rolandson wrote:

Collector1337 wrote: ...Are you saying that I should not vote in my own self-interest?

The republican agenda simplified.

Are you actually claiming democrats don't do this?

Collector1337 wrote:

rolandson wrote:

Collector1337 wrote: ...Are you saying that I should not vote in my own self-interest?

The republican agenda simplified.

Are you actually claiming democrats don't do this?

Why yes, yes I am.

Democrats regularly advance agenda that conflict with personal self interest; higher taxes, environmental restrictions, social issues...because as thinking people, they recognize that their interests are not necessarily the only ones that matter. A concept that republicans seem incapable of comprehending.

I understand completely voting in your own self-interest. If gun rights is your issue, no problem. I don't think it shows a lack of empathy. I used to be a one issue voter. Abortion rights was my deciding factor. It still weighs heavily in my decision, I don't think voting in your own self-interest is a Republican idea. What needs to be highlighted is how what is good for women, minorities, etc. is also good for the country as a whole.

I actually wish more people would vote in their own self-interest. If they did, then a lot of poor white Southerners would be voting Democrat. I laugh and cry every time I see a single wide trailer with a Romney sign in the yard.

The Democrats should come out forcefully in favor of gun rights. They need to stop ceding this issue to the Republicans. Why don't they run "scary" ads highlighting Romney's ban on assault weapons? Opposition to gun rights is not winning the Democrats any voters, but it is costing them votes.

rolandson wrote: Why yes, yes I am.

Democrats regularly advance agenda that conflict with personal self interest; higher taxes, environmental restrictions, social issues...because as thinking people, they recognize that their interests are not necessarily the only ones that matter. A concept that republicans seem incapable of comprehending.

What you should say is SOME democrats do this. You don't have the authority to know and then say you know why every democrat votes the way they do, that's just impossible. You're making an absolute statement that just isn't true.

If a gay person votes democrat, they are voting in their self-interest, etc, etc, etc. There are plenty of democrats who vote their own self-interest, so saying that they don't is pure malarkey.

dollhog wrote:I understand completely voting in your own self-interest. If gun rights is your issue, no problem. I don't think it shows a lack of empathy. I used to be a one issue voter. Abortion rights was my deciding factor. It still weighs heavily in my decision, I don't think voting in your own self-interest is a Republican idea. What needs to be highlighted is how what is good for women, minorities, etc. is also good for the country as a whole.

I actually wish more people would vote in their own self-interest. If they did, then a lot of poor white Southerners would be voting Democrat. I laugh and cry every time I see a single wide trailer with a Romney sign in the yard.

The Democrats should come out forcefully in favor of gun rights. They need to stop ceding this issue to the Republicans. Why don't they run "scary" ads highlighting Romney's ban on assault weapons? Opposition to gun rights is not winning the Democrats any voters, but it is costing them votes.

I agree , especially about the trailer Romney sign comment. I wish I had enough money to vote Republican, I STILL WOULD NOT, but I damn sure would donate more to the issues that are so important to me. My dad always told me growing up " son, there are two types of Republicans, rich ones and fools" he was right.

Collector, You may not realize this, but you are telling me that you value your hobbies more than my equal citizenship. You are telling me that people like me don't deserve to be full human beings in the eye of the law unless it is convenient for you.

That makes it hard for me to think of you as anything but part of the problem I have devoted much of my adult life to solving. If you aren't part of the solution, you are an outright danger to the safety of me and mine. I have personally lost more people than I can count, largely because of the way they were not seen as important enough for significant efforts to be made to save them. It is hard for me to face your way of prioritization without the full weight of those losses in my heart.

Now go ahead and tell me that it's too bad, but not your problem.

Fukshot wrote:Collector, You may not realize this, but you are telling me that you value your hobbies more than my equal citizenship. You are telling me that people like me don't deserve to be full human beings in the eye of the law unless it is convenient for you.

That makes it hard for me to think of you as anything but part of the problem I have devoted much of my adult life to solving. If you aren't part of the solution, you are an outright danger to the safety of me and mine. I have personally lost more people than I can count, largely because of the way they were not seen as important enough for significant efforts to be made to save them. It is hard for me to face your way of prioritization without the full weight of those losses in my heart.

Now go ahead and tell me that it's too bad, but not your problem.

Wrong. That's not what I'm saying at all. Not even close. I want what you want.

I'm saying it's my vote and I can do with it whatever I want. I have no obligation to you or anyone else.

Your comments is what you should be saying to hardcore right-wingers, not me.

I'm not going to fall for your whole guilt trip thing. Nice try though.

I vote for what is important to me, and the things that affect me the most directly. You make it seem like I've stated that I'm going to vote for Willard Rmoney, which I never have. It seems to me like you are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions.

I am responding to exactly what you said. Words mean things. You might notice that I am not the only person here reading you this way.

Telling you about my perspective and experience is guilt tripping you?

Collector1337 wrote:It seems to me like you are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions.

it's a pretty easy assumption to make when you say that you would choose gun rights over all else and simultaneously blame the Democratic party for being anti gun.....

Collector1337 wrote: ...Your comments is what you should be saying to hardcore right-wingers, not me...

The content and quality of your posts suggest that you and they are one in the same.

Did I say I was voting for Willard?

NO I DID NOT!

rolandson wrote:

Collector1337 wrote: ...Your comments is what you should be saying to hardcore right-wingers, not me...

The content and quality of your posts suggest that you and they are one in the same.

If that's how you're going to treat one of your own, then I might as well vote for Willard. What's with the condescending and disrespectful nature? I've done nothing of the sort to anyone here.

Yeah, right-wingers are totally pro-choice and pro-gay. That makes a lot of sense. WTF? You are obviously hearing what you want to hear in my posts and ignoring what you choose to ignore.

By the way, I thought this was a gun forum, not an LGBT forum. If you had any idea what my involvement was in the LGBT community, you wouldn't be treating me like this. Regardless, this is a GUN FORUM after all. So, I take my gun rights pretty seriously. But, you are making the serious error an assuming that just because I value my gun rights, that it means I won't vote for Obama. You really don't see how you are making this erroneous assumption? Because it's pretty obvious.

I'm just concerned about Obama's comments about AWB, but Willard's record is no better. I'm confident that there aren't the votes in the House or Senate either to put a bill on his desk.

But, I'm also saying that I won't be a partisan pawn and Dems need to drop the AWB and mag capacity thing, and any other for that matter, gun agenda.

To be honest, I'm really appalled by the eagerness of some here to jump down my throat. Instead of having civilized argument, you are reinforcing the stereotype right-wingers have that liberals are arrogant, know-it-alls, who want to cram it down your throat. Is that really the kind of stereotype you want to perpetuate?

dollhog wrote:I understand completely voting in your own self-interest. If gun rights is your issue, no problem. I don't think it shows a lack of empathy. I used to be a one issue voter. Abortion rights was my deciding factor. It still weighs heavily in my decision, I don't think voting in your own self-interest is a Republican idea. What needs to be highlighted is how what is good for women, minorities, etc. is also good for the country as a whole.

I actually wish more people would vote in their own self-interest. If they did, then a lot of poor white Southerners would be voting Democrat. I laugh and cry every time I see a single wide trailer with a Romney sign in the yard.

The Democrats should come out forcefully in favor of gun rights. They need to stop ceding this issue to the Republicans. Why don't they run "scary" ads highlighting Romney's ban on assault weapons? Opposition to gun rights is not winning the Democrats any voters, but it is costing them votes.

+10

All we have to respond to is what you say, not the understanding of who you are that you seem to think we should magically be able to conjure through your sheer force of magic fucking intent.

Say what you mean, mean what you say.

You say

By the way, I thought this was a gun forum, not an LGBT forum. If you had any idea what my involvement was in the LGBT community, you wouldn't be treating me like this.

First, anywhere in the universe I have anything to say about LGBT stuff I will say it. Second, we know nothing but what you have told us. If you want to treat you like who you are, you have to tell us who you are.

That's how interactions between human beings work. I'd think a clinical psychologist could figure that out.

dollhog wrote:Why don't they run "scary" ads highlighting Romney's ban on assault weapons? Opposition to gun rights is not winning the Democrats any voters, but it is costing them votes.

Because we (gun ownin'/totin' Dems) aren't recognized as an active block within the party yet. This forum and the organization behind it are a step in that direction.

You have to be part of it, too, though. Become active in your local Democratic organization. Do grunt work (people with pick-up trucks become very important to the local organization when it's time to haul signs and stuff like that). Attend meetings and articulate those same points you made when gun control comes up as a platform plank. Emphasize that this single issue is sending working class voters to the GOP. Emphasize that "gun violence" has more to do with poverty, a War-on-Drugs driven underground economy (just like the last Prohibition), and a miserably broken mental health care system than it does with guns.

Yeah, they need to do something. They is Us.

SwampGrouch wrote:Yeah, they need to do something. They is Us.

Stolen

Collector1337 wrote:To be honest,

That implies you haven't been.

Fukshot wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:Yeah, they need to do something. They is Us. (Pogo, 1953.)

Stolen

Better?

SwampGrouch wrote:

Fukshot wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:Yeah, they need to do something. They is Us. (Pogo, 1953.)

Stolen

Better?

No, check my sig.

Fukshot wrote:No, check my sig.

So much for my keenly honed powers of observation.

SwampGrouch wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:To be honest,

That implies you haven't been.

No it doesn't. It's just an expression.

WOW.

Collector1337 wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:To be honest,

That implies you haven't been.

No it doesn't. It's just an expression.

WOW.

But it does.

To be blunt, you frankly need to chose your wording more carefully.
Copyright 2012, the Department of Redundancy Department

Edit: For the sake of full disclosure, I learned to be on the alert for that "to be honest" verbiage from a clinical psychologist.

And here I was foolish enough to think that this forum would have much more class and not be so disrespectful like so many right-wing forums are.

I guess I was wrong.

I guess if you want to be on the same level as them, that's fine.

I guess my hope of this being a better and safer place with better tolerance was too high.

Even more sad, it's the mods that are being so disrespectful, not just average Joe forum member.

SwampGrouch wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote: That implies you haven't been.

No it doesn't. It's just an expression.

WOW.

But it does.

To be blunt, you frankly need to chose your wording more carefully.
Copyright 2012, the Department of Redundancy Department

Edit: For the sake of full disclosure, I learned to be on the alert for that "to be honest" verbiage from a clinical psychologist.

Yeah, and a lot of them read way too deep into things that really mean nothing. One of the problems of the profession.

That, and you just don't know me. If you did you wouldn't say that.

So, what is it that you think I'm lying about?

Collector1337 wrote:And here I was foolish enough to think that this forum would have much more class and not be so disrespectful like so many right-wing forums are.

I guess I was wrong.

I guess if you want to be on the same level as them, that's fine.

I guess my hope of this being a better and safer place with better tolerance was too high.

Even more sad, it's the mods that are being so disrespectful, not just average Joe forum member.

Translation: "I've been exposed as a poser and pwned."

If you want to be respected, don't claim academic status or professional licensure ("clinical psychologist") that you do not have.

(I'll stop now.)

Wow, although I can't say that I agree with Collector 100%,I think he definitely has a point in that y'all are coming down on him pretty hard, and I can't say in truth that I think it's fully warranted. Go easy on the new arrivals, eh? Give him/them a chance to get the feel of the forum before jumping down their throats.

Gay rights are very important to me personally too, but as he said, this is a gun forum, and there is a general presupposition that conversations will be gun-centric. He is a competitive shooter, and that clearly plays a large role In his life. I read his posts in this thread, and again, I don't agree with everything he's said, but that's life. We won't always agree, but civility is the rule here. We're liberals. Not everyone sets their priorities alike, and that doesn't necessarily make them bad people. I fully understand the importance of certain topics for many of us, but don't just write someone else off because they don't immediately line up in your first interaction. A lack of 100% devotion to your causes don't make someone your enemy. Please get that.