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

[Virginia2AM]

My experience over the years has shown - to me at least - that your (pro 2A person) success at winning over a liberal or just anti-2A person completely depends on that person's desire to learn and educate themself. Period.

It was that way with me myself. If I did not have a genuine desire to learn and to know the fact and truth for myself (on any subject or issue - not just guns), I would not have said 'well, ok I will go to a gun show with you , but just this one time'. It was a boring so-so experience. But seeing all those people trading and buying was a new thing - and I had to understand it in order to make a decision for myself. Then it made it ask questions - lots of questions. Then there was my first time going to VCDL meeting and friendly dinner where I saw - for the first time - a woman holding a baby and she happened to have a revolver in a holster. It was a shock. But instead of telling her "you cant have a gun next to that baby", I told myself - there must be something about guns that I dont know and I want to Know!

My present experience at winning hearts is 50/50 success and failure. I am proud to say that few weeks ago I had a black female shoot at our range and she was a first time and first person in her black family to do so. Few weeks from now she will be at the NRA's Ladies' Day at the Range getting more training.

At another occasion, two black women noticed my gun in holster and asked me "are you a police officer?" and I said "no. I am just a citizen exercizing my rights - you have them too, you know?" They just shrugged and never asked a follow up question. They just dont want to KNOW the truth. I cant force anything on anyone.

Happy Constitution and Citizenship Day, you'all!

[Mindflayer]

At another occasion, two black women noticed my gun in holster and asked me "are you a police officer?" and...

I said, "Yes, and I've got your right to bear arms here!" and ripped off my Velcro-attached police uniform.

Sorry, I snapped a bit there. Been a long week.

[gunderwood]

My experience over the years has shown - to me at least - that your (pro 2A person) success at winning over a liberal or just anti-2A person completely depends on that person's desire to learn and educate themself. Period...They just dont want to KNOW the truth. I cant force anything on anyone.

+1

Ignorance is usually a choice and many people are blissful about it. I personally prefer "Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free." That requires hard work and effort though.


Oh, and welcome to a whole new culture.

[Mindflayer]

Part of the problem is the word "Liberal". Do we mean social liberalism? Classical liberalism? Left-wing socialism?

There are some people who may define liberal as one who believes an individual's rights are sacrosanct. In this case, these are absolutely the people that we should get to understand how owning arms is a right - and perhaps even a duty.

There are liberals that I think many of you are referring to that think the government is the solution for everything. In that case, we have a tougher battle since we need to first teach them not to keep demanding to be spoon fed, or more dangerously, want to be the one controlling the spoon.

Then there are people who are just plain confused, like some of my family. They want their rights to be upheld as sacrosanct, want to pay less taxes, but they want the government to take care of them. They should just stop breeding.

[zephyp]

Yes, semantics are important here and those on the left are often loosely labeled many things...democrats, progressives, liberals, socialists, etc...I know Cowboy personally and when he says Liberal he's speaking more to the original context of the term which leans more towards what some of us would call Libertarian I believe.

Cowboy please set me straight if I misspoke...

[VBshooter]

I personally find many liberals to be uninformed and blind to the reality of the things they purport to support. All it takes for them is some politician or group to sing the social merit of some plan or another and in their quick to be a Morally Pure Tool they support and follow it blindly until someone someone gets lucky and manages to knock osme sense onto them to take a good long look and see that what they are supporting that in most cases is fantasy land stuff even Disney couldn't make happen.

[chfaunce]

I personally find many liberals to be uninformed and blind to the reality of the things they purport to support.

This could be said about a LOT of people in LOTS of groups.

[CowboyT]

Yes, semantics are important here and those on the left are often loosely labeled many things...democrats, progressives, liberals, socialists, etc...I know Cowboy personally and when he says Liberal he's speaking more to the original context of the term which leans more towards what some of us would call Libertarian I believe.

Cowboy please set me straight if I misspoke...

No, you nailed it. I've often been called a Libertarian. Matter of fact, IIRC, this term was created precisely because of the political corruption of the word "Liberal". When I say I'm a Liberal, I mean the old-fashioned kind, just like you describe, albeit with a 21st Century "accent" to it. Gay marriage? George Takei and Brad Altman are not hurtin' me by being married, so I simply don't care! That's their lives and thus their business. Same with whatever religion you want. Crazy ways to have consensual sex? Fine, your business, go fer it. Basically, your life is your life, and you have liberal latitude to do what you want, long as you don't infringe on others' rights to do the same.

I guess you could say, in modern-speak, that I'm a very liberal Libertarian?

[gunderwood]

Yes, semantics are important here and those on the left are often loosely labeled many things...democrats, progressives, liberals, socialists, etc...I know Cowboy personally and when he says Liberal he's speaking more to the original context of the term which leans more towards what some of us would call Libertarian I believe.

Cowboy please set me straight if I misspoke...

No, you nailed it. I've often been called a Libertarian. Matter of fact, IIRC, this term was created precisely because of the political corruption of the word "Liberal". When I say I'm a Liberal, I mean the old-fashioned kind, just like you describe, albeit with a 21st Century "accent" to it. Gay marriage? George Takei and Brad Altman are not hurtin' me by being married, so I simply don't care! That's their lives and thus their business. Same with whatever religion you want. Crazy ways to have consensual sex? Fine, your business, go fer it. Basically, your life is your life, and you have liberal latitude to do what you want, long as you don't infringe on others' rights to do the same.

I guess you could say, in modern-speak, that I'm a very liberal Libertarian?

I'll agree with you here, but with one important distinction.

There is a difference between accepting and tolerating. It seems to me the gay marriage agenda is more about forcing acceptance on society. You can tolerate something because you support liberty, but adamantly disagree with it and even actively try to convince those engaging in it to do otherwise. The specific issue concerning gay marriage exists because the state got involved in what was primary a religious institution (marriage). It should come as no surprise that many Christians find it highly offensive (and sinful) to violate what they consider a scared vow/contract between them, their partner and God.

If it isn't clear, try this. I expect that every American tolerates firearms as a matter of liberty, but I do not expect acceptance. You don't have to own them or even like them. I'll even support your right to hate them and tolerate you actively attempting to convince other Americans that it is wiser to own no firearms! This is practically the valid opposite of me trying to convince another American to become a firearm owner. Even though I think my view of firearm ownership as a good thing is superior to the antis view, both are valid expressions of the first amendment and should be tolerated (I won't except the antis view though and will actively work against it). However, you cross over a line when you attempt to use the force of government to prohibit or otherwise restrict my right to keep and bear arms. That is completely unacceptable.

Of course the big problem with antis and why liberals have such a bad name around here is that they are unsatisfied with reasoning with individual Americans and convincing them of their positions correctness. On the contrary, they are not interested in tolerance of firearm ownership, but rather want to use the force of government to ram gun control down our throats. Because of this, we have no respect for them.

[zephyp]

Of course the big problem with antis and why liberals have such a bad name around here is that they are unsatisfied with reasoning with individual Americans and convincing them of their positions correctness. On the contrary, they are not interested in tolerance of firearm ownership, but rather want to use the force of government to ram gun control down our throats. Because of this, we have no respect for them.

The anointed one nailed it...this is about the only time you will see me agree with him partially...when he called out "democrats" and "progressives" (the appropriate term) recently to "buck up." Only thing is he failed to add "socialists."

BTW, I strongly disagree with government involvement in marriage...who knows where that will go. As a matter of fact, I'm against most government involvement today. They are clearly meddling in all of the wrong things. Stick to defending our country and protecting our borders. Yeah, you can dabble in basic infrastructure a little. I'm tired of having to get my front end aligned every weekend from driving on bad roads...

[CowboyT]

If some folks think "gay marriage is a sin" and that's what you believe, then fine! That's your right, too. But we will be speaking to a lot of folks who don't share your specific religious beliefs, who do have different social/political beliefs from you, when we're doing our pro-2A advocacy. That is not the time to throw in their faces that you don't share their religious beliefs. Instead, it's the time to promote that target shooting is fun! It's a sense of accomplishment when you can drill that bullseye. And once you get 'em there, then it's time to talk about the right to defend one's self from criminals--be they petty street thugs or members of a Government Army like in 1775...or in New Orleans in 2005. Tell 'em what the thugs--er, New Orleans Police--did to that old grandma in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

[chfaunce]

If some folks think "gay marriage is a sin" and that's what you believe, then fine! That's your right, too. But we will be speaking to a lot of folks who don't share your specific religious beliefs, who do have different social/political beliefs from you, when we're doing our pro-2A advocacy. That is not the time to throw in their faces that you don't share their religious beliefs. Instead, it's the time to promote that target shooting is fun!

Well said. That, and marriage is not an exclusively religious institution. It's a secular one, as well. People forget that sometimes, though. Anyone here have a problem with atheist marriage?

[zephyp]

If some folks think "gay marriage is a sin" and that's what you believe, then fine! That's your right, too. But we will be speaking to a lot of folks who don't share your specific religious beliefs, who do have different social/political beliefs from you, when we're doing our pro-2A advocacy. That is not the time to throw in their faces that you don't share their religious beliefs. Instead, it's the time to promote that target shooting is fun!

Well said. That, and marriage is not an exclusively religious institution. It's a secular one, as well. People forget that sometimes, though. Anyone here have a problem with atheist marriage?

As a Christian I am not charged to "preach" hell fire and damnation. Christians are charged to spread the Good News and that message is simple:

Christ took the sins of the world (past present and future) upon Himself and became the ultimate sacrifice. He died for our sins and rose three days later.

If we believe that then salvation can be ours and a place with Him too. God has reserved judgement for Himself and that day is approaching.

Another important thing Christ accomplished for us was opening the way to the Holy of Holies allowing each of us to approach God boldly without the need for a priest or anything else to intercede. Jesus does that for us.

Having said all that, we do reserve the right to expect that doctrine contrary to our beliefs is not pushed into the faces of our children. So please dont expect me to be happy when they come and cant spell or multiply but can describe in great detail about how Jane has two moms and thats ok cause the teacher said so...my job is to teach morality to them...

And, it is NOT the function of government to legislate marriage. If we allow them to legislate gay marriage then that opens the door for them to legislate traditional marriage. That is patently wrong and cannot be allowed for they will no doubt screw it up royally...

Federal government needs to stick to defense of our nation, protecting the states from invasion, and critical infrastructure...just like the Constitution says...

[chfaunce]

Ok, sure. So, maybe we don't need the Government to say whether or not gay marriage is ok. Christians can prohibit it in their places of worship, social circles, etc., and those that find it acceptable (or non-offensive otherwise) can allow it in theirs. I appreciate that you, as a Christian, are against gay marriage. That's fine. Others disagree with you - that's fine, too. Does gay marriage somehow infringe upon any of your Constitutional rights? Does gay marriage preclude you from practicing your religion, or practicing your right of free speech to speak out against it? No, nope, and not at all.

My point, which may have been missed (or perhaps not - I can't tell from your response) was that marriage, as an institution, is not exclusively religious. Belief in a God, Creator, or any other greater power, and subscription to any organized religion is not a prerequisite to marriage.

I won't go so far as to tell anyone how to raise their children. I know how I'd raise mine, but that's a moot point as my wife and I don't plan to have any. But, believe me, explaining why little Jenny has 2 moms would not be a challenge.

[gunderwood]

My point, which may have been missed (or perhaps not - I can't tell from your response) was that marriage, as an institution, is not exclusively religious. Belief in a God, Creator, or any other greater power, and subscription to any organized religion is not a prerequisite to marriage.

Various societies have held different things at different times. For Western cultures it primarily has been a religious institution since the middle ages.

In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage" for recognition.

Technically, under English law a marriage could be recognized as valid if each spouse had simply expressed (to each other) an unconditional consent to their marriage. But these "common-law marriages" were the exception. Nearly all marriages in England, including the "irregular" and "clandestine" ones, were performed by ordained clergy.

Note that it was the state which kept a registry, but it was the church who determined who could be married. Official recognition of civil marriages came much later:

In England and Wales, since 1837, civil marriages have been recognized as a legal alternative to church marriages under the Marriage Act of 1836. In Germany, civil marriages were recognized in 1875. This law permitted a declaration of the marriage before an official clerk of the civil administration, when both spouses affirm their will to marry, to constitute a legally recognized valid and effective marriage, and allowed an optional private clerical marriage ceremony.

Isn't it prima facie evidence that we even have this debate that marriage has been historically a religious institution in our culture?

Edit: Quotes are from Wikipedia.

[chfaunce]

Man, I love how 2A threads turn into gay marriage threads.

Suffice it to say that I think some of us can agree to disagree on the marriage issue. I mean, if we're going to use history as our guide, I'd probably be burnt at the stake for denouncing a belief in God. Somehow I was able to get married, though. Good thing times have changed, eh?

[zephyp]

The point about children is this type of subject matter should not be part of K-12 curriculum. The gay agenda is, and already has, to introduce the notion that homosexuality and all gay beliefs is ok. Children have no need to be exposed to that and besides its a parents job to teach morality and this is a moral issue...always has been. Merely because its socially acceptable in some circles does not mean its morally acceptable. That is my call and my responsibility to teach to my children. Schools have enough trouble teaching what they are supposed to teach. And the notion that if I dont like that then I can send my children to a private school is a non starter. I pay taxes which funds the school and should not feel compelled to take them elsewhere because gays want to corrupt the curriculum.

[gunderwood]

Man, I love how 2A threads turn into gay marriage threads.

Suffice it to say that I think some of us can agree to disagree on the marriage issue. I mean, if we're going to use history as our guide, I'd probably be burnt at the stake for denouncing a belief in God. Somehow I was able to get married, though. Good thing times have changed, eh?

I wasn't arguing that things shouldn't change. I was simply arguing that historically, in Western civilization, marriage has been viewed predominately as a religious institution. It should come as no surprise that a large portion of the population resents changing it. DK and I were simply pointing out that we would prefer the government not be involved in peoples lives concerning marriage, religious or otherwise.

That will never happen because the government wants their money...

[gunderwood]

The point about children is this type of subject matter should not be part of K-12 curriculum. The gay agenda is, and already has, to introduce the notion that homosexuality and all gay beliefs is ok. Children have no need to be exposed to that and besides its a parents job to teach morality and this is a moral issue...always has been. Merely because its socially acceptable in some circles does not mean its morally acceptable. That is my call and my responsibility to teach to my children. Schools have enough trouble teaching what they are supposed to teach. And the notion that if I dont like that then I can send my children to a private school is a non starter. I pay taxes which funds the school and should not feel compelled to take them elsewhere because gays want to corrupt the curriculum.

+1

Your taxes should not go towards indoctrination.

[chfaunce]

The point about children is this type of subject matter should not be part of K-12 curriculum. The gay agenda is, and already has, to introduce the notion that homosexuality and all gay beliefs is ok. Children have no need to be exposed to that and besides its a parents job to teach morality and this is a moral issue...always has been. Merely because its socially acceptable in some circles does not mean its morally acceptable. That is my call and my responsibility to teach to my children. Schools have enough trouble teaching what they are supposed to teach. And the notion that if I dont like that then I can send my children to a private school is a non starter. I pay taxes which funds the school and should not feel compelled to take them elsewhere because gays want to corrupt the curriculum.

School must be different now. I don't recall marriage ever having really been discussed in school. But, like it or not, your children will eventually be exposed to it regardless of what you teach them - unless they're living in bubbles or something. I guess my point of view has always been to give someone the facts, show them a couple of sides of things, and let them make their own decisions. At least that's how I was raised. I really don't think gays want to 'corrupt' the curriculum, but maybe you know something that I don't.