Playboypenguin
Moderator
When politicians are involved, cynicism is just good thinking. If more people were cynical and not willing to eat what they are fed without even reading the label maybe things would be better than they are in Washington.
Liberal Gun Rights advocates
- Thread starter johnwilliamson062
- Start date
Sure an individual liberal can be pro-gun. In fact, my Congressional Representative, John Dingell, is about as pro-gun as you can get.
But it's the Democratic leadership, as a whole, who have clearly pushed the anti-gun agenda for more than 40 years now.
Those facts are absolutely irrefutable. To deny that basic fact is akin to putting your head in the sand IMHO.
For example, Obama favors bans on handguns and semi-auto rifles.
The four liberal justices of the SCOTUS feel the 2nd Amendment affords a collective right only and DC's ban on all firearms in the home was constitutional.
The list goes on, and on...... and on....... and on.
How anyone can even remotely argue that the Democratic Party, as a whole, has not been for the prohibition of private firearms ownership has always baffled me.
The facts, for over 40 years now, irrefutably show the Democratic leadership to be rabidly anti-gun. (And most people feel Democrats are liberal in political philosophy IMHO.)
I simply can't imagine how anyone can fool themselves into thinking otherwise.
It would be like me trying to argue that Republicans have been as pro-choice as Democrats. Absolutely ridiculous IMHO.
Those are the facts and know, that if you vote for Obama, you are voting for a rabidly anti-gun ..... guess what..... liberal Democrat.
But it's the Democratic leadership, as a whole, who have clearly pushed the anti-gun agenda for more than 40 years now.
Those facts are absolutely irrefutable. To deny that basic fact is akin to putting your head in the sand IMHO.
For example, Obama favors bans on handguns and semi-auto rifles.
The four liberal justices of the SCOTUS feel the 2nd Amendment affords a collective right only and DC's ban on all firearms in the home was constitutional.
The list goes on, and on...... and on....... and on.
How anyone can even remotely argue that the Democratic Party, as a whole, has not been for the prohibition of private firearms ownership has always baffled me.
The facts, for over 40 years now, irrefutably show the Democratic leadership to be rabidly anti-gun. (And most people feel Democrats are liberal in political philosophy IMHO.)
I simply can't imagine how anyone can fool themselves into thinking otherwise.
It would be like me trying to argue that Republicans have been as pro-choice as Democrats. Absolutely ridiculous IMHO.
Those are the facts and know, that if you vote for Obama, you are voting for a rabidly anti-gun ..... guess what..... liberal Democrat.
Too many people box themselves in by calling themselves republicans or democrats, I have conservative views, I also have liberal views.
I take what is best from each side and I don't put my support behind a party which doesn't represent me.
A word can not define my beliefs, and no party currently exist which does, although some individual representatives do.
I take what is best from each side and I don't put my support behind a party which doesn't represent me.
A word can not define my beliefs, and no party currently exist which does, although some individual representatives do.
Astromanluca, funny you should bring up the Pink Pistols.
First, what's the total membership of the Pink Pistols?
What percentage of openly gay folks are also Pink Pistols members?
Second, how many times have I seen story after story about the open, tolerant, oh-so-open-minded leftists banning the Pink Pistols from gay pride parades, gay festivals, and trying to prohibit them from carrying guns at public events in states that allow concealed carry?
Again, pro-gun liberals are like unicorns.....rare and strange creatures. Exceptions to the rule, etc. etc.
possum
First, what's the total membership of the Pink Pistols?
What percentage of openly gay folks are also Pink Pistols members?
Second, how many times have I seen story after story about the open, tolerant, oh-so-open-minded leftists banning the Pink Pistols from gay pride parades, gay festivals, and trying to prohibit them from carrying guns at public events in states that allow concealed carry?
Again, pro-gun liberals are like unicorns.....rare and strange creatures. Exceptions to the rule, etc. etc.
possum
Exactly the point I was making. Sure, there are some liberals who may be pro 2nd amendment. But the party leaders they vote for are fervently against your 2nd amendment rights. As a person who believes the 2nd amendment is the foundation of our freedom, I find it a bit strange that a pro-2nd amendment supporter would vote for candidates who are anti-2nd amendment.
AS for the "what have Republicans done to protect our 2nd amendment rights while in power"... that is a fair question and the answer is, not enough. Better than if we had had Gore or Kerry though.
Playboypenguin
You can't possibly be this dense. ALL BILLS are proposals, don't you understand this? The wording isn't mine, it's from the bill itself!!
OK, since the DEMS are now in control, why don't they introduce any pro-gun bills if they are so gung-ho pro-gun, according to you? Feel free to show any evidence that they have in the last 2 years.
Tonite, if I have time, I'll list 10 anti-gun bills, sponsored by Democrats. But meanwhile, you just keep on playing your silly little games. I'd expect nothing less.
You can't possibly be this dense. ALL BILLS are proposals, don't you understand this? The wording isn't mine, it's from the bill itself!!
OK, since the DEMS are now in control, why don't they introduce any pro-gun bills if they are so gung-ho pro-gun, according to you? Feel free to show any evidence that they have in the last 2 years.
Tonite, if I have time, I'll list 10 anti-gun bills, sponsored by Democrats. But meanwhile, you just keep on playing your silly little games. I'd expect nothing less.
Citizen Carrier
New member
Most voters call themselves Republicans or Democrats because they are either Republicans or Democrats.
It explains why the Libertarian Party has never even come close to getting 500,000 votes in a Presidential election. There just aren't that many people out there who combine talking as if their own country is an empire motivated solely by oil profits and military expansion while at the same time arguing for limiting government more drastically than any conservative and calling for legalizing drug use.
This statement, while true on its face, needs a little clarification. The Senate is an odd body of legislative actions. While the GOP had the numbers for 6 years, they didn't have ENOUGH numbers to cut off filibusters. Thus, they didn't have complete control of the Senate as far as getting bills made into law. The dems in the Senate were fairly effective in making sure some of Bush's USSC court nominees didn't make it to a full Senate vote.
One thing that was very interesting in 2006, when the democrats took back control of both houses, was that they did it by having candidates who were more libertarian than liberal, especially when it came to the second amendment. The democratic leadership in both bodies of Congress is pro gun control, if not anti gun, for the most part. And certainly much more so than the GOP leadership when they had "marginal" control of Congress for the past 6 years. If you go back in time and look at some of the pro gun rights bills that actually became law, most of those bills were initially introduced and supported by republicans and their minority leadership. They were able to get those passed by corralling some democrats from states where gun ownership is more "politically acceptable".
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
False dichotomy - I explain my views in my sig.
My support for gun rights doesn't mean I have to blindly accept social conservative attacks on basic liberties.
Unfortunately, some gun advocates see that as necessary - quite foolish - IMHO.
In fact, it is that some folks see gun owners as foes of basic social liberties that make the former doubt the rhetoric of 'freedom' spouted by some gun owners.
My support for gun rights doesn't mean I have to blindly accept social conservative attacks on basic liberties.
Unfortunately, some gun advocates see that as necessary - quite foolish - IMHO.
In fact, it is that some folks see gun owners as foes of basic social liberties that make the former doubt the rhetoric of 'freedom' spouted by some gun owners.
jdc1244 posted:
Since the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, gun ownership and possession, the right to keep and bear arms, should not be a political issue and should not be up for discussion or negotiation. It is a right, given to us by our creator, or some may say it's a natural right. It is thus an inalienable right and should not be infringed upon by people with political agendas. I agree, howevever, that politics has long ago entered into the debate. This was started after the civil war when gun control was first used as a political weapon. It was directly targeted at freed blacks so that they could not freely keep and bear arms. This helped certain politicians win votes from whites who were not happy that slavery was "officially" ended.
We are now stuck with politics in place regarding the 2nd A. We moved a little closer to wringing some of the politics out of gun rights with the Heller decsion, delivered by the Supreme Court, which has also become very politicized itself. We have a long way to go to get back to treating the 2nd A. as a pure civil right with as little politics as possible in play. I think we can eventually move a lot closer to that in the next few decades. Especially if gun control continues to be a losing issue, politically, for democrats at the national level.
Since the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, gun ownership and possession, the right to keep and bear arms, should not be a political issue and should not be up for discussion or negotiation. It is a right, given to us by our creator, or some may say it's a natural right. It is thus an inalienable right and should not be infringed upon by people with political agendas. I agree, howevever, that politics has long ago entered into the debate. This was started after the civil war when gun control was first used as a political weapon. It was directly targeted at freed blacks so that they could not freely keep and bear arms. This helped certain politicians win votes from whites who were not happy that slavery was "officially" ended.
We are now stuck with politics in place regarding the 2nd A. We moved a little closer to wringing some of the politics out of gun rights with the Heller decsion, delivered by the Supreme Court, which has also become very politicized itself. We have a long way to go to get back to treating the 2nd A. as a pure civil right with as little politics as possible in play. I think we can eventually move a lot closer to that in the next few decades. Especially if gun control continues to be a losing issue, politically, for democrats at the national level.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Too bad...
This thread started out as a pretty interesting, and civil, discussion of people's individual stances on gun rights and other issues. It's now devolved into routine bickering over what politicians do or don't do, say or don't say.
A while back, PBP pointed out that "gun rights vs. gun bans" is an issue that works well for both Democratic and Republican politicians as a way to keep their respective bases in line, while they work together to do the bidding of their corporate paymasters (who actually fund their campaigns, as well as events like both of the recent conventions). His point is very well taken. Both parties use this and similar issues (abortion, gay rights, the "war on terror") to distract us from what they are really doing, most of which works against the larger (economic, for instance) interests of most actual voters.
For people who believe that protecting 2nd amendment rights trumps every other issue, that is the way they feel. Some of us feel strongly about gun rights, but give other issues equal or greater weight. I'd be a lot more interested in learning more about the diversity of opinions people around here actually hold, and how they set their priorities among them. This "yer-for-it-or-agin-it" stuff gets pretty boring.
USAFNoDak is right -- it would be wonderful if the 2nd amendment were not the political football it's become. I also wish that some of our other rights were not more and more up for grabs...
This thread started out as a pretty interesting, and civil, discussion of people's individual stances on gun rights and other issues. It's now devolved into routine bickering over what politicians do or don't do, say or don't say.
A while back, PBP pointed out that "gun rights vs. gun bans" is an issue that works well for both Democratic and Republican politicians as a way to keep their respective bases in line, while they work together to do the bidding of their corporate paymasters (who actually fund their campaigns, as well as events like both of the recent conventions). His point is very well taken. Both parties use this and similar issues (abortion, gay rights, the "war on terror") to distract us from what they are really doing, most of which works against the larger (economic, for instance) interests of most actual voters.
For people who believe that protecting 2nd amendment rights trumps every other issue, that is the way they feel. Some of us feel strongly about gun rights, but give other issues equal or greater weight. I'd be a lot more interested in learning more about the diversity of opinions people around here actually hold, and how they set their priorities among them. This "yer-for-it-or-agin-it" stuff gets pretty boring.
USAFNoDak is right -- it would be wonderful if the 2nd amendment were not the political football it's become. I also wish that some of our other rights were not more and more up for grabs...
Vanya posted:
Here are my priorities which affect how I vote:
1. What is the candidates stance on national defense? Strong military or smaller, weaker military, similar to European model?
2. Taxes. Does the candidate believe that higher taxes are generally good for the economy? Does the candidate want to take more of my hard earned money and give it to people who really haven't earned it or spend it on frivolous earmarks and pork barrel spending?
3. The economy. Does the candidate believe that government should have more control over the economy and trade or less? This also relates closely to taxes. I've never understood why politicians want to punish success and hard work with higher taxes and reward failure by giving people money that they haven't worked for or otherwise earned. I make exceptions for people who have had a tragedy befall them through no fault of their own and cannot support themselves 100%. They need help and I'm willing to have government help them. I take issue with perfectly healthy human beings who would rather do drugs, sell drugs, commit crimes, drink excessively, etc. and then rely on the rest of us to support their sorry butts. I don't care what most people do in their own homes, so I am not for arresting someone who smokes some pot or gets drunk at home. But if you are letting those activities become a major part of your life and it's causing you to fall short of earning enough money to subsist, then don't come asking the taxpayers to support you through welfare programs and other social services.
4. Corporate Welfare. Why should we bail out corporations who make bad decisions and start to tank? Why should we be building multi million dollar sports palaces for wealthy owners and players who are making more money per game than many americans make in a decade? I don't care that they make that much money, because I'm not a class warfare guy. But when they have that much cash, they can build their own palaces to play in.
5. Gun rights vs. Gun control. Need I say more?
6. Education. We need real public education reform. We cannot throw good money into a bad situation and expect results to improve if we don't take other measures to improve our schools and demand more of the people running them. Why are colleges able to raise tuition prices faster than inflation year after year, yet no one talks about them "price gouging"? They are worse than big oil and big pharmacy companies, in my opinion. But what does the government do? They increase the funding for student loans. So the colleges raise tuition costs. They don't want to leave any money on the table and they know that the government will continue to keep money pouring into student's hands to match the increases in secondary education. Talk about a gravy train.
7. Health Care. Does the candidate want the government to take over health care or introduce more competition to the mix. I can't buy that health care is a right that the government should thus pay for. Having food and water is a right but it's not the government's job to supply it for everyone. Keeping and bearing arms is right but it's not the government's job to provide everyone with a rifle and suitable ammo. Health care is a right. The government should never be able to deny you the right to seek health care from a doctor of your own choosing. But the government, especially the federal government, should not be on the hook to pay for that right for every american.
8. Pro life vs. Pro choice. I prefer life.
Here are my priorities which affect how I vote:
1. What is the candidates stance on national defense? Strong military or smaller, weaker military, similar to European model?
2. Taxes. Does the candidate believe that higher taxes are generally good for the economy? Does the candidate want to take more of my hard earned money and give it to people who really haven't earned it or spend it on frivolous earmarks and pork barrel spending?
3. The economy. Does the candidate believe that government should have more control over the economy and trade or less? This also relates closely to taxes. I've never understood why politicians want to punish success and hard work with higher taxes and reward failure by giving people money that they haven't worked for or otherwise earned. I make exceptions for people who have had a tragedy befall them through no fault of their own and cannot support themselves 100%. They need help and I'm willing to have government help them. I take issue with perfectly healthy human beings who would rather do drugs, sell drugs, commit crimes, drink excessively, etc. and then rely on the rest of us to support their sorry butts. I don't care what most people do in their own homes, so I am not for arresting someone who smokes some pot or gets drunk at home. But if you are letting those activities become a major part of your life and it's causing you to fall short of earning enough money to subsist, then don't come asking the taxpayers to support you through welfare programs and other social services.
4. Corporate Welfare. Why should we bail out corporations who make bad decisions and start to tank? Why should we be building multi million dollar sports palaces for wealthy owners and players who are making more money per game than many americans make in a decade? I don't care that they make that much money, because I'm not a class warfare guy. But when they have that much cash, they can build their own palaces to play in.
5. Gun rights vs. Gun control. Need I say more?
6. Education. We need real public education reform. We cannot throw good money into a bad situation and expect results to improve if we don't take other measures to improve our schools and demand more of the people running them. Why are colleges able to raise tuition prices faster than inflation year after year, yet no one talks about them "price gouging"? They are worse than big oil and big pharmacy companies, in my opinion. But what does the government do? They increase the funding for student loans. So the colleges raise tuition costs. They don't want to leave any money on the table and they know that the government will continue to keep money pouring into student's hands to match the increases in secondary education. Talk about a gravy train.
7. Health Care. Does the candidate want the government to take over health care or introduce more competition to the mix. I can't buy that health care is a right that the government should thus pay for. Having food and water is a right but it's not the government's job to supply it for everyone. Keeping and bearing arms is right but it's not the government's job to provide everyone with a rifle and suitable ammo. Health care is a right. The government should never be able to deny you the right to seek health care from a doctor of your own choosing. But the government, especially the federal government, should not be on the hook to pay for that right for every american.
8. Pro life vs. Pro choice. I prefer life.
Vanya
I'll say this as respectfully as I can, so as not to be accused of "bickering".
That statement by PBP is a touch-feely line of bull which totally obscures the reality of who are pro-2A and anti-2A politicians in the United States Congress. There have been hundreds (perhaps thousands) of anti-gun laws passed in the last 40-50 years. I'll make a bet with anyone here who cares to take me up that they were virtually all sponsored by Democrats. Ignoring that reality is what has gotten us into the fix we are in today with respect to having our run rights eroded. And perpetuating the falsehood that there are as many Democrat supporters of the Second Amendment as there are Republicans is foolish.
I'll say this as respectfully as I can, so as not to be accused of "bickering".
That statement by PBP is a touch-feely line of bull which totally obscures the reality of who are pro-2A and anti-2A politicians in the United States Congress. There have been hundreds (perhaps thousands) of anti-gun laws passed in the last 40-50 years. I'll make a bet with anyone here who cares to take me up that they were virtually all sponsored by Democrats. Ignoring that reality is what has gotten us into the fix we are in today with respect to having our run rights eroded. And perpetuating the falsehood that there are as many Democrat supporters of the Second Amendment as there are Republicans is foolish.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The reason some folks think that gun rights trumps all other issues is usually because the supports of gun rights agree with them on most other issues - probably social conservative.
The true test is would you vote for a strong gun rights advocate that holds other social positions you disagree with.
I've seen on these fora that such a choice:
1. Could never happen!!
2. Well, in that case - I have to put abortion or gays or something else above gun rights.
The classic case I once saw on TV. There was a debate between an abortion provider doctor and an antiabortion activist (who would support violence against providers). The moderator asked the provider about how he protects himself and damned if he didn't start a classic 1911 speech. Loved the gun.
The antiabortion guy sputtered, turned red and started to call the doc a GUN NUT!!
It is the lack of self insight into not realizing this correlation that negates the 2nd Amend as the 'most important right' argument. Gun ownership as been supported by folks who have been very negative on other civil liberties, sad to say.
The true test is would you vote for a strong gun rights advocate that holds other social positions you disagree with.
I've seen on these fora that such a choice:
1. Could never happen!!
2. Well, in that case - I have to put abortion or gays or something else above gun rights.
The classic case I once saw on TV. There was a debate between an abortion provider doctor and an antiabortion activist (who would support violence against providers). The moderator asked the provider about how he protects himself and damned if he didn't start a classic 1911 speech. Loved the gun.
The antiabortion guy sputtered, turned red and started to call the doc a GUN NUT!!
It is the lack of self insight into not realizing this correlation that negates the 2nd Amend as the 'most important right' argument. Gun ownership as been supported by folks who have been very negative on other civil liberties, sad to say.
Yes, I vote for John Dingell all the time and will for as long as he runs for office. He's FAR more liberal than I am but I vote 2nd Amendment only.
Gov. Granholm got my vote because she is now pretty pro-gun. Way more liberal than me but I felt maybe she should get a second chance to turn Michigan around. I was wrong on that one but she got my vote mainly for being gun friendly. And I'm to the right of Dick Cheney on most issues.
Obama is anti-gun, so he won't get my vote.
Gov. Granholm got my vote because she is now pretty pro-gun. Way more liberal than me but I felt maybe she should get a second chance to turn Michigan around. I was wrong on that one but she got my vote mainly for being gun friendly. And I'm to the right of Dick Cheney on most issues.
Obama is anti-gun, so he won't get my vote.
Last edited:
astromanluca
New member
One thing you can do is try to figure out which issues would have you voting with your heart and which have you voting with your mind. Abortion, religion in schools, and gay marriage may all be issues where I strongly disagree with Republicans, but those are more "heart" issues. They don't directly affect me. So my mind tells me that I should vote on issues that do affect me, like gun control and the economy. Doing this may help me justify voting Republican in this coming election, but those "heart" issues will still bother me.
Another option, if you're a conflicted voter, is to try to vote split-ticket. With one party controlling one branch and the other party controlling the other, anti-gun legislation is much less likely to get through. A Republican congress wouldn't pass a new AWB, and a Republican president (hopefully) wouldn't sign a new AWB even if the Democratic congress did manage to pass it. Meanwhile, in other areas, a split in power encourages compromise and makes it just as difficult for the Republicans to push forward legislation that I don't like.
Another option, if you're a conflicted voter, is to try to vote split-ticket. With one party controlling one branch and the other party controlling the other, anti-gun legislation is much less likely to get through. A Republican congress wouldn't pass a new AWB, and a Republican president (hopefully) wouldn't sign a new AWB even if the Democratic congress did manage to pass it. Meanwhile, in other areas, a split in power encourages compromise and makes it just as difficult for the Republicans to push forward legislation that I don't like.
The only choice a Republican President would have if faced with a new AWB, which the congress has passed, would be to either veto or sign the bill. If he uses the veto, the Congress still has an opportunity to over ride the veto, if they can get enough votes. Of course, this works both ways and for any bills. I just used your example. If the democrats make significant gains in congress, will they have a veto proof majority? That would be dangerous. So will an Obama/Biden, Reid and Pelosi administration for 4 years.
astromanluca
New member
Democrats won't have a veto-proof majority in either house. They aren't even likely to have a filibuster-proof (60%) majority in the Senate. The predictions I've seen put the number of Democratic senators after this race at 54-56, and the number of Democrats in the House at around 240 (out of 435), a 55% majority. Even if they greatly exceed expectations and get 250 people in the House, it'll still only be a 57% majority. In order to get a 2/3 majority, they'd need 290 seats, and that won't happen.
carguychris
New member
+1.
FWIW I'll take it a little further. It's always seemed pretty obvious to me that both parties want to curtail certain rights; the difference lies in which ones are on the particular party's hit list. 
Other than gun issues, I'm more comfortable with the Dems' current list.I also have trouble voting for a party that continues to stick its collective head in the sand on environmental issues, and refuses to scale back our military and return it to its rightful mission of protecting American soil rather than trying to play Globocop.
OTOH I usually vote for individual candidates' positions rather than sticking to party-line voting.
There, I said my piece.