liberal left socialist pinkos

[ishi]

"The liberal left commie socialists are after our guns!"

This is pretty typical fare on the internet gun forums. It's also wrong and destructive to the 2A movement, and here's why:

As Americans, we have hundreds of political issues that are important to us. Many are related to economics, some are related to religious values, some are about foreign policy. Of all of these, civil rights are usually the least divisive. Most americans learn early about the Bill of Rights and accept them as fundamental building blocks of our nation's character. It's hard to find Americans who won't support the freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial.

As a civil rights issue, gun ownership is not an issue that naturally divides along traditional political lines. The American Left has always been a champion of civil rights - the ACLU, regardless of its disappointing and inexplicable stance on the 2A as a collective right, has generally been a lion defending the Bill of Rights. The Left also have families, and are victims of crime the same as everybody else.

A sizeable portion of the Left would be very receptive to getting on board with the pro 2A movement, if only the current 2A advocates would be less divisive and insulting to the Left's other, unrelated political views. When a left-leaning American wants information about buying a gun for the defense of his family, he will log on to a gun forum and find himself immediately insulted and vilified in every thread on the forum. It should come as no shock when he thinks "These guys are complete a-holes, maybe I should rethink my position on this". The 2A struggle has just lost another vote. There's one more person who will never go out of his way to write his congressman or senator to demand the 2A be respected. There's another person who may no longer care about the 2A views of the candidates in the Democratic primary.

Every successful grassroots civil rights movement has worked to embrace voters from across the political spectrum. The 2A movement has instead created a divisive and confrontational movement that makes enemies instead of courting allies. This is one of the reasons for why the 2A movement has had limited success in the political scene - it actively drives away voters from the Left.

Besides being harmful to the 2A movement, the claim that gun restrictions and confiscation are naturally Socialist policies simply is not true. Socialism is interested in the economic equalization of society, the means of which might range from high taxes on the rich and capital gains income, to nationalized healthcare, to outright public ownership of the means of production and a state-planned economy. Those who disagree with these ideas have predictably uncharitable opinions of those who espouse them, but this has nothing to do with the 2A. The 2A is not an economic policy, it is a statement about the civil rights of the individual in the United States.

Ironically, the anti-2A politicians who are most often called 'liberal left socialist' are actually staunchly pro-Capitalist candidates of the Democrat party, which happily takes billions in campaign donations from the same Corporations and rich individuals as donate to Republican causes. Calling Pelosi and Hillary Clinton Socialists is quite frankly an insult to Socialists everywhere.

Capitalist democracies such as Australia and the UK are the most recent nations to disarm their citizens. Is this because Australia is full of liberal left socialists? Their staunchly conservative, rabidly anti-gun prime minister John Howard would disagree.

Gun control is about control - control of the government over the individual. If we want to defeat this control, we need to see where the threat is coming from - with clear eyes and a clear head. 2A rights needs to be de-linked from other issues so that people from across the political spectrum can work together. Need an epithet? Use 'antis' or something, anything, but not socialist, liberal, left, democrat. When you do that, you simply drive away the folks from that camp who want to join the struggle. Resist the urge to turn the 2A movement into a Republican 'members-only' clubhouse. Republicans can't win this fight alone.

Hello, I'm Ishi, I vote Green party, and I support the Bill of Rights - ALL of it.

[Ektarr]

liberal left socialist pinkos

Isn't that something like a multiple repititious redundancy...?

Truth is you're right...mostly. When I hear of Hillary espousing the redistribution of wealth, and the confiscation of "excess profits" from Big Oil to fund social programs, to my uneducated ear that smacks of Socialism, pure and simple. Maybe you can point out where I'm wrong. The ACLU represents itsellf as a Champion of Civil Rights, but has never explained (to my knowledge) why the right of some schmuck to engage in sexual predation with little girls...or little boys!! NAMBLA??...is more important than my Right to engage in defending my sons from said schmuck. Why is it OK to kill...murder, even at the point of entering the world...unborn babies, but it's immoral to put a multiple heinous murderer to death? (NOTE: I say "murder" with respect to fetuses because of the precedent set by the Scott Peterson case... If the fetus isn't a viable human being, how could the court have charged him with the murder of his own unborn son?)

I'm not the most politically astute cat you'll ever meet, and there are already voices on this board...yours among them...that I find myself holding in some regard with respect to their knowledge. But I do know that you can't make a cat a dog, and while I'm open and ready to embrace ANY well-meaning, sincere person who's interested in the value of 2A, if only to know and understand his own position better, I do not have to be warm and fuzzy to the whole category of liberal left socialist pinkos and fascist bastids who want to deprive me of my Rights.

"Gun-ism", like racism and sexism, isn't going to be solved in one swell foop (!), but one-on-one, one person at a time, and it begins with me. Just as there's no room in my zone for in-your-face feminists, or people who insist on perpetuating socially destructive stereotypes, so there is no room for gun-bashers, particularly those with an agenda.

Did I go on and on long enough...? Sorry.

[Hoplites1234]

Geez Ishi, well put and thought out. Did you get to be a senior member by being so sharp?

[ishi]

Ektarr, thanks for your reply. It's not my intention to insult the forum members here, and likewise I hold your opinion in some regard.

Most of all I don't want to descend into run-of-the-mill left vs. right argumentation, since that's exactly the opposite of my intentions. Ever since arriving at my current convictions about the 2A, I've had the surreal problem of explaining my views to, actually *communicating* with republicans. Maybe the most amazing thing is the common ground that all Americans have, even a Republican and Socialist (let's not mince words, the Greens are socialists).

It comes down to my belief that the Bill of Rights is the common denominator. All americans should adhere to it, and all american political frameworks should be built with it as the base. The right and left can fight like cats and dogs about the rest, but the republic will be strong if the Bill of Rights stands. If it doesn't stand, we could see a kind of split that turns into "Sunni vs. Shia" style emnity. I'm thinking of the words "A house divided cannot stand" and it fits in the current political climate. We all need to get back to the basics, back to the constitution.

2nd Amendment advocates know that freedom isn't free. There will always be a maniac who enters a shopping district and shoots innocents until somebody stops him. It's possible that these rare instances could be further reduced by giving up all our rights, but that trade is unacceptable. It's the price we pay for future-proofing our republic against totalitarianism. Let's not pretend that our freedom was bought at no price. Some murders will happen that might have been prevented. Totalitarianism can certainly reduce crime!

Each right in the Bill of Rights comes with a price, and a very high one. The right for us to post our objections to current unconstitutional law is bought at the price of allowing perverts to publicly advocate eliminating age restrictions on pederasty! This is a very, very high price. And it must be paid. When we buy freedom, the price will always hurt us, because it never comes cheap.

Can we all come together to defend the constitution while temporarily forgetting all of our other differences? If not, this republic may not survive.

I'm doing my best to sway the left - I actually registered a domain called www.liberalgunforum.com yesterday. I hope to create a community that will be able to cooperate with and support the 2nd amendment movement. And everyone here will definitely be welcome to visit.

Yours in solidarity,

ishi

[Cremon]

As a civil rights issue, gun ownership is not an issue that naturally divides along traditional political lines.

You are correct there. One should not assume second amendment advocates are all conservatives. I have seen liberal forums where liberals argue vehemently against one another over this issue. But most gun control advocates are liberals. It is just interesting to me to see how many liberals are against gun control too. There are quite a few.

[Ektarr]

It is just interesting to me to see how many liberals are against gun control too. There are quite a few.

The Pink Pistols comes to mind. I guess I shouldn't assume that they're "Liberal" in any regard except their interpersonal preferences.

[sar]

Speaking from the point of view of a gun owner liberal democrat I can assure you this isn't an entirely Right/Left issue. The problem is that issues like gun control are highlighted and emotionalized to polarize folks and meaningful discussion is lost.

Frankly, I'm a bit dissapointed in how very easy it is to get a CHL here in Tx. It I had designed the test, the applicants would have to shoot 90% or better and demonstrate an ability to field strip their weapons. Maybe provide a reference or two that they aren't a nutjob. I'd feel better knowing that armed citizens in Texas are able to hit targets at 9 feet, 21 feet and 45 feet more than 75% of the time...

All in all though, I'm glad I'm able to carry when I choose to and that we have reciprocity with so many states.

[sar]

I've only been on this forum for a few hours, but I gotta say, Ishi's a smart person! That first post very much sums up some feelings I've had as I've moved from being an anti-gun idealogue to a gun owner.

http://www.third-way.com/data/produc..._amendment.pdf

interesting reading above

[ishi]

S
Frankly, I'm a bit dissapointed in how very easy it is to get a CHL here in Tx. It I had designed the test, the applicants would have to shoot 90% or better and demonstrate an ability to field strip their weapons. Maybe provide a reference or two that they aren't a nutjob. I'd feel better knowing that armed citizens in Texas are able to hit targets at 9 feet, 21 feet and 45 feet more than 75% of the time...

I understand that feeling. I've often thought that there should be a law exam requiring applicants to be able to recall and apply the law concerning self-defense and deadly force. I have a strong suspicion that the vast majority of license holders have little clue or interest in how the law is applied.

That said, I'm not sure that such a requirement is constitutional. I think that the government's desire for expediency has completely overrun the constitution, and the more we make laws that ignore the constitution, the more precedent there is for continuing to do so. If the constitution were strictly enforced, the national government would be gutted. It's clear to me by now that this is exactly what needs to happen.

The founders envisioned a federal republic where states would have broad and far-reaching abilities to make their own laws and allow their residents to choose to do things differently than other states. Wouldn't this be best for all concerned? Maybe this country is simply too big to have a single set of laws that can please everyone.

Okay, I've digressed. I've segued into my Ron Paul campaign speech...

[sar]

I'm not sure if it exceeds the consitution. The second ammendment says "well regulated" That might give the government power to demand training and proficiency. I'm anything but a constitutional scholar, but I'm concerned about some of the negligence and ignorance I see(I'm a trauma surgeon and get to see some of the consequences first hand)