I think Yamane is running a very excellent experiment with respect to liberal gun ownership. A worthwhile half hour while you clean your revolvers.

[youtu_be]https://youtu.be/Z9W6HEx5hXY?si=Fhz4w6YhuQq3Z-FU[/youtu_be]

He likens liberal gun ownership to the Chinese finger trap.

CDF

I don't know why the snowflake liberals decided to take on gun control. When I was growing up there wasn't any liberal anti-gun groups. You either loved them or disliked them, maybe didn't care either way.
FWIW and many know this but there's right wing people who don't like guns or could care either way. Lots of both sides just don't think it's a valid problem to chase.
I think you'll find that now the liberals have taken this on right wingers will take a stand just because they don't like liberals. And in the past didn't care to say anything.

Obviously we have many polls that show both sides want some sort of gun control. Try and find a liberal leaning political party that doesn't ask for more gun control.
If I was running for an election I just wouldn't address it. And I wish liberals and dems would shut the heck up about it.

So thats my agony, snowflake l;iberals ranting on about how they need to take all the guns.

Yamane calls liberal gun owners "betwixt and between," as we don't fit totally into the "gun owner" side of the Venn diagram, and we don't fit totally into the "liberal" side of the Venn diagram. He has a few slides to illustrate.

CDF

Someone here on these forums (Sikac?) said that if we go far enough Left we get our guns back - in the Far Left theories I have read, being armed is a must do. i'm pretty sure the current gun grabbing logic has been promoted by folks who have a desire to see America disarmed on the civilian level or so highly infringed as to be effectively hamstrung.

It's by design. Every shooting is promoted and twisted as another sign that all the guns have to be restricted if everyone/anyone is to be safe.

VooDoo

VodoundaVinci wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2024 6:49 pm Someone here on these forums (Sikac?) said that if we go far enough Left we get our guns back - in the Far Left theories I have read, being armed is a must do. i'm pretty sure the current gun grabbing logic has been promoted by folks who have a desire to see America disarmed on the civilian level or so highly infringed as to be effectively hamstrung.

It's by design. Every shooting is promoted and twisted as another sign that all the guns have to be restricted if everyone/anyone is to be safe.

VooDoo

How does one maintain the means of production without arms, one wonders...

featureless wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2024 7:38 pm

VodoundaVinci wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2024 6:49 pm Someone here on these forums (Sikac?) said that if we go far enough Left we get our guns back - in the Far Left theories I have read, being armed is a must do. i'm pretty sure the current gun grabbing logic has been promoted by folks who have a desire to see America disarmed on the civilian level or so highly infringed as to be effectively hamstrung.

It's by design. Every shooting is promoted and twisted as another sign that all the guns have to be restricted if everyone/anyone is to be safe.

VooDoo

How does one maintain the means of production without arms, one wonders...

Lol....Exactly.

VooDoo

VodoundaVinci wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2024 6:49 pm Someone here on these forums (Sikac?) said that if we go far enough Left we get our guns back - in the Far Left theories I have read, being armed is a must do. i'm pretty sure the current gun grabbing logic has been promoted by folks who have a desire to see America disarmed on the civilian level or so highly infringed as to be effectively hamstrung.

It's by design. Every shooting is promoted and twisted as another sign that all the guns have to be restricted if everyone/anyone is to be safe.

VooDoo

I won't say I'm the only one to cite that phrase here ("If we go far enough left, we get our guns back"), but I picked it up from some folks on my social media feeds, and I'm sure I've mentioned it here. Again, others here may have also used the phrase.

My own position is pretty far left--I'm probably a "leftist" by most folks' standards. Many of my leftist friends decry the group they call "liberals" as being to the political right of Bernie Sanders by a fair margin, and often their definition of "liberal" intersects closely with "corporatist." Biden is a corporatist, and Harris isn't far to his left, if at all. Those who my leftist friends refer to as "liberals" seem to want to remove guns from everyone except the military and police. I dissent, and forcefully.

I am dead solid certain that cops are not the only non-military people who should have guns. Heck, with the oft-cited "40% of cops are involved in DV incidents" statistic that gets thrown around, and with the very real data that shows cops kill more people per year than "mass shooters," there are clearly a lot of cops that should never have access to firearms.

https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/ ... -bx-uIOv7o

Good video, I enjoy David Yamane's talks. The anti-gun groups mainly funded by Michael Bloomberg are a key part of the shadow party within the Democratic Party and they dictate the policies the party takes on firearms. Bloomberg is also a billionaire and money talks in both political parties. The anti-gun message is strong in the Democratic silo, so Democratic Party supporters hear it all the time.

Instead of violence the message is gun violence and their simplistic answer is ban guns. Like the anti-abortionists they know that it's hard to ban something, so they use an incremental approach of making it more and more difficult to acquire firearms and to obtain a carry license. It's why I don't like one party states, democracy means getting out of our silos and listening to all voices even if we disagree.

Anti gunners have a hard time understanding that there's a dark side to human nature, that there's a dark side on the yin yang symbol. A finger has to pull the trigger. A person can get shot or can shoot first, but always there's a person involved. Humans who do not want to truly understand find a convenient scapegoat in guns.

CDF

highdesert wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:54 pm Good video, I enjoy David Yamane's talks. The anti-gun groups mainly funded by Michael Bloomberg are a key part of the shadow party within the Democratic Party and they dictate the policies the party takes on firearms. Bloomberg is also a billionaire and money talks in both political parties. The anti-gun message is strong in the Democratic silo, so Democratic Party supporters hear it all the time.

Instead of violence the message is gun violence and their simplistic answer is ban guns. Like the anti-abortionists they know that it's hard to ban something, so they use an incremental approach of making it more and more difficult to acquire firearms and to obtain a carry license. It's why I don't like one party states, democracy means getting out of our silos and listening to all voices even if we disagree.

Sadly, you can no more tell that to a Democrat than you can tell a fundamentalist right-winger that a woman has the right to choose. I've actually had Democrat partisans look like they wanted to get physical with me for being a pro-2A Liberal. I firmly believe that it was only my rather large physical stature, and the look on my face that said, "don't try it, you won't like the results", that got them to turn around and leave, still yelling. Yes, that has happened to me. Fortunately, nobody's actually tried taking a swing at me for this...yet. And I hope that they never do.

It was great to finally meet david in person.

Sadly, I lack the travel budget (and also lack any willingness to get on a commercial airliner after several unpleasant experiences), so I don't get to attend the gathering.

It didn't help that October was a busy month in other ways.