Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by Netfotoj, May 26, 2007.
From NRA-ILA: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3047
Ohio is a nightmare when it comes to gun laws...
Lucky for Rep. DeBose he ended up in the best case scenario, or at least the next best one. He didn't get shot and he didn't have to shoot anyone.
It speaks to his character that he admits he was wrong and that he is pursuing a CHL, instead of sweeping it under the rug and continuing in his anti RKBA path.
Last night at a holiday block party I spent about 1 1/2 hours talking about gun control with one of the liberal neighbors. It's incredible what an superstituous, dis-informed, and illogical world they live in.
Good story, Net...
And Selfdefense, allow me to amend your comment to say "Anti" in place of "liberal". Because I'm liberal/libertarian by most criteria, and I've been a RKBA supporter for going on 40 years now. Being liberal or progressive does not mean you have to be anti-gun or anti-self defense. In fact, I strongly believe just the opposite, that embracing and supporting the *entire* Bill of Rights is a very liberal/progressive position...and slowly I and others of a like mind are changing attitudes on the left.
(Of course, it don't hurt when somone like Rep. DeBose gets confronted with reality like that...) :twisted:
Re: Good story, Net...
But you're certainly the exception.........I can bet a liberal is anti-gun, and win the bet so often that I won't even mind the few that I lose. Kind of sad though........
In my mind a liberal (make that Liberal, i.e. 2007 liberal) and a Libertarian are miles apart. I am a modified Libertarian (or a conservative arriving from the Libertarian direction). Ron Paul is probably the best national example of a Libertarian today, and he is not very close to the current Democrats and Soros acolytes currently using the Democratic Party shell.
While it is true that not every single liberal is anti-gun, as jn says, its close enough for government work as a useful shorthand. And my experience is so consistent re: liberal = anti-gun in New York City and here in the semi-urban shadow of the White House, that when I hear about a pro-gun liberal I think one of three things a) they have been mugged b) if the slightest push came along they would fold on gun support or c) they are not actually liberals in the current sense of the word.
I think your experience in a large urban area is actually more what the split is about vis-a-vis the liberal/anti issue. I post regularly on the great Satan (also known as Daily Kos), and have been a 'trusted user' there (meaning little more than others appreciate my comments and posts) for over three years. And there's a pretty solid corps of us pro-gun progressives there amongst the liberal dems...even Kos himself has been pretty straightforward in saying that supporting the 2nd is a liberal value. In the weeks following the Virgina Tech shooting it was nearly constant battle with the twits who think all guns are evil, and we more than held our own in terms of numbers and comments...it wasn't just me and one or two other lone liberals.
But what I see it that is really relates to experience and culture. Those of us who don't live in the big urban areas know and understand guns, aren't afraid of them. And yeah, those who have been mugged, or had a home invaded, or were paying attention to the debacle that was Katrina have also seen the light.
And, as I have argued consistantly on the gun boards I frequent, it is counter-productive for this to be a partisan issue. It's a bad tactic to tie your cause to one party or the other (and in our two party system, you're stuck with that at this time), and have to suffer with the fortunes of that party. It's a lot smarter tactic to embrace a widespread support for gun rights, regardless of someone's other politics. We're likely looking at the Dems holding the congress and White House after '08 - I'd much rather have a Dem party which isn't hostile to my RKBA, thanks to the efforts of me and others to change the party from within, than I would to have my gun rights championed only by the Repubs who are out of power.
There are millions of gun owners in this country who are inde or even Dem. Having them on our side in the debate, rather than alienating them with Republican rhetoric, just makes sense to me. Demonizing your natural allies seems to not be the way to go about protecting and promoting our rights.
I was right there with you on DailyKos arguing against the anti-gun folks, Seven. (I have a different user name on DKos.) I am progressive but I like guns and think people should be able to carry. I also think said people should have training, but that is another topic.
I think there are two main factors in many liberals being anti-gun. The first, as has been mentioned, is urbanization. Urbanites and suburbanites don't tent to have much or any experience with guns and therefore they associate guns with crime and accidental deaths of children. Second, many liberals, again because they are urbanized have a lot of faith in civilization, society and government systems. This is not necessarily bad in my book, but there is an inability or unwillingness (because it is fracking scary!) to recognize how fragile all these systems can be and more to the point, how easily extreme violence can enter in. Basically, the whole sheep, sheep dog and wolf paradigm. The sheep don't understand violence except as an outsize phenomenon. Civilized people don't know what to do when the cops don't arrive on time.
Just because a person is attacked doesn't mean they will change their mind on guns, if they have any opinion on the matter. Since violence is such an alien concept to many people, they view attacks as horrible anomalies, like natural disasters, they come infreqently and there isn't much you can do about it. And some people have religious or spiritual beliefs that keep them from returning violence and the possibility of attack is a risk they have accepted, assuming they have thought about it.
I have a friend who was almost gang raped and only by luck did her attackers have second thoughts because of passing cars and leave before they got ahold of her. I have never talked to her in depth about it but it seems to me it didn't leave a lasting impression on her. She neither became traumatized by it nor did she decide she needed to be able to protect herself better. I hold no judgment against her, everyone needs to do what they feel comfortable with.
I agree with Seven, it is to pro-gun types best advantage to be able to articulate to anti-gun people why we have guns and why we carry them, though frankly, many will never understand. Thats life in the USA.
BTW, what does RKBA stand for? I know I will have to slap myself when I find out, but I just can't figure it out.
Right to Keep.....
I tend to agree with Seven and posterboy7 comments. I identify myself as libertarian in political ideology, and the meandering course of meanings of "conservative", "liberal" and even "progressive" are bewildering. Read the articles on Wikipedia of those terms, but only if you enjoy ambiguity and are looking for a headache.
Current politics of Bush admin is best described as neocon, and the course of action is bitterly disappointing to me. The typical socialist-leaning, urbanist, metrosexual sheeple I find distasteful on multiple social levels, but they are not exemplars of classic liberalism.
...that to some extent the terminology is outdated, given the authoritarian behaviour of the current administration. Nothing like the 'traditional' GOP of my youth. Add in that several of the GOP prez candidates are not good on RKBA, and the water is even muddier.
Posterboy, I use the handle "Shadan7" over on dKos, UID #20,515.
Michigan has too many restrictions on CPL (aka CCW) carry as far as where you can go and can not.
Of course criminals will carry where ever so I don't see why someone like myself who has been through all the background checks and course requirement can not carry in certain areas.
I also HATE with a deep burning passion the SBR, SBS, ban in Michigan that is codified by statute, which basically means written in stone. Makes no sense to me that Michigan has the right to bear arms spelled out as an individual one, but yet we can't get a properly registered through the nfa SBR, SBS, or suppressor. I mean we can get Class III firearms, but the suppressor thing is still hanging in the air as restricted until our AG spells it out more clearly that it isn't like he did with Class IIIs.
Meanwhile there are criminals sawing off shotguns left and right, but I can't go through the BATFE and pay a $200 tax to get one of my own as a legal citizen...oh, but I can have AR pistols with no stocks. Insane...I hate gun laws because they make no freaking sense.
Don't even get me started on the import ban...I could go on for pages.
Seven, my Kos username is "stoy," UID: #9495.
Hey, Minister - I feel your pain. It is insane, what gets legislated. I'm lucky/we've been making progress in MO.
Posterboy - you *are* an old-timer there, ain't ya? 4 digits...impressive. OK, will keep eyes peeled and drop Steyr jokes in where appropriate. :wink:
Look forward to it 7!
Great topic guys!
Let me start by saying that in the violent in-humane world we live in, that it is not only a right, but also the responsablity of a properly trained citizen to carry a weapon. Not only to protect themselves an familty, but also to protect those unable and at times those unwilling to protect themselves. The key part of my statemnet is properly trained. Proper training doesn't just mean weopons familiarization and the abillity to punch holes in paper. Nothing as dangerous as being un-armed in a life threatening situation, unless armed, but unwilling to use it.
Where would that place me politically? LOL
"Not only to protect themselves an familty, but also to protect those unable and at times those unwilling to protect themselves."
I vacillate on this one. While theoretically one should help others, if they have deliberately decided not to protect themselves (and may well consistently vote for anti-gun legislators), I'm not sure if I want to be in reserve as their unpaid bodyguard to bail them out (and maybe have them turn on me in the subsequent legal proceedings by saying something like "Well, maybe my life wasn't really in jeopardy at the time Mr. SD shot Mr. Bundy").
Actually, I tend to agree. Though SelfDefense has a very good and valid point about protecting others, particularly in a climate that is "ir"responsible.