Anti-gun does not = automatic Leftist.

It's silly to a point. I was in elementary school in the 80's and we didn't have to say it or put out hands over our hearts. We did however have to stand.
a) so the teacher could watch us
b) out of respect for other students that did participate in the pledge

I just think it gets a little dumb sometimes. I understand other religions don't agree and that politically the gov. is trying to help them out but there comes a time and place to respect each other and meet in the middle. I don't have a problem with it on money actually I think it's a little ironic.
 
Not interested either way, not a firearm issue.

This has become pointless.
Click to expand...

Then leave. There's a whole forum full of gun threads out there. I've asked you here, I've asked you through PMs. Again, I'll ask you. Stop trolling this thread.

It's silly to a point. I was in elementary school in the 80's and we didn't have to say it or put out hands over our hearts. We did however have to stand.
a) so the teacher could watch us
b) out of respect for other students that did participate in the pledge

I just think it gets a little dumb sometimes. I understand other religions don't agree and that politically the gov. is trying to help them out but there comes a time and place to respect each other and meet in the middle. I don't have a problem with it on money actually I think it's a little ironic.
Click to expand...

The problem you run into is that for kids that can't do it (for religious reasons) or simply for those that don't they end up having to single themselves out by not doing so...which leads to bullying out on the playground. That alone isn't a convincing argument against doing it (though definitely would suggest a benefit)...but combined with the fact that the pledge itself offers little benefit (most of the younger kids don't even realize what they're saying) and there's no reason to do it in schools at all.

This reasoning holds whether you remove "under God" or not, since there are religions (JW) that would be unable to do it regardless.

As for the money...yeah, it's a little ironic.
 
Carshooter, cuate, Rem33 and anyone else that holds the opinion that here, in this particular forum, we should discuss firearms and only firearms have missed the boat.

This it appears is the mantra of the uninformed or the single issue voter.

Sorry to burst your bubble. The Legal and Political forum is precisely the place on TFL to discuss most things related to legal and political (funny how that would work, yes?)!

If you have nothing to contribute to any thread here, other than a gripe or complaint that, "It's not gun related, wahhhhh!" then take yourself somewheres else.

I would hope that the above is sufficiently clear?

Now. Having said that, get back on topic. Try to derail this thread or any other and you will find yourself being booted out the door. Act like an adult or act like a spoiled rotten child. Your choice to make, not mine.
 
I have a buddy that is extremely conservative. Votes in block and fails to read up on political issues and make personal choices. However, he hates guns (I don't yet know why)

He very much embodies the "Anti-gun does not = automatic Leftist"

It is merely by chance that his votes generally support pro-gun issues. If there were to be a referendum, or gun control were the central focus of a campaign, he would vote against it.

It doesn't help me or anyone to call him names. It is detrimental to say something like "You're a righty, this is what you have to believe in because I have labeled you as such"

Those that propose the converse ("lefties believe in such and such") are committing an error. People are people. They have beliefs, they have opinions, and RARELY do those match a particular party in every way. Gun control is one of many issues that has to be balanced against the whole when you make a decision.

The surest sign of someone not thinking is when they vote a party line.
 
sasquatch

I understand but I'm telling you that in certain areas that don't allow machine guns that they will let you have them if you have certain requirements met. Not all states will I understand but it's worth checking out.
 
It doesn't help me or anyone to call him names. It is detrimental to say something like "You're a righty, this is what you have to believe in because I have labeled you as such"
Click to expand...

Very true. And liberals/leftists/Democrats/whatever-ya-call-me are sometimes just as guilty of this (myself included...even in this very thread...sorry guys).

This goes back to some of the earlier, better points of this thread...gun-rights activists (and firearms enthusiasts) really ought to think about being more inclusive. Because there folks among some of these minority/"leftist" groups who could actually be brought around to our side where guns are concerned.

And, as SecDef pointed out (and I've known some too) there are plenty of "Right-Wing" Conservative Christian Republicans who would have no problem seeing an assault weapon ban go into place.

The more divisive and insulting language you use, the less people you have a chance to bring to your side. Yes, a majority of firearms owners may fall into a particular portion of the political landscape...but that majority doesn't seem to have been having too much luck keeping our rights safe and portraying firearms in a positive light. We need to show the New York Times and the Washington Post (or the mainstream media outlet of your choice) that firearms ownership can be an issue that crosses the political and cultural "lines" so to speak.

How? Consider dropping some of the more divisive anti-"left" vitriol. It certainly isn't helping anything, and as I and others have been trying to point out it just might be hurting. That one guy in your shooting buddy group who likes to use the N-word (or perhaps the F-word, three letters not four) a bit too much...reign him in. Or shut him out.

Here's a controversial one...write the NRA and tell them that maybe, just maybe, if they started backing the occasional pro-gun Democrat over obviously losing (and more or less openly racist) Republicans, they could take away gun control as a party-line issue. It's a thought. Might draw in some new members, even (like...well, me).

I don't know...anybody got any other ideas?
 
Stranger04, it takes a certain type of FFL license (an SOT, IIRC) to be able to order a Title II firearm. If the State laws forbid the private ownership of Title II weapons, then you cannot, as an individual own one in that State. Your only recourse is to lobby to get the law changed.

Now, having said this, further discussion of Title II firearms are off topic in this thread.
 
I agree with Mike 100% that anti gun is a very leftest ideal.
Click to expand...

True. However, if being anti-gun automatically makes one a "leftist" then logically wouldn't being pro-gun automatically make somebody "right-wing?" It is a very rightist (if you will) ideal, no? Never knew I was a right-winger before.

Is social conservatism also a very rightist ideal? Seems to be to me, and for sake of argument let's say it is. So what do you get if you take a social conservative (heck, lets make him a fiscal conservative too) and make him anti-gun? A right-winger (rightist)? A leftist? A logical implosion destroying the very fabric of space and time?

Or is gun control alone the one defining viewpoint determining leftism vs. rightism? Because I suppose at that point calling somebody who is anti-gun an automatic leftist would make sense.

Or we could always ditch this whole false dichotomy thing, admit that political orientation is not linear, embrace our more "liberal" pro-gun brothers, and maybe push for some election reform while we're at it so we can have viable third (or even *gasp* fourth) options when voting.
 
I agree with Juan. It's time to talk with people fin out why they feel or think what they do. Bring real information to a debate. Statistics can be your best friend or worst enemy.
Use neutral sources you can't quote gun biased reviewers to anit-gun people.
In a country that argues over trees at certain times of the year will never solve an issuse as big a guns, but acting like a gun nut with no solid info. only helps to prove their point.
As gun owners we have to step up and even point the finger at other gun owners that misuse the privilige of ownership. Show the anti-gun people that you are a responsible adult and deserve to have any firearm you choose.
Know your part don't just back a political group because they have one idea you like because there maybe 20 more that you hate. Reps and Demos don't revolve their whole career around guns, they use that for votes.
Honestly what have the pro gun guys up there done other than letting the ban run out? Remember they had majority control for a while there. I never saw anyone push a big bill for autos.
 
JuanCarlos

"Or we could always ditch this whole false dichotomy thing, admit that political orientation is not linear, embrace our more "liberal" pro-gun brothers, and maybe push for some election reform while we're at it so we can have viable third (or even *gasp* fourth) options when voting."
Click to expand...

I don't mean this as a put-down in any way. However, all of this huggy-feely idealistic way of looking at things has all of the earmarks of someone who is very young. My opinion is that we become more pragmatic & cynical (read realistic) the older we get; not in all cases, but true for the most part. I am old enough (make that real old) to have seen all of this group-hug-syndrome enough times over the years to chuckle every time you make a post.

Sorry, maybe it's just me, but I don't think so.
 
I agree with Mike 100% that anti gun is a very leftest ideal.

True. However, if being anti-gun automatically makes one a "leftist" then logically wouldn't being pro-gun automatically make somebody "right-wing?" It is a very rightist (if you will) ideal, no? Never knew I was a right-winger before.
Click to expand...

Takes alot more than one idea to make a person completely left or right wing. YYou know that as well as I.
I remember a saying " the right thinks I am left and the left thinks I am wrong"

I believe a large percentage of the population would fit that last statement.
 
I think what JuanCarlos is trying to say is we need to step away from the old way of looking at things. That's kinda what has us in this situation that we are in now. The gov. needs to revamp it's set up a little. This thread kinda proves that there is more to the country then dems. Reps. and Inds.
 
Well this thread has really convinced me. I'm voting for Hillary in 08, or whatever Democrat candidate gets the main slot.

Center-right/pro-gun is my kinda party.

Join me: drop a tab of acid, tune in to a HillCast and start believing in "sensible gun control legislation." You don't think that children and the mentally ill should own firearms do you? Well the NRA does, apparently.

Hillary/Rove 08

It's ok now that we all know there are some Democrats who are pro-gun. And don't mention Christianity on this board again. We wouldn't want to offend our future overlords.
 
I don't mean this as a put-down in any way. However, all of this huggy-feely idealistic way of looking at things has all of the earmarks of someone who is very young. My opinion is that we become more pragmatic & cynical (read realistic) the older we get; not in all cases, but true for the most part. I am old enough (make that real old) to have seen all of this group-hug-syndrome enough times over the years to chuckle every time you make a post.

Sorry, maybe it's just me, but I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm that young... ;) (27, if it matters)

If you really think that it's not worth bringing "liberals" into the pro-gun fold, then you might as well enjoy your guns while they last. Because this generation's liberals are all too often next generation's conservatives. And it seems like being anti-gun has been picked up as part of the tide of "progress" in this country. Right along with things like gay rights, and just like women's rights and minority rights before.

At this rate, a couple/few generations from new they might have what they need for a Constitutional amendment, at which point you're really screwed...not that they'll need it, since the 2A is vague enough that it can be legislated into oblivion without one regardless of how you (and I) want to read it.

So the question, to me, becomes a chicken/egg problem. Are gun control and general anti-gun attitudes naturally part of this "progressive" liberal mindset, along with gender rights, sexual freedom, and religious/racial tolerance/inclusion....or are they being picked up as such only because the small subset who oppose them [gun laws] generally embody the opposite of what these liberals believe in on nearly every issue?

Or, getting back to the first couple pages of the thread, are firearms rights a polarizing left/right or Pub/Dem issue because they naturally must be...or are we (by which I mean the "mainstream" of gun enthusiasts) making it so?

Or put in a more fun, overly simplistic, and overgeneralizing way (and I really am mostly kidding...so please be kind...also take "guns" to mean more the "assault weapon" kind of guns):

Do liberals want gun control because liberals hate guns...or do liberals want gun control because only rednecks like guns and liberals hate rednecks (but they couldn't care less about the guns themselves)?

'Cause, you know, if it's the latter that's something that can be changed.


Well this thread has really convinced me. I'm voting for Hillary in 08, or whatever Democrat candidate gets the main slot.

Center-right/pro-gun is my kinda party.

Join me: drop a tab of acid, tune in to a HillCast and start believing in "sensible gun control legislation." You don't think that children and the mentally ill should own firearms do you? Well the NRA does, apparently.

Hillary/Rove 08
Click to expand...

See, and every time somebody makes a post like this (though I did find it amusing, because I'm no fan of Hillary either) somebody falls off the fence on the anti-gun side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top