The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

ArmedAndLiberal wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Progressive anti-gun? Not from what I saw (or said). There has got to be some things we can advocate for that won't be the end of the world.

There is. It is called "root cause mitigation" by those who have already posted about it more times than I care to remember in other threads, despite your assumption a couple of those those same people are 2A absolutists for not going into detail about it here. It is great that you want to ban or restrict your way to a paradigm that would still have no affect on violence, but there are a few of us here who simply do not buy into the idea that prohibitions are the answer.

In offering support, I think you would get significantly better play for your proposals above on DailyKos where there is a large contingent of people very interested in anything having to do with prohibiting guns. They will not be keen to discuss shooting sports with you though. That is better to do here.

rockyriverleather wrote:Well, I've watched this Bernie centric topic go from alas and alack, to I'm voting Republican, to basically a progressive anti gun initiative. Time for all the OT conversations to start their own new topics. There's at least 20 potential ones here in these comments.

There was already a topic specifically about Bernie's stance on guns. http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... =1&t=33083
Since then many more have been started for some reason, so I can see people not being too concerned with maintaining the integrity of yet another thread about Bernie being against guns.

Typical of the 2A Absolutists. Point to one thing I said that suggested or supported any type of ban of anything? The 2A rabble have this unfortunate tendency to reinterpret any suggestion or idea and cast it into another attempt at gun grabbing, bans, and all the rest of the nastiness. Talk about morose colored glasses....

My suggestion was only to classify firearms into two categories. One that can be freely owned by anyone without any restrictions except the typical ones that are applied today (i.e. felons, wife beaters, and the like)

The other class I said would benefit from some system of assurance, kind of like the two-man rule used for critical jobs in the military as an example. My thought was under the auspices of a locally formed and managed shooting club, to the point of even help support the initiative with tax dollars. It could even be an NRA local chapter kind of deal.

None of that even mentioned any sort of ban. Wouldn't that be a break with the tradition of NRA negativity for them to get in front of an issue and suggest something other than "NO!"

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Nice list. But you won't see conservatives advocating for many of those.

gator68 wrote: Yes, and isn't that exactly the point?? Progressives (and the Demo party) should be pushing for that list, exactly because it won't come from the other side.

Instead, they are wasting their time pushing inane laws that would not have prevented any of the terrible attacks they claim to care about so deeply.

Why is that?

Wurble wrote:

senorgrand wrote: I don't consider myself a 2A absolutist, but I am pretty pro 2A. Here are just SOME of the things that would help:
1) Universal not-for-profit healthcare
2) Ending the Drug War
3) Ending racist police practices
4) Changing our attitudes about mental health
5) Stop giving publicity murderers publicity

I'd also like to point out that there are more guns in American than at any other time in history, yet violent crime is down to a 50-year low.

This right here.

The way to stop gun crime has nothing to do with guns. It's about putting programs in place that prevent people from falling into the pits of despair.

Universal healthcare:
Number one cause of bankruptcy in America is medical bills. What happens to people who have lost everything? A lot of them resort to crime. Universal healthcare means no one ever goes bankrupt ever again due to health.

Ending the drug war:
Drug dealers shoot each other. They shoot each other because it is the only way they can resolve disputes. They can't go to the police because what they are doing is illegal. Make it legal and they can go through legal channels like any other business. Criminal enterprises make lots of money from drugs right now. They won't if they are legal for the same reason they don't sell beer or cigarettes. When you take the money away from criminal enterprises, crime goes down significantly. We saw this when prohibition ended. Ending the drug war would reduce the number of people going to prison by a MASSIVE amount. Folks who have been to prison find great difficulty gaining employment in anything other than a criminal endeavor. Fewer people sent to prison for drugs means more people can work legal jobs.

Ending racist police practices:
In many areas, police act as an occupying force instead of police. The practices currently engaged by a large number of police forces result in gross distrust of the police. This means police can't do their job and crime persists. This causes police to get more violent and more likely to violate rights in order to do their job. This in turn escalates violence between police and criminals and alienates police even more from the community they are supposed to be serving.

Changing attitudes about mental health:
Stop demonizing people who have mental health issues. There is such a stigma associated with mental health issues that most people who need it refuse to seek it and try as much as they can to simply hide it. Creating negative consequences for seeking treatment means fewer people seek treatment.

Stop giving murderers publicity:
So many spree killers and mass murders had 1 and only 1 motive fame. If their names were never once mentioned on the news, their faces never shown, then it would remove the single most common motive of mass murderers. If anyone thinking about doing such an act knew that their name would be forgotten and never mentioned; that fame was an impossibility, they would likely find some other action to fulfill their need.

shinzen wrote:

gator68 wrote: Yes, and isn't that exactly the point?? Progressives (and the Demo party) should be pushing for that list, exactly because it won't come from the other side.

Instead, they are wasting their time pushing inane laws that would not have prevented any of the terrible attacks they claim to care about so deeply.

Why is that?

Amen. It's a driving force behind why we exist in the first place. If we were advocating for the same stuff as everybody else, then the question of why we are here would be much harder to answer.

gator68 wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Nice list. But you won't see conservatives advocating for many of those.

Yes, and isn't that exactly the point?? Progressives (and the Demo party) should be pushing for that list, exactly because it won't come from the other side.

Instead, they are wasting their time pushing inane laws that would not have prevented any of the terrible attacks they claim to care about so deeply.

Why is that?

eelj wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote: Typical of the 2A Absolutists. Point to one thing I said that suggested or supported any type of ban of anything? The 2A rabble have this unfortunate tendency to reinterpret any suggestion or idea and cast it into another attempt at gun grabbing, bans, and all the rest of the nastiness. Talk about morose colored glasses....

My suggestion was only to classify firearms into two categories. One that can be freely owned by anyone without any restrictions except the typical ones that are applied today (i.e. felons, wife beaters, and the like)

The other class I said would benefit from some system of assurance, kind of like the two-man rule used for critical jobs in the military as an example. My thought was under the auspices of a locally formed and managed shooting club, to the point of even help support the initiative with tax dollars. It could even be an NRA local chapter kind of deal.

None of that even mentioned any sort of ban. Wouldn't that be a break with the tradition of NRA negativity for them to get in front of an issue and suggest something other than "NO!"

We already have that, in order to own machine guns or destructive devices you have to be very rich and connected to get the permits. Myself since I'm a constitution absolutist I guess that makes me 2am absolutist. Do you have any other amendments you want to pervert or just the 2nd?

rascally wrote:Again with the 2A "rabble" crack? What, are you a slow learner?

rascally wrote:Again with the 2A "rabble" crack? What, are you a slow learner?

: a large group of loud people who could become violent; a mob
: ordinary or common people who do not have a lot of money, power, or social status
: the lowest class of people
: ordinary people, especially when regarded as socially inferior or uncouth.

Examples of RABBLE

<the crown prince was reminded that even the rabble of the realm deserved his attention and compassion>

rascally wrote:
For what it's worth, you got the attribution wrong. I never typed that...

begemot wrote:

rascally wrote:Again with the 2A "rabble" crack? What, are you a slow learner?

According to Merriam-Webster

: a large group of loud people who could become violent; a mob
: ordinary or common people who do not have a lot of money, power, or social status
: the lowest class of people
: ordinary people, especially when regarded as socially inferior or uncouth.

Examples of RABBLE

<the crown prince was reminded that even the rabble of the realm deserved his attention and compassion>

I wonder where I fit in. I'm relatively quiet, non-violent, and dislike large groups. Probably ordinary and uncouth...
Intentional or not, this probably goes a long way toward supporting the "Liberal elite" stereotype.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

begemot wrote:

rascally wrote:Again with the 2A "rabble" crack? What, are you a slow learner?

According to Merriam-Webster

: a large group of loud people who could become violent; a mob
: ordinary or common people who do not have a lot of money, power, or social status
: the lowest class of people
: ordinary people, especially when regarded as socially inferior or uncouth.

Examples of RABBLE

<the crown prince was reminded that even the rabble of the realm deserved his attention and compassion>

I wonder where I fit in. I'm relatively quiet, non-violent, and dislike large groups. Probably ordinary and uncouth...
Intentional or not, this probably goes a long way toward supporting the "Liberal elite" stereotype.

Go to some of the more popular 2A boards and you'll find examples of the primary definition.

Inquisitor wrote:Well, 200 years of jurisprudence, multiple original state constitutions and the USC disagree. Individuals are protected.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

There is plenty of good nonpartisan history out there to read on why it's written that way. My favorite book is "the Founders Second Amendment"


The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1566639719/re ... zwb9RVY8R2

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:
Form a well regulated militia and then we can talk about being a constitutional absolutist. I don't believe the 2A was a right that was ever meant to be expressed in isolation. The 2A rabble always drop the first part of that admittedly poorly formed sentence. But the right was never stated as "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If the founders wanted it that straightforward, that's the way they would have written it.