An interesting interview with a gun-loving Democrat.

We need a third party... added right smack in the middle.
Click to expand...

IMO... not exactly. The problem is that politics doesn't actually run along a single left to right spectrum. Somebody can be a strong fiscal conservative but still be a social liberal. But if you only have this single line to graph people on.... they don't fit.

I've always considered myself a small "l" libertarian. I don't always agree with the big "L" Libertarian Party but I do support that ideological view. Libertarians support maximum personal freedom and smaller and less powerful governments. I have little or no faith that the current Libertarian Party is going to swell in ranks and take over one of the top two positions. In practice, most people with strongly libertarian ideological views end up voting Republican. Unless they become so dismayed by the social conservatives that they don't vote or go third party.

I still think Lee Atwater was right and the Republican Party works best as a "big tent" that includes libertarians and social conservatives. But nobody is well served by denying the fact that there is an inherent tension between the two groups.

I would like to see one of the two strongest parties come out 100% in favor of economic conservatism. Demanding a change to the way government spending just keeps mounting to the sky. Demanding less regulation of job killing regulations. Economic libertarianism if you will. IMO, and only MY opinion, the Republican Party would do much better in national elections if that became what they were known for.

I've taught my children that "tolerance for the views of others" is a very, very important personal belief. It's when the leadership of a party is seen as being intolerant that they lose votes. Americans strongly believe in fairness, in how everybody should get an equal chance. If you start ranting about how group XXX is the problem, even I stop listening to you.

Gregg
 
The desire to carry

If you want to carry a gun, you want to justify carrying the gun. You have a better justification if you convince yourself that crime is out of control. So the desire to carry a gun precedes the fear of crime.
Click to expand...

I liked the article, thanks for posting it.

People carry guns for various reasons. My dad caught serial killers for the FBI and lead SWAT teams in confrontations with very real bad guys. My desire to carry arose from an unvarnished perspective on what actually happens to those unprepared to protect themselves.

What I liked about the article was the effort to understand a perspective other than one’s own. Caricatures are rarely helpful.

One thing the posts above demonstrate is that a common interest does not equate with a common understanding. Owning and firing guns can be a fun hobby, but the significance of guns lies in determining the outcome of a violent confrontation. As a husband and father, I am determined to resolve such conflicts in the favor of my family. I am determined enough to vote in such a way as to protect that ability.
 
Last edited:
Good article, and puts into words pretty much how I view the world. I think of myself as a moderate who leans left on most issues but am a big supporter of gun rights. I don't see being sensible about firearms as being a left or right issue. I also think anyone who enthusiastically supports the 1st amendment like I do would be just as much a supporter of the 2nd amendment. To me they go hand in hand and if everyone should be able to see that, unfortunately they don't always.
He is also correct about when you take a non shooter out to shoot they generally have a great time and become a gun lover. There needs to more of that!
 
The article is excellent, and I think I'll get the book when it comes out.

I was interested in his questioning why liberals are willing to alienate a natural constituency by focusing on gun control measures. But it goes far deeper than that when you realize that almost everything that happens in DC happens for a political reason and almost nothing happens with a sincere interest in advancing American beliefs.

How cynical do you have to be to claim a great love for the victims of mass shootings, but ignore Aurora, Tucson and other incidents that occurred BEFORE the recent presidential election, then bring the hammer down after the election when the Newtown murders happen. Is there anyone who believes Feinstein and her ilk whipped up the gun control laws now before Congress as a result of Newtown? The measures have been written for years, just waiting for the right moment to drag them out. The right moment was post-election Newtown.

I think we'll be lucky to escape this latest round of anti-gun raving in Congress, and if we face another mass murder before Congress votes, I fear even our best friends will be unable to withstand the demands of gun-haters to eliminate firearms. I don't think it can be done, but with the laws proposed as a start, I think they will try.

I'm 67, and I remember this country before politically correct was the order of the day. The nature of our country has profoundly changed and I don't know if people have the will to change it back before it's too late.
 
It's not a matter of blue collar vs white collar...Rep vs Dem and pro-2A vs anti-2A is largely urban vs non-urban America.

One only need to look at:
1) The number of counties in NY signing on against the "Safe" Act, vs the fact that it passed on the support of the population center of NYC;
2) Illinois vs Chicago
3) A map of areas that went for Obama, vs those that did not. He won on the urban centers and the urban centers alone.

While I'm a white collar gun enthusiast, I grew up in a solidly blue collar area where one factory in the largely agricultural county kept the average income above the poverty line. Yet, until the past 10 years, it was unheard of for anyone in a local election to run on a Democratic ticket because elections were ALWAYS decided in the Republican primary -- if you were Democrat, you were guaranteed <20% of the vote.

The 2A battle we are currently fighting is more urban vs rural than Rep vs Dem.
 
Good point. I just read an article that the divide isn't as much conservative vs. liberal. More powerful was urban vs. not urban and Eastern vs. the rest of the country.
 
Another consideration that muddies the waters is the failure of many people do distinguish between social and fiscal conservatism/liberalism as they are, I think, two very different sets of issues. For example, I myself am quite conservative fiscally but, given today's definition of conservatism vs. liberalism, I cannot really identify with either camp socially. While on fiscal issues the choice is much clearer, the problem with both parties, as I see it, is that they want to champion certain liberties while circumventing others while I favor protection of all individual liberties. While I sometimes want to pull my hair out listening to one side saying that the government needs to protect us from ourselves, my blood boils just as much when the other side tries to impose their own moral values on society through legislation. The whole issue is, IMHO, one of the unfortunate effects of the two-party system. Unless you're willing to vote for someone without a snowball's chance in Hades of getting elected (which I'm increasingly willing to do), you're often forced to vote not for the best candidate, but for the lesser of two evils.
 
Well said, Webley.

But I think that the problem isn't with the two-party system itself, but with a system in which the leaders of the parties don't really differ much when it comes to actual policies, but use several "red-herring" issues as a way of keeping the base of each party from noticing that, and keeping them loyal; the system is now less one of differences as to governance, and more one of just getting elected, and reelected, and so maintaining one's power.

But enough on party politics. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top