A liberal with a gun

[WhiteFeather]

This is something all of us can try to do more of to improve firearm ownership, offer and make sure to follow up offers to take liberals and anti-gun people to the range and at least experience shooting firearms. It has the possibilty to changes people minds and hearts, also works wonders IF you can get your state rep to a range for some trigger and education time.

http://westlibertyindex.com/article.php?viewID=939

A liberal with a gun
by Sara Sedlacek · July 25, 2007

When I started here at the Index one of the first people to come in to talk to me (and openly make me aware of his agenda and his motivation for speaking with me) was a representative from the West Liberty Gun Club. He was a nice guy so I gave him his soapbox time. We had very differing opinions on gun control and a gun’s place in society, but he invited me to the gun club anyway.

Several weeks ago, I did a story on the West Liberty Gun Club. It was the second time I’d been out to the club. The first was for a competition and I was so confused I couldn’t write anything about it. We used that first visit as an educational experience, just to get familiar with the lingo and the people. My second visit to the gun club gave me an opportunity to do something I’d never done before and never in a million years thought I would want to do again: I shot a gun.

I’ve always thought guns were neat to look at. I always enjoyed going to the Rock Island Arsenal and seeing all the different kinds of guns, but I never wanted to shoot one. I shot BB guns as a kid but that was a long time ago and a BB gun is a heck of a lot different than a rifle.

So there I was, on that second visit, a cynical outsider with a cookie-cutter image of what “gun club people” were like. In my mind anyone who belonged to the gun club must be some kind of militant, gun-toting, camoflauge-wearing guy resembling the offspring of Ted Nugent and G.I. Joe. Not a single gun club member looked anything like G.I. Joe or Ted Nugent. In fact, most of the members I met on that second visit were children, and well-behaved children no less.

I was amazed at how seriously the kids took the competition. They were careful with and, most importantly, knowledgeable about their guns and shooting sports. They were also very calm and patient, not like any kids I’d ever seen.

It was also comforting for me to learn that most the people involved in the gun club are not hunters. Most of them are interested only in shooting sports. There were some hunters. All of them, however, had the same concerns I had about guns. They were worried about guns falling into the hands of the wrong people and people owning guns and not learning about how to care for them and use them properly. Though we had different ideas about how to solve these problems, the concern was shared.

After learning a little more myself, I was asked by members of the club if I’d like to try shooting a .22 rifle. I did and, as it turns out, I’m not a bad shot. Members of the club invited me to a ladies’ fun match, at which I placed fourth (out of only nine, two of which tied for second place. The third place winner was only 11-years old.) this past Sunday. As it turns out, shooting a gun accurately takes more concentration than I ever thought. Through this experience I’ve realized that guns are what you make of them. Guns are violent if you use them for violence. I found that it takes a certain amount of serenity and meditation to accurately fire a gun, two things I never thought could be associated with guns.

I walked into that gun club with the worst thoughts about the place and I walked out with a completely different opinion. It never hurts to try to learn a little more about the things you don’t like and the people you don’t agree with, you may find out you didn’t know enough about them to have an opinion in the first place.

[knight0334]

Labeling liberals and democrats as a whole as anti-gun is just prejudice in another form. We, the pro-gun people, need to refer to those who are against our right to keep and bear arms as "anti-gun", not "Democrat" or "liberal".

Many of the grass-root state and local Democratic politicians are pro-gun. Pro-gun liberals and Democrats are treated as second class owners by pro-gun "conservative" people, thus isolating them.

We need to stop calling anti-gun people "liberal" or "Democrat" - but what they truely are "Anti-gun" or "Anti-firearm".

[MarcS]

You know how i convert liberals to pro-gun? I ask them what they think the average gun owner looks like and they tell me some redneck, white power, jew hating, gay bashing, cross burning, etc.

Then i tell them they're right.

They generally go out and buy a gun soon after that realization.

You just have to learn to play on peoples fears correctly.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by knight0334

Labeling liberals and democrats as a whole as anti-gun is just prejudice in another form. We, the pro-gun people, need to refer to those who are against our right to keep and bear arms as "anti-gun", not "Democrat" or "liberal".

Many of the grass-root state and local Democratic politicians are pro-gun. Pro-gun liberals and Democrats are treated as second class owners by pro-gun "conservative" people, thus isolating them.

We need to stop calling anti-gun people "liberal" or "Democrat" - but what they truely are "Anti-gun" or "Anti-firearm".

A big +1 there, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by allowing an issue of liberty to be hijacked by neocons that care more about political bias and grandstanding than they do about liberty.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

A big +1 there, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by allowing an issue of liberty to be hijacked by neocons that care more about political bias and grandstanding than they do about liberty.

Let me ask you this. Which party, on the national level, wants to take our right to own and use firearms away from us so much that it is actually part of the party platform, the Republicans or the Democrats? It has nothing to do with political bias or grandstanding; Schumer, Feinstein, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, Carper, Cardin, Dodd, and the list goes on all have two things in common, they are all Senate Democrats and they have all publicly espoused stepping on our rights. Are all Dems anti? Not by a long shot but the vast majority of the party leadership at the national level is and they have made restrictions of ownership part of their party platform. That is enough for me to not support them at the national level.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by billamj

Let me ask you this. Which party, on the national level, wants to take our right to own and use firearms away from us so much that it is actually part of the party platform, the Republicans or the Democrats? It has nothing to do with political bias or grandstanding; Schumer, Feinstein, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, Carper, Cardin, Dodd, and the list goes on all have two things in common, they are all Senate Democrats and they have all publicly espoused stepping on our rights. Are all Dems anti? Not by a long shot but the vast majority of the party leadership at the national level is and they have made restrictions of ownership part of their party platform. That is enough for me to not support them at the national level.

If you fall for the rehotric of so-called republican Pro-gun candiates, you're nothing more than a tool for them. How many of them have authoered or supported a TRUE pro-gun, no compromise bill? Name them.

They can say they're pro-gun, and they may toss gun owners a bone once in a while on slam dunk legislation that isn't too harmful to gun owners, but do you seriously think that most Republicans have VOTED and CONDUCTED themselves as pro-gun? And do you really think for a minute that the lot of them wouldn't sell the issue right out from under you if it wasn't considered mandatory for them to APPEAR pro-gun as a Republican?

Most of them are no better or worse than Rudy, Romney, McCain, Bush, Bloomberg and the like. At least the Democrats are honest about it, if the Republicans were even half as pro-gun as the cheerleaders want us to believe, we'd have actually made some significant progresss under a Republican-controlled government. We really didn't make much on a national level at all. And as you get more local, the differences between Republicans and Democrats in regards to most gun control issues in many states begin to blur...even moreso when it comes to the actual constituents (of whom I am speaking).

[billamj]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

If you fall for the rehotric of so-called republican Pro-gun candiates, you're nothing more than a tool for them. How many of them have authoered or supported a TRUE pro-gun, no compromise bill? Name them.

They can say they're pro-gun, and they may toss gun owners a bone once in a while on slam dunk legislation that isn't too harmful to gun owners, but do you seriously think that most Republicans have VOTED and CONDUCTED themselves as pro-gun? And do you really think for a minute that the lot of them wouldn't sell the issue right out from under you if it wasn't considered mandatory for them to APPEAR pro-gun as a Republican?

Most of them are no better or worse than Rudy, Romney, McCain, Bush, Bloomberg and the like. At least the Democrats are honest about it, if the Republicans were even half as pro-gun as the cheerleaders want us to believe, we'd have actually made some significant progresss under a Republican-controlled government. We really didn't make much on a national level at all. And as you get more local, the differences between Republicans and Democrats in regards to most gun control issues in many states begin to blur...even moreso when it comes to the actual constituents (of whom I am speaking).

Can you tell me of one time in recent history where the republican party has held enough of a majority of both houses of congress that they could shove anything down the democrats throats? You can't and the reason for that is that the dems decided to force the repubs into a position where a simple majority is not enough to pass a bill or an amendment through the senate even though that is technically unconstitutional. I don't give a damn which party is in charge, they're all being fed by the lawyers and we're all paying the price for it but lets be at least somewhat honest.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by billamj

Can you tell me of one time in recent history where the republican party has held enough of a majority of both houses of congress that they could shove anything down the democrats throats? You can't and the reason for that is that the dems decided to force the repubs into a position where a simple majority is not enough to pass a bill or an amendment through the senate even though that is technically unconstitutional. I don't give a damn which party is in charge, they're all being fed by the lawyers and we're all paying the price for it but lets be at least somewhat honest.

Not relevant, show me the effort despite whether or not they're in the perfect situation. I'm not holding them to results, I'm holding them to effort. Words are uselss, they mean nothing. Actions, even actions that are met with enough resistance to counter them, that shows what someone is made of, what they support and what they believe.

The anti's toss the same anti-gun legislation up every year, regardless of their standing in the house/senate/presidency, they're no worse off for it (in fact, they get a lot of press coverage in the MSM DUE to it).

The Republicans act like there's a $1 fee for every word written in a bill that goes nowhere. Show me how many Republicans really WANT gun control repealed as it occurs against the common citizen...get over it, the 2A, for MOST Republicans (state and federal), is just lip service to get you to wave your pom-poms and vote for them, nothing more.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Not relevant, show me the effort despite whether or not they're in the perfect situation. I'm not holding them to results, I'm holding them to effort. Words are uselss, they mean nothing. Actions, even actions that are met with enough resistance to counter them, that shows what someone is made of, what they support and what they believe.

Did they or did they not allow the assinine AWB to sunset? That would not have happened with a D majority in both houses. If you don't understand that, nor the relevance of needing a super majority to pass anything viable through the senate then there are issues that are not mine and are not even the pols.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by billamj

Did they or did they not allow the assinine AWB to sunset? That would not have happened with a D majority in both houses. If you don't understand that, nor the relevance of needing a super majority to pass anything viable through the senate then there are issues that are not mine and are not even the pols.

So they allowed something to NOT HAPPEN? Are you serious? What did they DO, specifically? Allowing something not to happen is not action, it's a lack of action (in this case, that was good).

The Democrats also allowed the AWB to sunset, right? Or do they (aside from the obvious VERY ardent anti-gunners) not get credit because they don't play for your team? The majority of the Democrats didn't make a truly significant push on the issue because of the blowback from the original passage of the AWB, the Republicans had little to do with it, they just got to reap the credit (business as usual in politics).

Again, I'm not asking what they accomplished or passed, so your explanations in that regard are irrelevant. I'm asking you to show me what actions they took to attempt anything significant when it concerns the 2A rights of the common citizen.