My ill tempered rant about the election

P

Playboypenguin

Moderator
Alright, I am going to make this as short and sweet as I can (since the topic has probably been beat to death in the past) but I am soooo tired of listening to people on here referring to the dems as "socialists" or "kommunists". It just pains me to see people on this side of the fence so determined to create enemies where there doen't need to be any. When you purposely try to offend and demonize the majority of the population what do you actually hope to accomplish??? Who do you think you are hurting?

When people on our side spout this drivel all it does is convince people left of center that "there is no use reasoning with these fanatics" and that they will never be able to count on a vote from this kind of person so they will have too turn to the special interests if they want the numbers they need. That is how special interest groups that can't throw cash around get their power.

If gun owners could start to try and bring both sides closer together instead of resorting to childish name calling and hysterics then maybe we could actually convince the majority of America that guns are not evil and gun owners care about the same issues they do most of the time. But when we present the image of petty, shallow, hateful people who care about guns and guns only (ignoring jobs, health care, social issues, etc) we just create divisions that cannot be overcome.

I myself an a republican and have been since I was 22 (not a neo-con mind you...a true republican) and living in Oregon most of my friends are dems. In my dealing with them I have been able to be very successful in removing the negative feeling they have about firearms and firearms owners. And I have allowed them to alter some of my opinions about more liberal topics. This was only possible because we treated each other with respect and actually listened to one another. If you make it an "us vs. them" scenerio we will lose.

Nevermind the fact that I am willing to bet just as many dems in this country own guns as do repubs.

I have convinced many friends to enjoy shooting sports and have even convinced a few that having a home defense gun is a good idea. The other night at dinner I managed to convince a friend the she and her husbands fear of guns in the home were unfounded simply by presenting the facts on gun related accidents and statistics on successful home defenses using a firearm. I convinced her the old line about being many times more likely to die in a handgun related accident in the home if you own a handgun is like saying you are more likely to fall down the stairs in a house that actually has stairs compared to one that does not. It is just a weak argument and manipulation of statistics. And being true liberals they were able to recognize that fact and now I am taking her husband to pick out a nice .38 revolver tomorrow.

So much for short but I did keep it kind of sweet...I didn't even swear.:)
 
I think that's very well stated PP. I agree with you, especially about alot of people here being more worried about guns than anything else. Of course this is a gun forum so alot of people here may care about several issues, they just stick with their views on guns when posting to not muddy the waters with views on abortion,gay marriage,etc.

I have several friends who are all over the spectrum from very conservative to very liberal. I'm middle of the road myself on alot of issues. My closest friend used to be pretty against guns as far as CCW and needing one for the house, but now he's seeing my side of things alot clearer. Alot of it is just how you present it. :)
 
PP,
Thank you for posting this, it's a GREAT example of what the proper ill-tempered rant should look like :).
I personally think a lot of gun people have been brainwashed into thinking that there is (or should be) only one type of gun owner out there. In addition there is a rampant "I'm not going to be politically correct and if I offend someone, that's their problem" mentality. Nobody wants to be politically correct, but one also needs to realize that there's consequences for everything you say.

I've been a shooter for 30 years, politically active for 15, but I was still quite amazed saw the level of intelligence and diversity on these forums. The problem is, one post about how someone would like to "shoot all them illegal Mexicans" will be the one the anti-gunners focus on.

Also, the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. With their demise, communism ceased to be a major threat. Anyone still using "commie" in every rant looks woefully out of touch at best, a nutjob at worst.
 
It's not so much that I feel very communist anymore, it's just that I hate America so much and want to take your guns and give them to al-Qaeda.




At least, that's what they keep telling me I'm all about. ;)
 
Also, the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. With their demise, communism ceased to be a major threat. Anyone still using "commie" in every rant looks woefully out of touch at best, a nutjob at worst.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, communism is an idea that may be out of favor in some areas but is still in vogue in certain countries and certain segments of this population. If a person takes a position that fits within the core principles of communism, or in fact advocates communisim itself, it is more ignorant to try and sugarcoat things by suggesting that it is something other than what it is.
 
Calling folks commies is as valid as the Hitler charge in most of the debates.

It might be true that some small percent of loonie gun folks are Hitler fans (like the dude at the gun show this week, selling what looked like an autographed picture of Adolph) and it might be true that some small percent of folks are true commies. However, the rants on gun forum that state that so and so is a commie because they don't support GWB is silly.

I was called a coward and such because on another forum I opined the results were due to Bush screwing up the Iraq war. So, I am a coward or a commie. My truly conservative friend, who I just ate lunch with, is of the same opinion about Bush.

The greatest weakness of the RKBA, as I have said several times, is not trying to expand its reach across the political continuum and demanding social conservative loyalty tests.
 
Being an Oregonian has blinkered you PP.

What we have in this state is something that has decidedly not been achieved on a national basis--a bipartisan understanding on RKBA.

Oregon is a deep blue state with no serious gun control tilts and features Shall Issue CCW, no magazine restrictions, no AWB, state pre-emption of local gun control, and Class III ownership.

How did that happen? Well it was a compromise made in the late 1980s. Following a series of court decisions that favored patchwork gun control laws, the Republicans began using it as a wedge issue that threatened the continued political careers of rural House Democrats. In exchange for getting all of the laundry list above passed and/or reaffirmed, and for dropping opposition to some educational programs liberals sorely wanted, and to quit clubbing rural dems over the head with the gun control sins of their city cousins, a compromise was reached by both parties to quit using guns as a wedge issue.

It should be noted that until 2005, this compromise went largely undisturbed. Even then Senator Ginny Burdick, D-Portland attempted to pass legislation barring CCW holders from all school properties statewide, which proved to be the first serious test of the compromise, even when none of its original architects were still around. Well, it held up. That bill was killed in committee by a fellow Democrat, saying that though they controled the chamber 18-12, that the votes weren't there to pass it and that the bill itself was a divisive solution for something that hasn't proven itself a problem.

So, save some clueless Portland Democrats, everyone in the political class in Oregon has continued to agree that guns shouldn't be an issue in this state, especially because there seems to be a rather broad consensus that riling up gun owners needlessly prevents all kinds of other business from getting done.

Now that Democrats in Oregon have a united legislative and gubernatorial power for the first time in decades, it will be interesting to see if they are dumb enough to disturb the political compormise that has long kept the RKBA hatchet buried.

Don't let the amicable nature of both sides in Oregon regarding RKBA fool you into thinking we get along just peachy. The truce on the topic is rather like the Korean DMZ, an artifact of a cold war that was once very hot within living memory.
 
Boats,

I have lived all over this country and I have found it true every where that you get good results when you try to find common ground. I d onot think all gun people are the hard core republicans alot of people try to paint them as and dems are not anti like the republican neo-cons try to paint them.

I was raised in WV and that state was very gun friendly and almost everyone that didn't live in a masion was a democrat.

Similar circumstances in Kentucky, Ohio, Alabama, etc. Gun owners did not tend to be republican or democrat because they liked guns. They were just gun owners regardless of their political affiliation.
 
There are two types of Democrats (and Republicans) that I have noticed. Our local state legislators are not exactly fiscally responsible (the Republicans are a little better there) but they are mostly neutral to harmless on most issues. I think it is because they are part time legislators and have real jobs they don't want to screw up with their legislation. The national Democrats are more of the extremist type to the opposite side of the scale as the ultra far right in the Republican side. Unfortunately they set the tone for the broad brushes that paint them all. Both of the national groups get their attention and power and funding from being extreme and attracting the fringe groups that associate with the extremism. It is the Man Bites Dog syndrome, Dog bites man=no news, Man bites dog=news.

While some of the platforms the Dem's have look to me like personal freedom impingements and restrictions, the Right has slowly crept into areas similar and has done some boneheaded things I grew more dissatisfied with. I just hope the center can be revived without major damage between now and 2008. And I hope it doesn't get worse. The sad thing is that on a national level both sides are more fixated on staying in office/power and pay lip service at best to the concerns of the citizen's they are supposed to be working for.

What is really needed is a strong charismatic person to pop up with a third party that can be generated and sustained. Both sides are totally scared that that could happen.
 
However, the rants on gun forum that state that so and so is a commie because they don't support GWB is silly.
Click to expand...

I tend to reserve the "commie" label for those who want to regulate property and the means of producing wealth so heavily that the state has effectively nationalized the property; who argue that they are the vanguard for leading the people, as only they are intelligent enough to see what is good for the people; and who will use the power of the state to achieve the "good" of the people as envisioned by the vanguard.

Unfortunately, there are way too many of those people.
 
I was referred to as a commie by another member here for stating that wished
to see the money wasted on the war on drugs used to ensure that no senior citizens worry about getting the prescription drugs they need.

Another called me a commie for using Russian mob as an example of capitalism in it's simplest form. The guy couldn't equate the word Russia with anything other than communism.

I think it's one of the most over-used terms on this and other sites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top