested in the piece to discuss it as such, "free from Democrat/Republican junk."

Moving to the middle ground may seem to be the right tactic and would force both sides to give up their hard-lined stance if only there is a centralized common ground from which to start.

My mother referred to this very concept. She's said for years, "if you want to move someone to a different position, you can be one step away from them, and you have a good chance of bringing them with you. But if you're two steps away, you've lost 'em." I've observed this to be true.

However, my end-goal is, step by step, to get those who are not pro-2A to the pro-2A position that the Framers described in their many writings on the subject. That means basically unrestricted except for things like nukes. So, in the long run, no, I'm not really moving toward the middle. What I'm advocating is that we take them step by step, not try to do it in a one or a few big jumps. Of course, this will take some time. In my view, it's time well spent.

I know I am sticking my head on the chopping block here but the thing is that we all value our 2A right to bear arms and we all have a love of shooting be it for whatever reason, and if that is not a common place to start from then I don't know what is.

Experience has shown me that you're right about that "chopping block". And it's a shame. That's part of the problem.

[Taggure]

CowboyT wrote;

Agreed here, and therein lies the problem. The 2A is a not a Democrat or Republican concept, but rather a Constitutional concept--a concept of freedom. This is why I suggested in the piece to discuss it as such, "free from Democrat/Republican junk."

T,

I concur with you on this especially on the "Constitutional concept--a concept of freedom" portion and I think that this is also a common ground from which to work.

I guess the next point would be to define this "Concept of Freedom" as associated to the 2A with the recent rulings by the SCOTUS.
They have in my opinion failed us when their opinions did not define "Reasonable Restrictions/Regulations" and left it open for interpretation. This now has and will lead to more openings for interpretation on what constitutes "Reasonable Restrictions/Regulations" by the Cities, States, and the Federal Government with no clear guidelines.

Currently I do not have a good definition as to what "Reasonable Restrictions/Regulations" would or could be, but just like you I believe that the Federal Government should leave well enough alone and back off.

[IN33DAMM0]

I know this is an old post, but I have to say. I'm 100% Liberal, I own a - - -

6.5 Grendel
.50 Beowulf
Hi Point .45ACP
Kel-Tec SU-22E
PSA M4A1.

Still 100% Liberal.

I know some homosexual guys and girls, there is NO noticeable difference. if your nervous about being around them, then it means you must be very confused about your own sexuality. If you really don't care who's gay and you don't mind being around them, then you obviously ARE safe with your own sexual identity. I know a guy who's gay and loves fishing, my aunt is gay and she's very out doors person and I know quite a few others. Honestly, if you think "Oh there going to hell! We should convert them!" then just shut up and let them decide they want to go to "Hell". Are they bitching and moaning that your "strait"? (Though if you are bitching and moaning about homosexuals then YOU are probably attracted to the same sex SOMEWHAT)
Stop caring what other people are doing with there lives, live you own life and stop being a prick, that's what makes people think us pro-gunners are stupid rednecks with "No learnings" because "you wouldn't even want to shoot NEAR one!" even though they aren't going to try and rape you or even hit on you. Trust me, your uglier to them then they are to you.

[ratherfish]

From what I see here you're the spectacle.

I'm not interested in what others do in their homes. Your sexuality is between your chosen mate and you be it any version of LGBT or animal! Parade it down main street we got problems.

Do you actually think your liberal messiah will NOT take your guns away in a second term?
Wake up!

[ratherfish]

Liberals must be very proud!

"Congressman Barney Frank Weds in Same-Sex Marriage Democratic Representative Barney Frank wed his longtime partner, James Ready, on Saturday, becoming the first sitting congressman to enter into a same-sex marriage"

I know how fond you are of "firsts"

[Reverenddel]

And "Tops" Ratherfish... They're VERY fond of those!

Listen. I lived in a gay neighborhood for 10 years, and I was the "odd conservative out". Ya'll talk a good game about "individual rights", until it's about the Second Amendment, and gun rights...

Then it's a litany of labels "Rednecks", "GunNuts", etc, etc.

When THE LIBERALS can stop the name calling, and act the way they expect others to act to THEM? I think the fighting will stop...

Libertarians couldn't give a rats keister who you hump, but if you own a gun, you better be worried about the GUN you "hump" on your shoulder in the field... because that Long-legged Liar in chief is out to take EVERYONE'S rights away!

[IN33DAMM0]

I believe I read in the paper this morning that Romney was calling Obama "Dispicable" because Obama asked for his taxes. Tell your Favorite terrorist (Romney) to stop with the name calling. We need a President, not a little boy playing grown up.

Also -

Keeping your sexuality in private is fine. American will be able to keep homosexuality in the bedroom, just as soon as Heterosexuals can keep there sexuality in the bedroom also.

I'm married (strait) and can kiss my wife in public, so whats the big poop with anyone else doing the same?

If your disgusted by it, then don't look. Maybe move away? I heard Germany had a problem with the same thing some 70 years ago. That's why us TRUE American's fought to protect our rights of freedom. You can't pick and choose freedoms. Either everyone has the right to love or NO ONE has the right to love. Same with everything else (and yes, of coarse there are exceptions).

[IN33DAMM0]

Also. I'll make a wager, when Obama win's this year and the next 4 years go by, I guarantee you won't lose your guns. No harm, no foul.

[IN33DAMM0]

Libertarians couldn't give a rats keister who you hump, but if you own a gun, you better be worried about the GUN you "hump" on your shoulder in the field... because that Long-legged Liar in chief is out to take EVERYONE'S rights away!

I would like to see your "data" on where ANYONE said that? Anyone? No? Where did you get your facts from? Please show me who your quoting on that.

[Mindflayer]

Uhhh, I am going way off topic now, but does it gross you guys out when people - gay or straight - act like the street is their bedroom? I mean, I am fine with some PDA - hugging, kissing (to a degree), a loving pat on each other's behinds - but man... Seeing people damn near well fornicate in public weirds me out.

Same with "celebrities" and their "leaked" sex tapes. At least with those, I can tell my buddies, "Hey, don't watch that stuff on my computer!" When it's two folks out on "main street", gay, straight, or other, I get the heebiejeebies.

OK, back to the show.

[dorminWS]

Also. I'll make a wager, when Obama win's this year and the next 4 years go by, I guarantee you won't lose your guns. No harm, no foul.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If he's as feckless, hopeless and d!ckless on the gun grabbing as he has been on everything but turning health care in America inside out and upside down, you may be right. But somehow I find no comfort in it. Reading your posts makes me want to sell my .50 Beowulf just because you've got one.

[Kreutz]

If your disgusted by it, then don't look. Maybe move away? I heard Germany had a problem with the same thing some 70 years ago. That's why us TRUE American's fought to protect our rights of freedom.

Do tell how the Germans who couldn't cross the English channel (the body of water that people swim across) were supposed to cross the Atlantic to threaten "our rights of freedom"?

Of course, our going over there did make half the world safe for Communism, so....win?

I'm sorry to mention it, but these kind of assinine comments that utterly ignore history and the repercussions of American interventionalism frickin irk me.

As for teh gays, public displays of affection irk me no matter who or what does it, but while I can in theory under the 14A agree they have the "right" to at least a civil union by government clerks as theyre not being allowed to does create inequality in terms of say, filing income taxes, I wonder how long until religions that disallow gay unions/marriage are forced to perform them anyway, as looks to be the case soon in the UK?

A minority faiths will do them (reform and conservative jews, episcopalians, lutherans, quakers, etc.) but most will not and should not be pressured into doing so.

Respect is a two way street and all.

[ratherfish]

I don't care what your orientation is.

GET A ROOM!

[dorminWS]

Dogs do things in the street that human beings universally consider to be only properly done in private. We don’t applaud it; we just ignore it because they are dumb animals that know no better and have no standards of behavior. We do, however, frequently pass laws prohibiting people from letting their dogs roam free. So I'm wondering, if people engage in PDE in excess of the societal norm, can we also expect them to defecate in the street and demand we accept that too?

[TheGodfather]

can we also expect them to defecate in the street and demand we accept that too?

I take it you haven't been to an OWS "rally".

[dorminWS]

can we also expect them to defecate in the street and demand we accept that too?

I take it you haven't been to an OWS "rally".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nor will I ever go; unless they'll let me shoot paintgun balls loaded with pepper spray at them.

[Kreutz]

Dunno how this thread turned gay (guess it was born that way), perhaps there is an intrinsic perception linking liberals with homosexuality? But if so why do so many "pro family" conservative politicians get busted for doing dudes on the side?

Anyway, apparently in this age of hyper-specialized special interest groups, there is a gay pro gun group.



Wonder what the general perception of this is? I know the Republican party wishes its own (openly) gay supporters, the Log cabin Republicans (must be code for something) would just go away, which is strange because the GOp was the "big tent party" for much of the early to mid 20th century.

For my own 2 cents I think really the more pro gun people the better, since we live in a representative democracy where the number of votes really does influence how our gutless politicians vote, only being concerned with re-election. Would the McCartheys or Feinsteins be so overtly aggressive towards gun owners if they knew their constituents didn't like their antigun BS?

Probably not. They don't care what we think, and never will, since we dont live in their districts.

[Reverenddel]

I've converted many a "anti-gun" gay to pro with the Pink Pistols, and Log Cabin Republicans make ME look liberal! Seriously!

As to "taking rights away", and the call to "prove it"? Read the f'cking news. Between Drones for CIVILLIAN SPYING, the EPA moving into the land of enforcement, "Fast/furious" as a movement to ban guns, the Obamacare regulations that WILL tell you what you can, and cannot do for YOUR health... If you cannot see it? Then I'll get you a dog, a white cane, and a lil' tin cup...