-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
'Gun loving liberals' are welcome to the debate, but who can they vote for?
- Thread starter Jack Burton
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Today's leftists are not liberals by any stretch of the imagination. They want control and conformity. They want to silence dissent and the only worship they support is of the central government.
So true. There is little to nothing liberal (in a positive sense) coming from leftists. The latin roots of the word have hijacked like other things.
Liberalism today, has nothing of the sort of freedom you would associate liberty with. They are about control, as you said.
A true pro gun liberal is really a conservative that wants to be cool and vote democrat so they arent made fun of by their buddies. The left today are not the democrats of even 20 years ago. The party is nothing more than communism and hate, that do nothing other than trash everyone else and use the media to bash their opponents. They run everything, education, the media, hollywood, "science" and its all by design. to fool you into voting your rights and paycheck away.
“So called ‘pro-gun Democrats,’” we are so warmly welcomed in placed. :P
First off, I rather object to swaths of this. I’ve no problem with Kagan or Sotomayor sitting on the bench; and, so far as I know – and I will admit now that I know approximately nothing – they have never been radically anti-gun.
Second, it doesn’t help when the NRA is seldom hospitable to pro-gun candidates that are not Republican. This may be changing, but I would not trust the NRA to endorse me if ever I were to run, and for the most part I cannot imagine I would get anything shy of at least a B. (Apparently supporting left-leaning justices would preclude me from having an A?)
However, these snags do not really change the fact that I am often screwed; then again, I kind of think most Americans are when it comes to elections. Want a pro-4th Amendment candidate? Best of luck with that because I still do not see many people running hard against the NSA’s overreach. Most of the times it feels like I am stuck between choosing which side is going to muck things up the least, or which will infringe the fewest of my rights; do you folk on the right not find yourself in this position?
I won’t vote for a Mourdoch-style candidate; and, given the way the right has been acting, I cannot in good conscience elect them to Congress. I want the right to stop being whatever it is they have been the last few years and remember they have a solemn duty: they need to remind the left that, on occasion, they are wrong. We need to have legitimate debates where the candidates whip out their philosophical views so the voters get to see more than stiffs behind a podium hoping to get in the best soundbyte of the night.
Though I will say this for the democratic party, they are far less rigid than the republican party is right now. Try getting all democrats to vote in a bloc the way republicans often do; it almost never happens because we insist less on party purity. (Maybe we’re not good with directions; or maybe we have problems with authority; it is hard to say, sometimes.) Still, the anti-gun stance of the party as a whole does so much damage to it that it really does boggle my mind.
How does one rectify the Supreme Court rulings, such as Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. District of Columbia, that plainly state that police have no obligation to respond to your pleas for help while, at the very same time, being against the proposition that firearms are the best method of protecting self, family, and property? It is, I tell you, the sort of mental agility that I have never been able to achieve.
While I could go on and on, though, I should let this digression end here; I have gone on too long already, I think.
First off, I rather object to swaths of this. I’ve no problem with Kagan or Sotomayor sitting on the bench; and, so far as I know – and I will admit now that I know approximately nothing – they have never been radically anti-gun.
Second, it doesn’t help when the NRA is seldom hospitable to pro-gun candidates that are not Republican. This may be changing, but I would not trust the NRA to endorse me if ever I were to run, and for the most part I cannot imagine I would get anything shy of at least a B. (Apparently supporting left-leaning justices would preclude me from having an A?)
However, these snags do not really change the fact that I am often screwed; then again, I kind of think most Americans are when it comes to elections. Want a pro-4th Amendment candidate? Best of luck with that because I still do not see many people running hard against the NSA’s overreach. Most of the times it feels like I am stuck between choosing which side is going to muck things up the least, or which will infringe the fewest of my rights; do you folk on the right not find yourself in this position?
I won’t vote for a Mourdoch-style candidate; and, given the way the right has been acting, I cannot in good conscience elect them to Congress. I want the right to stop being whatever it is they have been the last few years and remember they have a solemn duty: they need to remind the left that, on occasion, they are wrong. We need to have legitimate debates where the candidates whip out their philosophical views so the voters get to see more than stiffs behind a podium hoping to get in the best soundbyte of the night.
Though I will say this for the democratic party, they are far less rigid than the republican party is right now. Try getting all democrats to vote in a bloc the way republicans often do; it almost never happens because we insist less on party purity. (Maybe we’re not good with directions; or maybe we have problems with authority; it is hard to say, sometimes.) Still, the anti-gun stance of the party as a whole does so much damage to it that it really does boggle my mind.
How does one rectify the Supreme Court rulings, such as Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. District of Columbia, that plainly state that police have no obligation to respond to your pleas for help while, at the very same time, being against the proposition that firearms are the best method of protecting self, family, and property? It is, I tell you, the sort of mental agility that I have never been able to achieve.
While I could go on and on, though, I should let this digression end here; I have gone on too long already, I think.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Who is telling you this? Are you perhaps confusing the NRA with GOA?
The NRA has a long history of supporting Democrats that defend the RKBA.
INGOism: INGO attacks NRA for "endorsing" Harry Reid. INGO then attacks NRA for not supporting Democrats.
Good grief, Senator Rand Paul, the Crown Prince of Wookieism, is suing the federal government and no one is "running hard" agains the NSA. I find it hard to believe that you do not know this.
So, in a Congress with 535 members, I didn’t count the one that is publicly making a fight of it? That equates, I do believe, with approximately 0.2% of the Congress. One, I ought to stress, that I cannot vote for from here.
What I really mean is, which of the candidates here have made that part – a central part – of their platform? Maybe I’ll be shown wrong with the next wave of elections, but I’d be surprised if it got more than a passing mention on along the campaign trail.
I am disturbed that the democrats are not fighting harder against the trends of late, and I am ashamed that so many appear to give a free pass to their own team – not shocked, I stress, but genuinely ashamed -- at the corrupted values inherent in such duplicity. Wrong is wrong, whether done against your people or by your people.
As for the rest, I’ll address that later, if you don’t mind. It is late in my day and I’d like to recheck my facts before I tackle the NRA bit. I seem to remember them screwing over one Democrat, I think it was for Governor; they did it repeatedly, actually, “forgetting” the second time around to publish their begrudging endorsement of him. I cannot for the life of me remember the facts off hand and I’d rather tackle it tomorrow, all else being equal. (Or tonight, as is more likely the case.)
Also, while I may appear at times to know just about everything worth knowing, I have never claimed to be adept at recalling any given thing at any given time. :P
==/Edit/==
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/20/nra...able_inside_story_of_its_war_on_one_democrat/
Forgive the less-than-objective source, but I think this is the piece that brought it to mind; I may well be wrong, and I have seen the NRA be more willing to endorse pro-gun Democrats in the last couple of cycles. Obviously, I am not as knowledgeable on this particular issue, but what I said reflects the impression that I have had of the NRA as it pertains to Democrats, even the pro-gun variety.
Nevertheless, I do maintain that the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment issues seldom come up in elections in any meaningful way. I do not think in this election cycle, or the 2016 cycle for that matter, that either party will put out a candidate that will seriously rebuke the NSA. I doubt very much that the presidential candidates will take that stand, because it risks them being branded “Soft on Terror,” or some other silly label; and, I doubt it will be even a tertiary issue for any of our local elections.
This is my problem with the two-party system; no matter who I vote for, I am going to get screwed to some degree. The majority of democrats are not terribly pro-gun, even if they are not rabidly anti-gun, but I tend to agree with them on most other issues, particularly when the only other viable option is a republican. (In other, more common parlance, I most often to find them to be the lesser of the two evils.)
I realize getting that ideal candidate is essentially impossible, but I still feel as though there is ample room for improvement.
Last edited:
squirrelhntr
Shooter
Just as long as any " Gun loving liberal " blindly votes for the N.R.A. backed candidate (very simple solution) who the hell cares what political movement they're cemented to ????? There's much more freedom on the street, compared to a concentration camp....even nowadays. R's D's I's all the same.
Last edited:
Reid was used as an example... not an all encompassing portrait. You really don't know much about this, do you.
Pro-gun Democrats win endorsements from NRA
You're welcome to your own opinion, but not your own reality.
Yeah, you may have missed the part where I said a few times throughout the conversation that I was speaking about elections a few cycles ago, i.e. pre-2010; you may also notice that I cannot vote for Harry Reid and that I was speaking about candidates I actually have a say in; and, for that matter, later on that I was simply stating an impression rather than solid fact. Oh, and the part where that statistical break down was about the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment fight and Rand Paul; this, however, was ambiguous on my part and I apologize for that.
(By the way, notice how the NRA backing Democrats was a news item? Yeah, that would be due to the fact that it is perceived -- correctly or not -- that the NRA will back a Republican rather than a Democrat, even if they share the exact same pro-gun stances. It is noteworthy because it is rather unexpected.)
If you're going to pounce upon my post it'd be rather keen of you to, you know, read it. (If you did, I'd imagine you'd have harped upon the source, but maybe I'm just cynical.) You may wish to do the same with my previous posts throughout the conversation. I feel as though that would be helpful, what with picking up contextual cues and the like, but I could be wrong.
Ultimately, though, I was speaking from the standpoint of myself rather than the entire group of pro-gun democrats, liberals, and progressives. I am far more interested in candidacies I can rightfully have a say in rather than those representing my perspective from beyond my political influence. Still, there remains a relative dearth in candidates that pro-gun left leaning folk can vote for. So often the best one can hope for is a candidate that is neutral on the issue, lacking either opinion or conviction. Such candidates hardly feel like much of a victory for my rights, you know?
Trooper
Shooter
Agreed. If they were truly liberal then they would be libertarians.
One of our INGO is upset because I stated that to be a democrat you had to hate guns (too lower class), be anti war and anti military (too masculine) and be into gay rights as the ultimate civil right. His views seem to reflect a democrat party of 40 years ago. There are not that many union members and most union types are female teachers or government workers. Few democrats under the age of 60 (Vietnam, Korea and WW2) are veterans. In fact the feminists (progressives) took over the democrats in the 1970s kicking out the collectivists (unions).
It is now so bad that when Rohm Emanuel ran for mayor of Chicago, he did not campaign for the votes of the minorities or union types. Gary Chico did. Emanuel went after the college educated voters and beat Chico! The democrats are now the party of the educated elite and the rich.
Yeah, it was "news" to the liberal Washington Post, who knew as little about what the NRA does about pro-gun Dems as you did.
MisterChester
Master
Educated elite yes but it's pretty even when you get to the rich. Slightly more GOP voters in the $100k - $250k earners and then dems get a slight edge in the $250k+ area. I'll have to find the statistics.
Trooper
Shooter
That is income, not wealth. Generally high income earners are new rich. However a lot of the tech folks on the west coast are progressives, though not collectivists.
When we say rich, it is those who have money invested not earned. When you get to the old money, those like the Kennedy family, the Soros family, the Kerry family, the Rockefeller (BP oil) family, the Ford (Ford Motors) family, the Carnegie (US Steel) family and so forth that you see heavy investment into the democrats. Harvard grads and all that. The ruling class.
Not sure I have seen any facts to back up your claims. I means the 6th, 7th and 8th richest people on the entire planet (according to Forbes) are the highly-political and conservative Kochs and Sheldon Adelson.
Also, I've not previously seen anything to indicated that the families of Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie lean one way or the other. Do you have sources for these positions?
