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

[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.

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.

The problem is the curriculum is making moral judgments concerning homosexual behavior. Liberals would be up in arms if someone was doing the opposite. The schools have always been used for social engineering, but the topics have changed.

[Mindflayer]

To play Devil's advocate, a friend of mine was outraged - and rightly so - when a teacher at a local public school told their daughter that she was going to hell since she was a Jew. I had teachers telling me I was a dirty papist when I was growing up, and when they found out my mother was Buddhist/Shinto? Oh man....

Practice your religion and morality quietly, IMO.

Learn the difference between ethics and morality.

Luke 6:37-38 are good words to live by for any human, of any denomination, or any faith or belief system.

[CowboyT]

OK, now that we've had our Biblical lesson for the week....

WHAT, if anything, does any of that have to do with pro-2A advocacy? Would someone please clue me in on that one?

EDIT: Just read that Luke 6:37-38 passage (ain't the Web great?). Wise advice, indeed.

[gunderwood]

WHAT, if anything, does any of that have to do with pro-2A advocacy? Would someone please clue me in on that one?[/i]

Nothing...except you brought it up in the thread. I replied and noted the difference between tolerance and acceptance, with a focus on a gun example. It degraded from there.

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 blame you...

[zephyp]

OK, now that we've had our Biblical lesson for the week....

WHAT, if anything, does any of that have to do with pro-2A advocacy? Would someone please clue me in on that one?

EDIT: Just read that Luke 6:37-38 passage (ain't the Web great?). Wise advice, indeed.

Hey T...Not a lot but I think it shows that bringing together folks with different beliefs (political, religious, etc) who have a common interest like guns will no doubt introduce conflicting subjects.

IMHO, absolutely nothing wrong with that. If we are to truly understand our own beliefs I think we need to have an inkling about others. Kinda like how can one truly understand the concept of very large if they have no understanding about very small...

[CowboyT]

DK: I'll agree with you on that one. Not all of us agree on everything here. And that's the point I'm making here. We don't have to agree on everything to do good 2A advocacy and ambassadorship.

And to gunderwood: Selective reading there, my friend. The whole point is, and has been, that all that other stuff is IRRELEVANT to doing good 2A ambassadorship. Re-read that section of the original paper again, and the context in which I mentioned any of that other stuff in my posts here. C'mon, you know better than that.

[gunderwood]

And to gunderwood: Selective reading there, my friend. The whole point is, and has been, that all that other stuff is IRRELEVANT to doing good 2A ambassadorship. Re-read that section of the original paper again, and the context in which I mentioned any of that other stuff in my posts here. C'mon, you know better than that.

I know why you brought it up...I was just having some fun pointing out you brought it up first. You shouldn't hijack your own threads.

[CowboyT]

And to gunderwood: Selective reading there, my friend. The whole point is, and has been, that all that other stuff is IRRELEVANT to doing good 2A ambassadorship. Re-read that section of the original paper again, and the context in which I mentioned any of that other stuff in my posts here. C'mon, you know better than that.

I know why you brought it up...I was just having some fun pointing out you brought it up first. You shouldn't hijack your own threads.

I didn't...ya big stud....

OK, back to our regularly scheduled debate--er...discussion. LOL

[allingeneral]

And to gunderwood: Selective reading there, my friend. The whole point is, and has been, that all that other stuff is IRRELEVANT to doing good 2A ambassadorship. Re-read that section of the original paper again, and the context in which I mentioned any of that other stuff in my posts here. C'mon, you know better than that.

I know why you brought it up...I was just having some fun pointing out you brought it up first. You shouldn't hijack your own threads.

I didn't...ya big stud....

OK, back to our regularly scheduled debate--er...discussion. LOL

Actually, I think I brought it up...just that it's the first thing that I think of when someone says the word "Liberal".

Now stop kissing gunderwood - I'm sure Kelly wouldn't appreciate you trying to steal him away.

[gunderwood]

I didn't...ya big stud....

OK, back to our regularly scheduled debate--er...discussion. LOL

Actually, I think I brought it up...just that it's the first thing that I think of when someone says the word "Liberal".

Now stop kissing gunderwood - I'm sure Kelly wouldn't appreciate you trying to steal him away.

I must have missed Ricks gay liberal comment.

Ya, ummm, I'm not sold on it either...

[gatlingun6]

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.

********************************
I've been following this thread for quite some time without comment. Cowboy T really started something interesting and quite vexing.

Now I hate to raise your dander, but how can any school not teach morality? How can schools be amoral places? Most schools have honor codes, and such codes are all about morality. If you can show how the humanities can be taught in an amoral fashion, I'll stand corrected. In fact wouldn't some call that being PC?

Here I go distorting the thread again, hopefully for only a short while. Homosexuality is a fact of life. There are kids in school who are homosexuals even tho most stay in the closet. What do you want a sociology/Civics class to say about it, nothing?

While I don't agree, you said that the 10 Commandments are the basis of our laws? Some want the 10 Commandments prominently displayed in schools. Isn't that teaching morality?

Public schools, which are secular institutions, teach lots of things parents don't believe in based on their religious and other beliefs, so when do parent's wishes take precedence over the school curriculum.

Back to the thread: There are other reasons gun owners should be careful how we portray none gun owners. They are not all anti-gun.

But we can ignore them to our own peril. We had better look at demographics. Just a few tid bits for thought.
+The number of hunters continue to decline
+Most American households do not contain a gun
+The fastest growing demographics in America tend not to own guns

I think Pew and other polling organizations have shown some interesting facts about gun owners in America.

Bludgeoning people over the head with the 2A is not the way to go because it's a kind of in your face attitude. I dare say most of us gun owners didn't start out with guns because of the 2A. We didn't first learn to shoot because we wanted to be prepared to take down our big evil government, or because we feared for our life if we didn't carry a gun.

Oh sure, my grandfather owned a little .38 special that he kept tucked away in the back of a bedroom drawer. Hard to say it was for protection since he almost never carried it. Besides, half the time our front door was unlocked anyway.

When I explained why I have guns to my spouse. I said 1. I like them. 2. I collect some guns in the same way, and for the same reason you collect art. 3. Guns are not inherently dangerous, but some people with guns are. 4. They are fun to shoot.

As some of you know, I'm mostly a liberal, and so is my spouse. Of course some have labeled me a socialist commie. Initially I took offense and fired back. But now I laugh at something like that, that's so patently false.

My spouse's parents are conservatives who live in the deep South, and they do not own a gun. My spouse's sisters, excepting one, are ideologically mixed living in VA, or the North East and not one household owns a gun.

My son-in-law lives in the deep south as well, and he is as conservative as they come, again no gun in household.

So maybe we ought to hold the labels in the gun versus none gun person, since they are mostly an attempt to paint people as the other, an outsider. One who has nothing cogent to say.

I'm not sure how many members are on this board, but I would bet my last dollar that everyone here does not open, or concealed carry. I'm all over this and 2 other counties, and I rarely see anyone openly carrying.

I would also bet that every VA CCW permit owner does not in fact conceal carry all, or even most of the time.

I'm not sure who wrote it, but I too have seen and over heard many things at Gun Shows that are patently offensive. It seems that some people think you share their other views because you are also interested in guns.

At the last Chantilly Gun show, I was looking at monogrammed Tee-Shirts when a guy walked up and bought a "Rhodesian Scouts" Tee-Shirt. He had recently been in Africa, Zimbabwe he said. I joked: You sure as hell better not be running around that country with that kind of tee shirt. Anyway, one thing let to another and eventually we discovered that we both were mostly liberal. His experience at gun shows was the same as mine, to which we both had a good laugh.

What's the "moral" of the story? Do not assume that the guy standing next to you who is fondly checking out and talking up that weapon in hand is a conservative. And don't assume that all conservatives are Christians, or all liberals are not.

Btw my spouse will be going to the range this month. I'm the first person to ever convince her to fire a gun.

Gat6

[gatlingun6]

When they complain about the recoil on a .22LR!

/sorry, I couldn't resist...you know, stereotypes.

Haha, I nearly spit my drink out.

There have been some good arguments in this thread, and also some of the thinking to which Cowboy was referring in his OP.

Gun ownership is a polarizing issue, and it is truly one of the few issues that is black and white. I do not care if gays get married (I say let them suffer as much as the rest of us ), and am not sure how that became a topic in this thread. What I do care about is the powers that be stepping on my Nature-|God-given right to protect myself against tyranny of any form. Let's not pollute the water with moral questions when we have a very simple, binary ethical question at stake - should citizens retain the right to arm themselves and defend against tyranny in any form?

*****************************************
I don't think guns are inherently polarizing. It's what we say after: "I'm pro-gun, or I'm a gun owner" that can be polarizing. It's either that, or the perception the message receiver has of gun owners. If you ran into a none gun owning urban liberal, and you said what you wrote here, the reaction would be swift.

It would be: Uh oh, there's another one of those militia types who probably runs around in the woods on some weekends preparing for revolution. If they didn't know anything else about you, they would simply peg you as an extremist.

Now we can say so what, we have the 2A. Yes we do, but SCOTUS also opined that it's not an UNFETTERED right, that REASONABLE gun regulations are permissible. Further those 2 decisions simply affirmed our right to own a gun for self defense in our homes. They were moot on whether we have a right to walk around armed carrying openly, or concealed. So far, the latter authority comes from States, depending on State Constitutions, that means votes do count.

Gat6

[gunderwood]

When they complain about the recoil on a .22LR!

/sorry, I couldn't resist...you know, stereotypes.

Haha, I nearly spit my drink out.

There have been some good arguments in this thread, and also some of the thinking to which Cowboy was referring in his OP.

Gun ownership is a polarizing issue, and it is truly one of the few issues that is black and white. I do not care if gays get married (I say let them suffer as much as the rest of us ), and am not sure how that became a topic in this thread. What I do care about is the powers that be stepping on my Nature-|God-given right to protect myself against tyranny of any form. Let's not pollute the water with moral questions when we have a very simple, binary ethical question at stake - should citizens retain the right to arm themselves and defend against tyranny in any form?

*****************************************
I don't think guns are inherently polarizing. It's what we say after: "I'm pro-gun, or I'm a gun owner" that can be polarizing. It's either that, or the perception the message receiver has of gun owners. If you ran into a none gun owning urban liberal, and you said what you wrote here, the reaction would be swift.

It would be: Uh oh, there's another one of those militia types who probably runs around in the woods on some weekends preparing for revolution. If they didn't know anything else about you, they would simply peg you as an extremist.

So I guess you're admitting that the general "they" are actually all bigots? Just in case you need a definition:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bigotry

[gatlingun6]

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.

***********************************

Let me sightly alter your post:

I personally find many [fill in the blank with your label of choice]to be uninformed and blind to the reality of the things they purport to support.

Whatever label you choose is logically, and statistically correct. And that takes us right back to square one.

Gat6

[gatlingun6]

***************************************************************
So I guess you're admitting that the general "they" are actually all bigots? Just in case you need a definition:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bigotry

[/quote][/quote]
******************************
I guess I'm not the only one doing a little early morning reading. While they could be a bigot, without knowing anything else they are certainty prejudiced, i.e. "having a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience" The New Oxford American Dictionary.

Now some say it's a synonym for prejudice, indeed Roget's Thesaurus lists it as such. However in social science circles bigot connotes a stronger emotion because it's more difficult to reach a bigot.

Either way you made my point because obviously it's stereotyping, which all of us to often do.

Gat6

[zephyp]

Gee, does that mean if I view both of you as long-winded-blow-hard-know-it-all my-view-is-the-only-right-one type of people that I would be stereotyping, racist, bigoted, or something else? I'm confused. Please clarify that in 2 words or less if possible since at least one of you will no doubt "classify" me as an uneducated trailer trash redneck hillbilly... P.s. You cant throw in gun toting cause that also include yourselves...

[gunderwood]

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.

***********************************

Let me sightly alter your post:

I personally find many [fill in the blank with your label of choice]to be uninformed and blind to the reality of the things they purport to support.

Whatever label you choose is logically, and statistically correct. And that takes us right back to square one.

Gat6

Oh, me, pick me!

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

I just have to break everything!

[gatlingun6]

Gee, does that mean if I view both of you as long-winded-blow-hard-know-it-all my-view-is-the-only-right-one type of people that I would be stereotyping, racist, bigoted, or something else? I'm confused. Please clarify that in 2 words or less if possible since at least one of you will no doubt "classify" me as an uneducated trailer trash redneck hillbilly... P.s. You cant throw in gun toting cause that also include yourselves...

**************************

Nah!

Gat6

[gatlingun6]

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.

***********************************

Let me sightly alter your post:

I personally find many [fill in the blank with your label of choice]to be uninformed and blind to the reality of the things they purport to support.

Whatever label you choose is logically, and statistically correct. And that takes us right back to square one.

Gat6

Oh, me, pick me!

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

I just have to break everything!

**********************
A high IQ does not mean one knows everything, nor does it make their judgment infallible. Besides Mensa and bigot, racist, communist, murderer, rapist, serial killer, immoral, etc are not mutually exclusive, Try again.

Gat6

Gat6

[gunderwood]

Gee, does that mean if I view both of you as long-winded-blow-hard-know-it-all my-view-is-the-only-right-one type of people that I would be stereotyping, racist, bigoted, or something else? I'm confused. Please clarify that in 2 words or less if possible since at least one of you will no doubt "classify" me as an uneducated trailer trash redneck hillbilly... P.s. You cant throw in gun toting cause that also include yourselves...

No, they can be used as classifications or name calling. Calling you an American would be a correct classification, but in some circles (liberals?) that would be also name calling. I try my hardest to only use them when I actually have good reason to believe they are proper classifications.

Calling an actual socialist a socialist shouldn't offend them as it is a correct classification of their ideology. The problem is that many socialists like their socialist ideas (and think they are original), but socialism has been such a dismal failure over and over again that that they take offense at the proper classification of their ideas.

Even if it is a correct classification, no one likes being associated with failure.