beretta_maven
Free Thinking Member
And republicans are different how?
SAF-A grave injustice
- Thread starter swinokur
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! 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:
And republicans are different how?
robmints
Ultimate Member
- Jan 20, 2011
- 5,124
HI Miss Maven, I'm Rob. I am republican and I can tell you how I'm different that a liberal democrat in wanting to influence others liberties and freedoms. While I live, what I consider, as moral a life as I can, I don't have any desire to impose those views on anyone else except my offspring. And even then, hope my influence is only to help them form their own values when old enough. I am far from alone as a republican with libertarian and tea party views as evidenced by the fragmented voting and polling in republican primaries. Anti-establishment, freedom loving conservatives are a huge segment of my party.
On the other hand, the democrat party is all about controlling people's lives. Their only question is who can move to totalitarianism fast enough to win the nomination.
Not directed at just at Beretta Maven. A pro 2a liberal is a practical fantasy. You guys talk like they exsist in a meaningful number. And the few that do say they fit the definition, kick their commitment to the curb every time they walk into the voting booth or write a check in support of a candidate. So the few in a million that may exsist are irrelevant to progress.
Yes, there are many liberty-minded Republicans who respect freedom. There are also many Republicans who are more than happy to force their viewpoints on others.
Yes, Pro-2A liberals are uncommon, but as more people get into guns, they will grow, and they will be looking for a voice.
Yes, Pro-2A liberals are uncommon, but as more people get into guns, they will grow, and they will be looking for a voice.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
Yes perhaps so. Now how about SAF..or even better liberals for guns...I think they are in CA.
The NRA does not own the issue.. if you don't like what they are doing find another way..
Frankly it was the.NRA pandering to reasonable people that got us in this fix...
The NRA 30 years ago would not be fighting AWB..
Or pushing for national CCW..
And thats why we can not dilute the brand.. feel free support another group..
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
Should be plainly obvious. Sadly, way too many 2A supporters get lost in worthless politics.
Nra does not own the issue. They who look for excuses to stand by while the constitution is eviscerated will find them..
beretta_maven
Free Thinking Member
I think that pro-2A liberals are a lot more common than people think. It is just that there are other important issues that people have strong opinions on, and 2A is just one of the many. I don't know of any politician that agrees with my views on all things, so I have to pick the politician that is closest to my beliefs. I have major disagreements with both parties, because I believe in:
Climate change, equal rights for all (gay marriage), the death penalty (in cases where there is no doubt), smaller government, health care for all (not necessarily Obama-care), 2A, pro-choice, welfare reform (easier to get, time limits, work requirements and drug testing), and I believe we should take care of our elderly. I want the government out of our private lives (CIA, NSA and FBI), I want the un-Patriot Act repealed, I'm for a strong defense (but without needless wars), and want special interest money to be called exactly what it is: bribes. I am not "anti-cop", but I do want the police to be held accountable when they step over the line - this is exactly how I feel about the general public and our politicians. When the police do wrong and cover-up for each other, that creates a huge problem for them and the public which they are sworn to serve. Do black lives matter? Yes. Do blue lives matter? Yes. Do all lives matter? Yes.
Since the majority of voters (especially Independents) are not single-issue voters, herein lies our dilemma...picking the lessor of two evils. You pick yours, and I will pick mine. Neither one of us love our country any more or less - our opinions on what is most important just differ.
BTW, when I say "you", this is NOT directed at gprimr1 - it is just a general "you".
Vile Shadow
...
- Feb 28, 2013
- 28,953
beretta_maven
Free Thinking Member
"In November 1993, the proposed legislation passed the U.S. Senate. The bill's author, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal. In May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons.
Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX), then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried unsuccessfully to remove the assault weapons ban section from the crime bill. The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the ban. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that assault weapons "are used in only 1 percent of all crimes". The low usage statistic was supported in a 1999 Department of Justice brief."
Can't blame it all on the dems....
robmints
Ultimate Member
- Jan 20, 2011
- 5,124
Climate Change?? Give me a break. You do realize your sig line says traveling between SoMD and Cali? By choice because I want generations after us to have clean and green, I live 4 miles from work, drive a 4 cyl car, don't have a 40 footer with twins. Am picky about lubes, tires, fuel, all other consumables in my life, live in a 1500 sq foot house, reuse, and recycle whatever I can. I'm Ed Begley of the east. Climate Change, OMG, please don't.
Marriage, I'm all in. Not so much for the government involvement, but love is love, and families don't look like Ozzie and Harriet anymore.
2A, and all freedoms enumerated, I'm all in too.
Pro-Choice, I couldn't live with it. You ever see the freaks on the side of the road with the signs with pictures of aborted babies? You know why it is so upsetting and I hate those a holes? Because that is the reality. You can hide from what those pictures show and prove, I can't.
Welfare reform, I'm all in. No more government cards in line in front of me buying better things than I'm getting.
Elder care, do your best, and if you can't we will.
"I want the government out of our private lives (CIA, NSA and FBI), I want the un-Patriot Act repealed, I'm for a strong defense (but without needless wars), and want special interest money to be called exactly what it is: bribes. " We agree.
I'm pro cop, pro public and military service in general.
BLM, hate group. Like the klan. They are free to speak their minds and prove their ignorance and should be shunned by civilized society.
Kinbote
Active Member
- Aug 17, 2010
- 499
zoostation
Grover Norquist was 12 years old in 1968. Nixon was liberal, in any case. Alamoudi, Norquist's business partner, is in prison after hiding terrorist money. Norquist's brother in law is a Hamas supporter. I voted to have him removed, which is common sense, unless someone really worships at the altar of diversity.
There used to be Democrats who supported the Second Amendment, but they have long since been purged for the most part. Zell Miller was among the last, and he went in the 90's. Liberals hate the idea of individual freedom with a passion, and I can name no current liberal in the state or national level that supports the Second Amendment. I doubt anyone can name one that is even neutral on the matter.
It is possible there are individual liberals who are not fully on board with disarming the populace, but if they are liberal, they will vote for liberal politicians, which means they will vote for gun control. If they want to join the NRA, no one is stopping them. Perhaps allowing them to send a couple dollars to a civil rights organization will help to salve their conscience if they ever realize the damage they've done voting for people who despise the idea of civil rights. It's a win-win.
Grover Norquist was 12 years old in 1968. Nixon was liberal, in any case. Alamoudi, Norquist's business partner, is in prison after hiding terrorist money. Norquist's brother in law is a Hamas supporter. I voted to have him removed, which is common sense, unless someone really worships at the altar of diversity.
There used to be Democrats who supported the Second Amendment, but they have long since been purged for the most part. Zell Miller was among the last, and he went in the 90's. Liberals hate the idea of individual freedom with a passion, and I can name no current liberal in the state or national level that supports the Second Amendment. I doubt anyone can name one that is even neutral on the matter.
It is possible there are individual liberals who are not fully on board with disarming the populace, but if they are liberal, they will vote for liberal politicians, which means they will vote for gun control. If they want to join the NRA, no one is stopping them. Perhaps allowing them to send a couple dollars to a civil rights organization will help to salve their conscience if they ever realize the damage they've done voting for people who despise the idea of civil rights. It's a win-win.
Vile Shadow
...
- Feb 28, 2013
- 28,953
Reagan may not have been perfect. Nobody is. But he was a damn sight closer to it than the Muslim-in-Chief, and I'm sure that poll was rigged.
Yes, he was twelve in 1968. And he still volunteered for Nixon's campaign, when he was twelve. I don't know many twelve year olds passionate enough about their politics to volunteer for political campaigns. And he certainly wasn't twelve when he was in Angola and Afghanistan organizing anti-communist rebels at a time when those governments were, you know, shooting Americans for doing that. Unlike some of his armchair critics in the media, Norquist actually put himself in jeopardy for his principles. If you want someone with a history to make you worry try reading about Glenn Beck's drug issues back then.
The rest of your post is cutting and parsing the truth to fit your argument. It fails to mention that Norquist cut all ties with al-Amoudi after his radical side became apparent. And that a lot of people in and around the Bush Administration had ties with al-Amoudi, as he was delivering votes for them. I could go on but it grows late. There's tons of reading material on the web for those who want to make up their own minds. I would just encourage people to do exactly that and make up their own mind, not just take advice from media clowns.
Or the real win-win is that more and more of them join, don't get shit on and some of them decide to run for office.
beretta_maven
Free Thinking Member
While I appreciate your taking my personal list of beliefs and inserting your own for comparison, I fail to see how my signature line (traveling between SoMD and Calif) has anything to do with my position on climate change, and why you took such a great offense to it. I occasionally travel between here and there for two reasons: work (SoCal), and my family lives in NoCal. That is NOT antithetical to climate change.
robmints
Ultimate Member
- Jan 20, 2011
- 5,124
In the opinion of a climate change truther, your carbon footprint is related to climate change. Unless you are getting back and forth without use of fossil fuel, you are unecessarly adding to your perception of controlling the environment by taking a plane trip. I don't think our day to day lives effect climate and have no problem with your choice. Climate change is a liberal's Santa Clause, not mine.
My point was that your environmental footprint as a liberal climate change truther is most likely much greater than mine as a conservative climate/global warming/cooling non-believer. Both of our habits and impact are by choice and based in a balance between how we want to live our lives, and what type of planet we want future generations to inherit. Everyone needs to make those choices for themselves, and if they pollute or waste in a way that is provably, or reasonably judged harmful to the environment, there should be regulation and law. But to base the need for regulation and law on fantasy is detremental to the cause.
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,274
The NRA is a Gun Rights organization, not an conservative organization. Likewise the Gun Rights movement in general (should) be about Gun Rights specifically, and not diluted by non Constitutional side issues.
That said, there can be situations where an individual's other actions and views would make it wise to disassacoate with them. But I don't see that with Norquist.
That said, there can be situations where an individual's other actions and views would make it wise to disassacoate with them. But I don't see that with Norquist.
beretta_maven
Free Thinking Member
You have no clue what my "environmental footprint" is, other than the fact that I take an occasional flight across the country. When I do, I normally try to consolidate my business and vacation travel so that I don't have to make multiple trips to take care of work (the Defense industry, mind you) and my yearly trek to see my 87 year-old mother. Furthermore, I don't know of any "climate change truther" (what the hell is that, anyway?), liberal or otherwise, who believes or advocates that we immediately eliminate fossil fuel use - only curtail it as much as feasible and put more emphasis on the development of alternative, renewable energy resources. Yeah, that sounds like an evil plot against America alright....
Personally, I don't care what your position is on climate change or global warming, or women's health rights. The post that you responded to was my response to "pro-2A liberals are few", and my point was that neither political party (R or D) satisfy the requirements of many people, myself included. My stated political positions were meant to emphasize that point. There are, in fact, many liberal pro-2A folks out there, but unfortunately, most of them end up picking the lesser of two evils, especially when it comes to social issues. And though 2A is very important to me, it is not my only hot button issue. Consequently, my choices (and many others) at the voting booth are going to reflect who best fits the majority of my ideals.
beretta_maven
Free Thinking Member
DanGuy48
Ultimate Member
Earlier in this thread there was a post that there are probably plenty of pro-2A liberals. It made me think and I have racked my brain and cannot think of a single person I know who I would classify as liberal and pro-2A. How many do people here actually know that fit that description? Just curious.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Looking for light 9mm suppressor suggestions
- Started by John from MD
- Replies: 0