The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Hello,

I've branched off today (Father's Day; I'm entitled to one day not working!) and am perusing the subjects apart from military rifles here.

I've answered some which have to do with combat shooting and handguns, which, excepting small game hunting and target shooting, is my first real base of knowledge in the world of firearms. Slug guns are another, but there are precious few discussions about them anyplace.

Anyway, I've read not a few of the political threads. I don't generally participate in political or religious discussions as they tend to get heated and folks get their feelings hurt, etc. I don't like being a part of that. I also generally consider myself apolitical, voting for what makes the most sense to me. Different tests lead to different outcomes. The Nolan test has me at Libertarian-Centrist... whatever those are.

Now, and this is not to offend: In reading a LOT of stuff here, I'm seeing Liberals and Conservatives agree on the majority of things.

It seems to me that what folks consider themselves is what they've traditionally aligned themselves with. For example, my family have traditionally been Democrats, but the definition of such today is far from what it was when my Grandpa was growing up in the Depression. I cannot agree with either party.

As well, liberal or conservative thoughts seem to like largely with the situation. For example, Carlos Mencia said "my daughter, I'm very conservative. You're daughter, well..." or words to that effect. That's about how I see it.

I honestly don't know where I'm going with this, except I see, on a daily basis, folks on the left and right saying the same things but not listening to each other due to perceived differences.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Regards,

I see on one issue in particular about 90something% of the country agreeing on, and that's that money needs to get out of politics. And nothing gets done about it.

I'm not really sure where you're going with your post either. If you think folks around here get their feelings hurt over political or religious discussions, I can only assume you haven't read those threads involving politics or religion. Also, I was raised Catholic and republican, but I'm far from that now. There's no traditional alignment in my blood.

Ya...I'm not sure what you're basing your post on or what it's about.

We range from communist to libertarian. We generally agree we are less insane than the denizens of say, glock talk.

There are differences between liberals and conservatives, they are not the same. They may agree on some issues but not on most, there are hardwired differences.

I think we tend to form our beliefs on reality where the rabid right forms reality on their beliefs.

Simmer down wrote:I think we tend to form our beliefs on reality where the rabid right forms reality on their beliefs.

Actually I have theory I'd like you to pick apart: Conservatives beliefs are formed around a fear, whereas liberals are formed around a reward structure.

Wabatuckian wrote:It seems to me that what folks consider themselves is what they've traditionally aligned themselves with. For example, my family have traditionally been Democrats, but the definition of such today is far from what it was when my Grandpa was growing up in the Depression. I cannot agree with either party.

It's sad. I think our beliefs are intact. The world changed rapidly. The first culprit was TV. Then Credit cards. Then the Internet.

People can spend money more quickly then at any time in history. During the depression, the family talk around the table was about money. How to get and how to keep and how to be resourceful so as not to waste it.

I think most people's priority's changed. They were easily swayed by propaganda. They thought being rich was the most important thing. They didn't realize that looking rich by going into debt was not the same as being rich.

I used to make commercials. I used to make documentaries. I could bring deep feelings from people in the documentary. (I'm people too) (So is Soylent Green)
I can also make you want crap you don't need. Don't get me started on marketing and it's destructive forces.
I hate marketers.

Thanks for letting me rant.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Simmer down wrote:I think we tend to form our beliefs on reality where the rabid right forms reality on their beliefs.

Actually I have theory I'd like you to pick apart: Conservatives beliefs are formed around a fear, whereas liberals are formed around a reward structure.

Anxiety and fear are heavily represented in the GOP. In general, I think your summary is on target.

It's very easy to say government is too big. Like conservatives do.

It is also hard for a liberal to answer what is a good idea the government should not do.

Simmer down wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

Simmer down wrote:I think we tend to form our beliefs on reality where the rabid right forms reality on their beliefs.

Actually I have theory I'd like you to pick apart: Conservatives beliefs are formed around a fear, whereas liberals are formed around a reward structure.

Anxiety and fear are heavily represented in the GOP. In general, I think your summary is on target.

Question is, if we know this how can we then frame our arguments to make sense to the right and then understand what the right is trying to say and calm those fears?

Hello,

"I think we tend to form our beliefs on reality where the rabid right forms reality on their beliefs."

This is exactly what Conservatives say about Liberals.

I'm not sure I'm going anyplace with this, exactly. It's almost like I'm outside looking in. That's not meant to brag or anything, just stating fact.

See, I am a student of history. I was an experimental archaeologist before I knew what it was called, hunting with slings, making fires with a bow and drill, making fat lamps, that kind of thing.

One thing I focus on is Rome. We, in many ways, are like Rome. Overextended military, assassinations, illegal immigrants (ours, Mexicans; Rome's, Goths and such).

Rome fell shortly after it gave up its beliefs for Christianity. Traditionally, most Americans have been Christan. There is much less involvement in churches now than there ever has been.

(Disclaimer: I do not believe that the United States was founded by Christians, and neither do the Conservatives I know. Most founders were Deists.)

Nobody I know agrees with policing the world, or invasion of privacy in the name of protecting the State, and everyone I know, know they've been shafted. That seems to be the overwhelming consensus here, as well.

The Conservatives generally feel their party has failed them. The Liberals I know generally feel their party has failed them. (I mean, c'mon, Junior and Obama. Last election I voted for Scooby Doo. I had nobody I could agree with!)

The way I figure things, I'll live my life. My right to throw a punch ends where your nose begins, but if I'm not hurting anyone, let me be. I will enforce my enumerated rights with my 2nd amendment right if need be.

The Conservatives I know genuinely believe that Liberals are all for abortion, total invasion of privacy (Big Brother), total banishment of firearms, and turning the US into the Socialist States of America, and many more things.

The Liberals I know (and am getting to know) seem to think much the same thing.

Reading a lot of threads here, it looks like I'm on a conservative board... or what I was taught was conservative.

I do not like being a slave. Neither do the conservatives. As far as I know, the liberals don't like it, either.

Conservatives I know are all for alternate energies and are angered by big business (oil, especially) stopping legislation supporting it.

Liberals I know are all for alternate energies and are angered by big business (oil, especially) stopping legislation supporting it.

I personally think that it would be cool to throw a fuel cell into my Blazer.

The Conservatives I know believe in global warming as a natural process.

The Liberals I know believe in global warming as a man-made process.

I believe that we are still warming up from the last ice age. This is scientifically supported. I also believe we're contributing to it, speeding it up. I do not believe that fossil fuels have as much to do with it as flatulence and just general overpopulation.

I often wonder if the two major factions, Conservatives and Liberals, are intentionally manipulated by agitators in the spirit of divide and conquer.

A nation divided against itself cannot stand... up to a tyrannical government, perhaps?

I think there's a lot less of a party and/or Conservative vs Liberal issue these days so much as there's a class issue.

I'm just for common sense and stepping outside to look in objectively. I just wonder if the majority are willing to do that... Study the situation without becoming immersed, read the current political books as one would read a political history of Rome.

I should mention that I only listen to the thinking folks from both sides of the line. Those spouting rhetoric I tend to ignore. This includes an uncle, most fundamentalist church members, and a lot of others.

Blindly following anything isn't good, I don't reckon. I've questioned things from the time I could talk.

Anyway, this is what I see and wonder if we're being intentionally divided so we cannot form a united front.

Regards,

Josh

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I don't come anywhere near agreeing with people who think that making a party platform impugning my equality is a reasonable thing to even consider. I don't come anywhere near agreeing with people who think that the poor are lazy. I don't come anywhere near agreeing with people who think the world changing to accommodate a wider variety of voices and experiences is scary. I don't come anywhere near agreeing with people who think stirring up racial hatred for political advantage is anything less than reprehensible.

I could go on, but there's no need to. In the history of the United States, there has never been a major issue in which the side that was best described as conservative has been judged right by history. NOT ONE. Slavery, labor rights, immigration, isolationists in the early 40s, hawks in the early 60s, environmental regulation, a woman's right to bodily autonomy, anyone's right to bodily autonomy, teaching science to children so they understand the world around them and understand what evidence constitutes an actual fact. NOT ONE

Sociopathic detachment is not intellectual objectivity.

Eliminationist attitudes towards those who are different are not points to debate, they are the hateful impulse of fear.

If I hold a position that is close to that held by someone who claims to be a conservative, it is because they are inconsistent in their conservatism or it is because some conservatives may be able to observe that there is a cloud in the sky without blaming it on a Mexican or a "Welfare Queen".

If you think my views are not too far from those of a modern US conservative, then you aren't listening.

Edited because somehow I managed to leave the word "near" out of several sentences on the first full paragraph (I was pretty well in my cups).

I believe that we are still warming up from the last ice age. This is scientifically supported. I also believe we're contributing to it, speeding it up. I do not believe that fossil fuels have as much to do with it as flatulence and just general overpopulation.

To understand global warming you have to understand what's going on. First the earth used to be much hotter during both warm and cool periods and most of north america was under water. This was because of a much higher concentration of CO2. Second the earth does go through warm/cold cycles of which we are in a warming period, which will end in an ice age. Lastly, you have to understand why the earth had a general cooling period over both the warm and cool periods. This was because CO2 got trapped in the fossil record. We in the bast few hundred years stopped using carbon neutral sources such as wood, which absorbs the CO2 when it grows, and started using the fossil fuels, releasing half of total fossil record of CO2 in just over two centuries. So this isn't unprecedented by the bulk of the warming is over the normal for what we would be experiencing and is directly correlated to human activity, particularly using fuels that, in their short term production don't trap CO2, so you get an overabundance of CO2 leading to a period of warming that hasn't been seen since the mosasaur was the predominant hunter in my native state of georgia.


In short flatulence has very little to do with the warming over what we would normally be seeing due to the fact that in it's short term production it has to be trapped and then released leading to essentially 0 extra production even if there is more animals to be flatulent, if anything the increased number of animals actually leads to lower methane production due to more being trapped in the form of cow or chicken ect, ect, ect. Now Fracturing and warming of the natural ice methane pockets, that could lead to higher concentrations of methane.

Fukshot wrote:Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I don't come anywhere agreeing with people who think that making a party platform impugning my equality is a reasonable thing to even consider. I don't come anywhere agreeing with people who think that the poor are lazy. I don't come anywhere near agreeing with people who think the world changing to accommodate a wider variety of voices and experiences is scary. I don't come anywhere agreeing with people who think stirring up racial hatred for political advantage is anything less than reprehensible.

I could go on, but there's no need to. In the history of the United States, there has never been a major issue in which the side that was best described as conservative has been judged right by history. NOT ONE. Slavery, labor rights, immigration, isolationists in the early 40s, hawks in the early 60s, environmental regulation, a woman's right to bodily autonomy, anyone's right to bodily autonomy, teaching science to children so they understand the world around them and understand what evidence constitutes an actual fact. NOT ONE

Sociopathic detachment is not intellectual objectivity.

Eliminationist attitudes towards those who are different are not points to debate, they are the hateful impulse of fear.

If I hold a position that is close to that held by someone who claims to be a conservative, it is because they are inconsistent in their conservatism or it is because some conservatives may be able to observe that there is a cloud in the sky without blaming it on a Mexican or a "Welfare Queen".

If you think my views are not too far from those of a modern US conservative, then you aren't listening.

I can think of only one: as a whole, the conservative side of things supports the right to keep and bear arms more than our liberal brethren. (Though you have to be the right kind of person. No guns for liberals or uppity blacks or LGBT or...)

Welcome aboard!

You can talk religion and politics here. Most of us are mature adults unlike typical gun forums. We focus on ideas and not personal attacks.

The talk radio crowd has been trained against rationality. As one far right leader said, "We are not a part of the reality based community."

Put it out there. You are welcomed!

KVoimakas wrote: I can think of only one: as a whole, the conservative side of things supports the right to keep and bear arms more than our liberal brethren. (Though you have to be the right kind of person. No guns for liberals or uppity blacks or LGBT or...)

Liberals are more open-minded about the 2nd Amendment than the NRA propaganda about them. Check out those lying, MFing bastards here:

Says Barack "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’ "

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... r-nra-say/

President Barack Obama has shown little interest in peddling a gun control agenda during his first term, but the National Rifle Association is urging its members not to let its guard down ahead of the 2012 election.

In a new mailer, forwarded to us by a reader, the gun rights group lists "Ten Reasons Why Obama is Bad for the Second Amendment." We’ve been exploring several claims on the list this week -- you can see our findings here.

A crucial point to the don’t-sleep-on-Obama thinking comes in as reason No. 10 on the NRA list: "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’"

The quote and the claim struck us as interesting because 1.) It’s typically not smart to say you’re doing something "under the radar," if you’re actually doing something under the radar, and 2.) It suggests something of a conspiracy because Sarah Brady is a prominent gun control advocate, having helped create the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence with her husband Jim. (We’re assuming you know the Brady story, but if you don’t -- this will help .)

We decided to check it out.

While the NRA didn’t respond to our questions about the claim, we found the genesis of the Obama quote easy enough.

It comes from a 2011 Washington Post profile of White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley. It’s not a direct quote from Obama, rather it’s Brady recalling to Post reporter Jason Horowitz her meeting with Obama on March 30, 2011, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

Hey Zen, I based my statement on generalities and a couple polls I've seen that show gun ownership among Democrats in the 30s while gun ownership in the Rethuglican party if much higher.

some of this is outright stupid, and even more so if true(it isn't), america is not britan, and it sure as hell isn't australia, gun owners here aren't just going to give up their guns. Attempting to institute a total gun ban overnight would result in the biggest bloodbath on american soil since the civil war... granted it doesn't take much to do that. Bit by bit by bit, that might be possible, but if you start coming to people houses to collect weapons you are going to have some very dead collectors, and that 's just the crazy neo-nazi whako's on the right.

KVoimakas wrote:Hey Zen, I based my statement on generalities and a couple polls I've seen that show gun ownership among Democrats in the 30s while gun ownership in the Rethuglican party if much higher.

Ownership has little to do with supporting the Constitution.

Most liberals just want rational registration and licensing. They don't want criminals and crazies having easy access to firearms. The NRA and GOP paints anybody who is reasonable about these aspects as anti-gun.

Urban liberal women (the vast majority who are against the NRA) are primarily reacting to the irrationality of the knuckle draggers. Fear mongering is the far rights primary tool.

If you want to win those Liberal women over, think with your brainz and not your guts, when you talk to them about firearms. It worked with my wife. Before me, she never had firearms in her life. Like most Urban women, her only exposure to firearms was on the evening news, hearing about gunshot victims. Rural liberal women have a different attitude, because they grew up with firearms. Grandpa owned them. They see them as tools.

Zenmason wrote:

KVoimakas wrote:Hey Zen, I based my statement on generalities and a couple polls I've seen that show gun ownership among Democrats in the 30s while gun ownership in the Rethuglican party if much higher.

Ownership has little to do with supporting the Constitution.

Most liberals just want rational registration and licensing. They don't want criminals and crazies having easy access to firearms. The NRA and GOP paints anybody who is reasonable about these aspects as anti-gun.

Urban liberal women (the vast majority who are against the NRA) are primarily reacting to the irrationality of the knuckle draggers. Fear mongering is the far rights primary tool.

If you want to win those Liberal women over, think with your brainz and not your guts, when you talk to them about firearms. It worked with my wife. Before me, she never had firearms in her life. Like most Urban women, her only exposure to firearms was on the evening news, hearing about gunshot victims. Rural liberal women have a different attitude, because they grew up with firearms. Grandpa owned them. They see them as tools.

Valid point (ownership versus Constitution supporting).

I'm a hard core lefty liberal and I'm against any kind of registration. I have no problem with licenses for shall issue carry though. So my version of reasonable (from the very left hand side of things) is no registration just like our other civil rights. I also don't want criminals and crazies having easy access to firearms but supply side gun control really isn't going to work here for enforcement reasons (among others). I'd prefer for less criminals and crazies to be out there and concentrate on the root of the issues (jobs, education, jobs, single payer, jobs) instead of just a symptom.

I've spoken to quite a few women (and taught as well) about RKBA and the second amendment. I completely agree with what you're saying about a different argument. Not this Saturday but last, I brought a coworker out to the range and after a safety briefing and familiarization, she ended up shooting very well with my wife's .22. (She's definitely from an urban area.) Now she's interested in obtaining her own firearms and shooting regularly. After the first few very shaky (and scary, for her) rounds, she was able to get into it.

My wife had never been out shooting before me. She was not a fan of guns since her bio-father is a giant fucking useless pile of shit. She shoots now.

Edit: so my point with the last two examples is that I do know of what you speak, from experience.

KVoimakas wrote:My wife had never been out shooting before me.

Mine swore there'd never be a gun in a house she lived in. Then she married a cop.

SwampGrouch wrote:

KVoimakas wrote:My wife had never been out shooting before me.

Mine swore there'd never be a gun in a house she lived in. Then she married a cop.

Mine said the same thing, then we got broken into.

KVoimakas wrote:I can think of only one: as a whole, the conservative side of things supports the right to keep and bear arms more than our liberal brethren. (Though you have to be the right kind of person. No guns for liberals or uppity blacks or LGBT or...)

I see that as inconsistency. Gun rights aren't a traditionally conservative cause. Only in US politics of the last couple of decades.

Fukshot wrote:Gun rights aren't a traditionally conservative cause. Only in US politics of the last couple of decades.

This part I agree with, and I really don't understand why they are now unless it's due to the Brady people (whatever they're calling themselves now.)

I can't stand either Chris Matthews or Rush Limbaugh. Same type of person but polar opposites when it comes to politics.

When I think "Liberal", I think "Chris Matthews". I used to think "Rush Limbaugh" when someone said "Conservative", but most Conservatives I know are much more moderate.

I understand Steve Colbert. I like Steve Colbert and the way he addresses issues is awesome. I can understand them... even if he left comedy out.

I guess maybe I'm trying to understand something I cannot. I posed the same question as in my initial post to Conservatives, and got many of the same answers. Many I cannot argue with because it's like their minds are stuck in endless loops. Same with a lot of Liberals. However, I'm meeting both Conservatives elsewhere and Liberals here, who I can talk with and actually give intelligent reasons for their stances. I may not agree with them, but I can at least respect that!

I do not have anything to do with propaganda. I used to be a member of the NRA, but their propaganda honestly turned me off. I do need to support some organization that looks after my rights on a national level, and I'm thinking hard about the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They are not in-your-face like the NRA has been of late.

My mind has a very scientific and mechanical bent to it. I do not know if I'm capable of understanding politics on the levels of most folks. Most things I learn easily, but politics I'm simply unable to grasp, I guess.

I'm not trying to stir the pot. Just another attempt (from a long line of attempts!) to understand a science that seems a bit beyond my abilities.

Regards,

Josh