Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Jakeiscrazy wrote:Look you can be a liberal and own guns. B ut it is very hard to be a liberal and support the 2A thru anything more than your words.

This makes no sense whatsoever. How can you be a Liberal, own guns, but not support the 2A?

Now, maybe people cave to easily to popular thought and are unable to think independently and rationally...

chfaunce wrote:Pot, meet kettle?

Not exactly Rosie, because I don't believe in today's PC "tolerance" message.

chfaunce wrote:A constructive response as always, I see, Ben. Perhaps you should reread my entire response.

I can't help it when your "tolerance" speeches wreak of hypocrisy.

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.

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.

I'd venture to agree, though, I have nothing concrete to support it. I think we need more "I's" in office. I'm not impressed with the D's or the R's.

TheGodfather wrote: I can't help it when your "tolerance" speeches wreak of hypocrisy.

Care to elaborate? Which part of my response was hypocritical? It was the whole 'people should be free to make their own choices' bit, wasn't it?

More like off topic response as always. This thread is not about whether or not you like each other.

chfaunce wrote: Care to elaborate? Which part of my response was hypocritical? It was the whole 'people should be free to make their own choices' bit, wasn't it?

Rosie, I've elaborated on this plenty in a previous thread. Don't blame me if you have that short of a memory. Besides, I've been feeding the troll so much lately, I think it's getting fat.

Owning a gun is not supporting the 2A. Sara Brady owns a gun, so does Dianne Feinstein. It think they even have permits. But they aren't pro 2A. What defines if your pro 2A or not, is how you vote.

I strongly feel that political parties should be abolished. With the internet and the overabundance of local, cable, and radio news channels nowadays, if any candidate can't get his message out without relying on a political party, then he must either not be trying or not want to be elected. Though that's leaving out the funding that the candidates get from the party to toe the party line instead of do what they were elected to do which is represent their local constituents, not represent their national party.

I'd like to imagine that something like that could happen, but both major parties fight all the independents to keep their grip on the power that they have. Neither party will let go of their power. So we are pretty well stuck with what we have. Two parties who stand for the opposite of the other and can't vote their conscience without being branded a traitor to their party and cast aside. This is not a healthy situation for the country IMO. But it is very helpful to have the citizens be so heavily polarized for the two parties.

Jakeiscrazy wrote:More like off topic response as always. This thread is not about whether or not you like each other.

Completely agree (on both fronts). Though, I am still perplexed by your last response. Fundamentally, I don't see how any gun owner (regardless of political affiliation) can not be supportive of the 2A.

Jakeiscrazy wrote:Owning a gun is not supporting the 2A. Sara Brady owns a gun, so does Dianne Feinstein. It think they even have permits. But they aren't pro 2A. What defines if your pro 2A or not, is how you vote.

Meh. That just makes them politicians. Do what I say, not what I do. This is ok for me, but not ok for you (or vice versa, as the case is sometimes). Still, from a fundamental standpoint, I don't see how you can have one (own a gun) and not the other (support of the 2A).

Well some people are just elitist and say, "I can have you can't ha!"

Jakeiscrazy wrote:Well some people are just elitist and say, "I can have you can't ha!"

Well, yes, and there will always be those.

Politicians should remember their history. I recall there being a period in France where the ruling class lived by a similar mantra... not that I think that we'll ever see something that barbaric here in this day and age or anything.

Well, yes, and there will always be those.

Politicians should remember their history. I recall there being a period in France where the ruling class lived by a similar mantra... not that I think that we'll ever see something that barbaric here in this day and age or anything.

If it's happened before it can happen again. That is why we have the 2 Amendment .

So, let me put on my dashiki and pick up the old nylon string acoustic and strike up "Kumbaya" - although I always liked "The Lion Sleeps" better.

Labels on people - HATE THEM. Political, demographic, professional, personal - whatevs. By labeling a person you automatically exclude them. A political party is nothing more than a label and immediatly sets people at odds with each other or, worse yet, immediatly discounts anything they say. If this Country is to {remain great} or {return to greatness} then it will only be done through open discourse based on verifyable facts and global past experience.

Try having a discussion with another person. Not a Liberal, or a Conservative or a whatever. True, there will be some people with which a rational discussion is impossible. If that's the case, walk away, they are probably not worth your time.

Idealistic? Yes. A successful strategy? So far.

Keep in mind the United States of American was founded on very liberal (libertarian) ideals. Armed citizens able to defend themselves against an overzealous government? Freedom of press? Freedom to speak against the government? No state religion? No search and seizure without due process? These were all liberal concepts in a time of monarchs and autocracy.

We divide people into groups and put labels on them since exclusion makes those included in the group feel better about themselves. Tolerance does not mean acceptance of everything, and it's not about being "politically correct". It is acceptance that variety and differences can help build a stronger America.

I grew up learning to defend myself against ignorance, with wit, charm, fast feet, and sometimes fists. It's this background that has taught me to accept others. Being a (former) Roman Catholic, half-Asian brat in the south, or an American overseas, paints a target on you. As I grew older, instead of becoming bitter, I became more and more liberal (that social liberal others referred to earlier). I understood that ignorance and low self esteem is what spurred the attacks. I could become one and the same, or I could boldly take the high road.

As I got older, I also changed my view on gun ownership. My views of gun ownership softened, shifted, and are where they are today, in firm support of our 2A rights. This conversion went hand in hand with my shift from right (sometimes far) of center to left-leaning libertarian. (Of course, what I consider to be left of center may be seen as right of center to others.) My swing to the liberal side of many issues ran parallel with the understanding that rights are not given to us by the All-Caring Government, but by Nature|God|the Creator.

My point is this - it is possible to sway the minds of others. It is possible for people to change their position on their own. To do so, though, requires an inquisitive and open mind. It requires accepting that others that do not understand our way of life will seek to destroy it out of fear born of ignorance. It means presenting a reasoned argument in lieu of, or indeed, despite fitting a stereotype.

So, yes, my American brothers, do the right thing. Take your liberal neighbor, your liberal co-worker, your liberal family member, your liberal friend to the range, and teach them to shoot. Teach them the very American core value of individual rights is secured by an armed citizenry.

@ Mindflayer +1

Well, if we're gonna have a conversation about stereotypes, I'm still curious what it is the NRA did to be considered a racist or extremist organization? And this isn't a rhetorical question. For those of you more in tune with the progressive or liberal thoughts, I'd like to know.

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.

Several of the responses in this thread demonstrate beautifully the very problem that I'm referring to. That is not being a good ambassador for the cause of the 2A. I'd like to thank Mindflayer, Taggure, KaosDad, and chfaunce, for taking the time to understand what I was actually saying, and for helping to bring this thread back to a rational discussion. Let's keep it rational and leave the name-calling by the wayside. We're supposed to be better than that.

- T

CowboyT wrote:I'd like to thank Mindflayer, Taggure, KaosDad, and chfaunce, for taking the time to understand what I was actually saying, and for helping to bring this thread back to a rational discussion.

If comparing the "liberal" ideals of our founding fathers to the liberal ideals of today is considered "rational" discussion, then count me out.