By John G.

I voted for Obama…twice. Now before you get your pitchforks and torches, would it help if I told you that I really really regret the most recent decision in light of his push for gun control? The truth is, I’m one of those individuals you don’t see or hear much about: I’m in the military (Army Reserves, not pictured above) and own firearms, but I’m also an atheist who votes predominantly Democrat because of my socially liberal views . . .

It’s a fine line to cross because almost all of my peers at my civilian employment are pure Democrats, and they think I am some gun nut, a far-right conservative. And when I have my uniform on during drill weekends, my peers there think I am some tree-hugging hippy who probably got duped by a recruiter.

By either account, the constant opposition and friction can be frustrating, but it has also been enlightening. I can always count on a disagreement or debate, and challenging my beliefs has been a gift in terms of solidifying my positions and arguments. Everyone should look for ways to challenge the way they think, which I’m sure everyone here would agree ought to be done by the gun grabbers.

It was by challenging my beliefs that I eventually came to the light and began supporting Second Amendment rights. As a boy scout I loved going to summer camp, where I got to enjoy the outdoors and shoot a rifle and shotgun. It was all great fun, but it took a little while before I realized firearms were more than toys.

It took even longer before I realized their importance. I debated with my conservative friends, and confided with my liberal ones. Why do they need to carry a pistol or why do they need that “assault weapon”? I was frustrated and appalled. Yes, I was one of them. I was a gun grabber.

Transitioning from gun grabber to Second Amendment supporter was no easy feat. I battled internal demons, thinking I was losing my identity. But, it was through debating one particular conservative friend that I made the final turn. He was passionate, yet logical and concise. He was angry about gun control, but was not angry with me when I harassed his positions. He made me look like the nut.

That was the key: balancing passion with compassion. I use that strategy now to the dismay of my gun-grabbing friends. (Yes, I have gun-grabbing friends; see the point above about challenging your beliefs). By challenging my previous beliefs, I not only found more logic in supporting gun rights, but I also found ways to develop sound arguments and opinions.

I am always looking for ways to grow and improve my positions because that is the best path to enlightenment (and winning arguments). Thinking you are right is wrong. Find ways to challenge your beliefs: watch MSNBC (if you have read this far, I doubt this one would have offended you), read a gun control book like Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy (by Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign). Or, more simply and probably less painful, discuss gun control openly with friends of alternative opinions. While there will be plenty out there who refuse to have an open mind about gun ownership, at least you can get an alternative view to your own beliefs.

Ironically, my wife is a conservative who opposes gun ownership for people with children (we have a 2 year-old daughter). More on how I am slowly breaking those barriers will be saved for another time. In the meantime, even if you think you are open-minded, get out there and challenge yourself. You might be surprised at how your positions will be more refined and improved, and you might even change someone’s mind. I may still lean Democrat, but hey, we can’t all be perfect.

142 Responses to FNS-9 Contest Entry: Confessions Of A Former Gun Grabber

  1. “…my wife is a conservative who opposes gun ownership for people with children.”

    I am mystified by this to no end. What does she intent to defend your daughter with when there are 3 home invaders coming up the stairs? Harsh language? Rational debate? “Oh, that will never happen to us”? This is where the “Should have been a DGU” articles come from.

    I appreciate your article, however. I have several Dem/Lib friends (gasp, yes) who are also gun owners and it is sometimes quite the quandary for them when they mix with other feral democrats.

    • It’s been difficult, but she has slowly come closer to my side. In fact, I will be constructing a shooting range in our backyard this summer if that’s any indication of where I’m getting. Thanks for the feedback.

  2. Finish making the leap and proclaim yourself Libertarian! It feels better when you break free of the double headed serpent.

  3. If you are still a liberal on any issue then you are still a fool but it least you have the gun part right. (I think) Your “pure Democrat” friends are an echo chamber that you need to escape from. Let logic be your guide not feelings, and I’m sure you will find you are wrong about any number of things.

    • Any issue? Yes, because one pair consenting adults who love each other enough to vow to hold and cherish till death do they part should be treated legally differently from another pair because the first pair just happen to be both of the same gender, amirite?

      Libertarian4lyfe

      • If you want to talk about guns, RKBA, shooting, scopes and related matters, that’s the purpose of this site.

        If you want to opine on marriage — of any type — then I’m sure Huffington Post or Reason or Cosmopolitan would be happy to have you.

        • Ummm… gloomhound seems to be the one who took the conversation beyond the topic of the Second Amendment…

      • HOW did you draw THAT out of what he said? Are you trolling by choosing a hot topic to pick on?

        Yes, it could include that… but it could be something else as well… perhaps his fear of not switching from liberal to libertarian. GO AWAY troll.

    • Just as roflmaozedong said, two consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

      I also enjoy having friends of a wide variety of backgrounds because of how it opens me up to different opinions. Social discourse is the best way to improve your debating abilities and understanding of the beliefs of your opponents. I enjoy surrounding myself with people that have varying perspectives because I choose to broaden my horizons. It’s a big world out there.

      • Yes two consenting adults should be able to marry, as long as they are not of the same sex…. I’m not trying to gay bash here nor am I aginst two people in love joining together. I’m just trying to get the point across that marriage is sacred bond between man and woman. Same sex couples can call it what ever they want ( civil union, nuptial tie, spiritual couple) just not marriage….

        Carry on..

        • Why do we ask the governments permission to marry anyway? The government should have no part in this decision at all. I’m tired of the government trying to make things equal, they need to make things more free. Do what you want in your church but the government should have no say what so ever. Period.

        • @Bruce, they do have the same rights. They are fully entitled to marry a woman and have children, just like any other man. But they can’t (in more sane places) marry another man, just like they can’t marry a cow, a houseplant, or their favorite piece of furniture. They might ‘love’ another man. They might be in love with their dog or the giant sequoia in their backyard too, but these ‘loves’ are primarily selfish loves. Why? Because they are first and foremost about the couple. They are sterile unions which do not build society by the procreation and raising of children, the future of all human societies. Thus, such unions are not true marriages, but just socially-accepted permission to live together and satisfy carnal urges. Calling this tax-beneficial fornication a “marriage” and giving it the same weight and privilege in the eyes of the law and the people is a travesty against the natural law, to say nothing of the God who created and who will one day judge us.

        • I think you’re being disingenuous here, reiser. Your opposition to gay marriage is simply the label? If you’re okay with homosexuals having all the same rights and privileges accorded to married heterosexual couples, then what difference does it make what word you use to describe it? Would you be OK if they called it “Eheschließung”, then? It’s German for “marriage”, but it’s not the actual word “marriage”…

          Billy’s got the only right answer on the subject: the government has no business being involved in private, personal relationships in the first place.

          Marriage is the only legal contract two people can enter into under one set of rules (the rules governing marriage in their state or residence), then be subject to a totally different set of rules if they move to another state. Likewise, the state can change the rules at any time, and you’re simply subject to them, no matter what the laws were at the time of your wedding.

          And E.Jones, if the requirement of a marriage to not be an abomination in your eyes is that it produces children, would you prohibit heterosexuals who are medically sterile from getting married? What about older people who are past childbearing age? Is that also travesty?

        • @reiser
          Why should one group get to own the word “marriage”? Both types of couples should get the same legal status. And if they want to make it official in the eyes of some sort of social institution, e.g. a church, that organization has the right to accept or decline them.

          @Billy
          Government started licensing marriage to prevent interracial marriage, because we don’t want people exercising their basic rights of association, if it might offend some idiot.

        • marriage between a man and woman is “endorsed/encouraged” by the government (stamp of approval/tax breaks/benefits) because that is the most basic unit of a society – propagation of species and a full range of societal and psychological views/values (male/female perspectives)

          with that being said, while I do not accept same-sex marriage, I believe that “some” of the benefits should be equalized, but I believe a man and woman have something unique and special that they give to society and thus the government should continue to give them special benefits – the marriage label should be kept the same and for all others, union/partnership – this confers the idea that marriage is different than the others, as it should be

        • @andrew. What about they gay couples who want families? You know, the ones who adopt certain useless heterosexual’s unwanted kids. What about them?

        • @Carry.45 – What about them? What are you asking? Same-sex marriages aren’t a man and woman; that is the qualifier and that is what the government is trying to encourage/endorse, anything else is just that. Legally, the word marriage is required, and has been defined as a man and woman; what it is doing, is encouraging a societal act that is a benefit to any kind of culture. Is there something special and unique about a man and woman union within society? If there isn’t then by all means lets remove any benefits they enjoy. If there is, than I think they deserve special consideration. Again, I believe there are certain things that need to be equalized, but I don’t believe all benefits need to be included.

        • I asked if the gay couples who may not be able to procreate but are certainly able to adopt unwanted kids from heterosexual parents should be allowed the same benefits(if not better because after all they are stepping up).

    • Gloomhound –

      Some, including myself like to think that “liberal” means “open minded”
      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
      a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
      b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
      c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

      I find it galling that most of the folks calling themselves “Liberals” use that word to describe themselves. These people have clearly become the People of the Nanny State, who live to dictate to others how to live their life.

      Similarly, the meaning of the word “Conservative” has been hijacked to mean “Christian, big-military, willing to rape the earth for her natural resources”. This flies in the face of what a true conservative is.

      It’s all so sad.

      • What was Obama’s stance of Gay Marriage when he ran for the president in 2008 when he voted for him the first time?

        “Obama told MTV he believes marriage is “between a man and a woman” and that he is “not in favor of gay marriage.” ”

        For the record I don’t think the government should have any business dealing with marriage or divorce for that matter.

        You can think “liberal” means what ever you like but people calling themselves “liberal” or “progressive” are working actively to remove your rights, to make you think or act a certain way and believe certain things. Who you support and vote for has ramifications and this is a fact. What you feel about this does not matter and if you support leftists you will lose your freedoms.

        • “For the record I don’t think the government should have any business dealing with marriage or divorce for that matter.”

          Impossible. Marriage and divorce involve legal contracts, concerning laws written by man. Written law is the realm of government. The whole sacred church thing with marriage is only half the story there…otherwise the Pastor who married you would decide your property and custody rights when and if the marriage went south. If anything marriage is a legal contract sanctified by religious bonding.

      • Open minded meaning not knowing (or standing up for) what one believes in/having no core values. Core values “obviously” meaning closed minded and intolerant (a supposed negative from the leftists). See also “moderate”. “centrists”.

        Athiest “obviously” being a close cousin and a tolerant progressive. Wrong. The athiest is also religious. Just his religion is himself. Self focused ego.

        • “Athiest “obviously” being a close cousin and a tolerant progressive. Wrong. The athiest is also religious. Just his religion is himself. Self focused ego.”

          Those of us who refuse to believe extraordinary religious claims despite the lack of extraordinary evidence to back it up are egomaniacs, huh? Absurd. Atheism is the lack of religious beliefs, this “ATHEISM IS JUST ANOTHER RELIGION LOL” thing I see oft repeated is absurd.

          A religion is, by definition, a belief in supernatural higher powers based on faith and dogma supported basically only by argumentum ad populum.

          Atheism is, by definition, the rational doubt of those unproven aforementioned things. It is the exact opposite of religious belief; it has nothing to do with ego and everything to with the sort of scientific and logical skepticism that blossomed during the Enlightenment and has made our world an immeasurably better place to live in since then.

        • Projectiledysfunction your name is awesome.
          But really, I’m not trying to make a blanket statement but in my experience people who call themselves “atheists” tend to be as douchey as they come.

        • Regarding Atheism being considered a religion, or not: By the accepted definition taught to everyone, it isn’t; even if the Atheist religiously follows a routine that enforces his or her belief with others of like belief or alone.

          Funny thing is I see “Agnostics,” which by definition is without knowledge (either way) sound off as if they are really Atheist instead of choosing not to believe either way because they don’t see anything to support either view.

          I’ve also seen those who cry “tolerance” and demand it, become very intolerant against opposing views themselves. I guess it is a one-way street for tolerance, and it had better be in their direction.

          I can also ask this: Why is it murder if a guy hits a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills the unborn child, yet call that same unborn child a fetus, and she can legally have it killed via abortion?

          But all that is not what this site is about. So, how about we all get back on track, hmm???

  4. John, thank you sharing your story. I can relate to your experience as that was what kind of happened to me in 2009.

    You mentioned in the 6th paragraph “it was through debating one particular conservative friend that I made the final turn,” would you mind elaborating on how your friend was able to turn you? Perhaps, share some of highlight details of those conversations, such as the topics, argument points, and so forth. After all you said your friend was…”passionate, yet logical and concise”, which is a intriguing choice of words. I’m always trying to improve with presenting my arguments to my friends. I would like to hope that I can effectively balance my passion with compassion. Thanks in advance!

    • There are a number of big questions/arguments gun grabbers use: WHY do you need a gun that shoots 30-rounds? WHY do you need that many guns? WHY do you need to carry one? Et cetera.

      The main response? Because I can. I choose to exercise my constitutional rights. And, if I miss a bad guy (like even the experts do – see the number of rounds fired by police when trying to capture the Tsarnaev brothers), then I have more rounds to back me up. I carry because of safety. I have more than one because, well, they’re fun – let’s go to the range and I’ll show you.

      Those are all watered down versions and not all of the points I would make, but you get the idea. They have been echoed in this website and others, and can be used very effectively if delivered properly. Happy debating!

  5. Good on you man. It always takes time to really break out of the molds and I can really relate to you on so many levels. I recommend the Libertarian party, however.. It seems to be a good place for people like you and I.

    • Thanks for the comment. Libertarian party seems fitting, but until we finally get rid of the two party system, the Libertarians will always fail to win. It’s unfortunate, but it’s reality.

      • Get rid of the two party system? Libritarians love the empty headed concept. What allowed the US to survive the travails of the last couple century is a (usually) working two party system. The alternative being the euromoronic gaggle of fools/coalition system. See GB, France, Italy, Israel, Aust. The US is very unique.

        Our two party system is broken right now. For the majority who know diddly about US history think this is something unique/new. Hardly the case. If/how we will correct is TBD. Or we will have economic/social collapse or economic collapse before we adjust.

        • Most of our early history involved more than 2 parties. Lincon’s election involved 4 parties, that was a big contributing factor to his election. The myth that we are locked into a 2 party system and any vote outside it is wasted is small minded and insulting. We get to pick our leaders, not just legitimize the ones chosen for us.

  6. I have a bud who always votes democrat because he thinks they will look out for the common man as opposed to republicans who he thinks are only looking out for each other (the good ole boy club). He is also a big fan of the gun, owns many and really enjoys recreational shooting as well as being a CCW holder. I call him conflicted and am glad I do not have the illusions he does about the dems. It’s real simple. The dems ALWAYS WANT TO RAISE MY TAXES AND TAKE MY GUNS. Any questions?

  7. John,

    You are precisely the kind of person that my article “Embrace the Other Side” was trying to talk about. We need more people like you to ensure the 2nd Amendment stays safe no matter who is in power, Democrat, Republican, or anyone else.

    • I really enjoyed your article, Tim. There was some occasional name calling between my friend and I, but mostly because we could for fun without insulting one another. I could relate to everything you had to say, so thank you!

    • Thanks! I’ll have to check out the article because as it turns out, a lot of my friends were surprised to find out I was a Dem. They knew I was in the military (and keep clean cut as a result) and strongly supported firearms, so they assumed I was a Rep.

      • I get the opposite – I support gay marriage, abortion rights, and I drive an efficient car and have LEDs and CFLs all through my house – and people are constantly surprised that I support gun rights and capital punishment.

    • That’s a great article, but the comments make me so sad, advocating violence against the author and the subject of the article.

      • Or it could be just that he voted for one of the worst presidents in recent history, who has made gun control and Obamacare to be his legacy. I still have not encountered rational arguments as to the benefits of Obamacare vs a tort reform / national healthcare provider competition. Those who would argue otherwise will soon see when they get hit with the 20 plus new tax measures required to finance the “Affordable” Health Care Act. At least most of these readers understand that gun control = control.

        Let CA, Chicago, and NY be guides as to why blue areas are antagonistic towards freedom.

      • Please point out the comments that advocate violence against the author. I’m not seeing them presently.

  8. Thanks Man! I am glad I am not the only Pro-2nd Amendment, Democrat, socially liberal, and two time Obama voter out there. Previous comments about ‘just join the Libertarian Party’ will not be ignored. I’m pissed at both the Ds and the Rs.

      • And rightfully so.

        Note that Romney lost some 3.5million Rep voters in 2012 from that McCains poor turnout in 2008. Bama lost some 3million from 2008 to 2012. dems, apparently decided he was not radical enough.

        Romney/Rep party lost the finally fed up with RINOs conservatives (that McCain had not attracted).

      • You’re certainly not the only one. I’m one of us, too.

        I am definitely a small l libertarian, but the Libertarian’s fiscal ideas seem simple-minded and more than a little unfair.

  9. “That was the key: balancing passion with compassion. I use that strategy now to the dismay of my gun-grabbing friends. (Yes, I have gun-grabbing friends; see the point above about challenging your beliefs). By challenging my previous beliefs, I not only found more logic in supporting gun rights, but I also found ways to develop sound arguments and opinions.”

    Good entry.

    Though I’m sure it will get some people calling you “libtard” because you dared to admit you’re an atheist and that you lean Democrat.

    We, the folks who own guns and support gun rights, need to do a better job reaching out and getting more people to join our community. It’s good that we have logic and rational thought on our side, but being right doesn’t mean we have to act like jerks. I’d like to think we can all be the “better man” (or “better woman”) in any argument about the 2A.

    • Thank you for your comments. I knew admitting those things would place me at risk, but I wanted to convey how important constructive dialogue can be. If you have ever debated someone who could never admit to being wrong even when you defeated them at every turn, then you can acknowledge how frustrating it is – it only solidifies an opinion and stereotype of that individual. If we, as the pro-2A people, use abrasive and illogical statements to defend our rights, then the others will just use it to show how stupid and irrational we are. It will only hurt.

  10. Galatians 6:7-8 ESV

    Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

    Basically you are reaping what you voted for. Enjoy.

  11. Many of us are recovering liberals, I voted for slick willie twice, but came to my senses by 2000 when I knew that no matter what libs say, all they wanted was my tax dollars and control. A friend who was in the Red Army and escaped to come to America said it best, “Democrats sound and act like Soviets”.

    • After studying Russia in college, I am compelled to agree. Perhaps not to the same extent as gulags, but I can see the comparison.

  12. I stopped reading after “I voted for Obama twice”. I’ve gotten to the point in my life where I have no interest in what the Obama nation has to say. You people are the problem, not the solution.

    • And you sir, are just as much a part of the problem. Unless there is cooperation between both sides of the aisle, our country will grind to a halt. Oh wait – it has!

      Unfortunately we can only vote for one person for president, and that person can stand for things we do and don’t believe in – I have yet to find a candidate I agree with 100% of the time. I may agree with the idea of less taxes, but I completely disagree with the religious push that we are seeing in most republicans. I hate that the party that talks “get the government out of my personal business” is the same party that wants to legislate their beliefs into law.

      “The gov’t can’t tell me what to do, but it can tell them they can’t get married!” That’s B.S.

      • You two are nice examples of brainwashing. The Right doesn’t give a crap about your social issues. No legislation has been proposed to take away any of your social issues. True low-information voters. Anyone that voted for Obama twice really is a lost cause. They will buy into the same divisive crap that will start before the 2014 and 2016 campaigns and will vote for Hilary and Company.

        I have nothing left but contempt for the Obama Nation.

        • I’m sorry you chose not to read the rest of my article, but I thought there would be some folks out there to do so. By refusing to go on further, however, you failed to recognize how my path changed. If I was such a lost cause, then your opinion should have changed by the rest of what I had to say.

        • There’s certainly enough of the brainwashed to go around, but you can’t discount everyone that voted for Obama. Sometimes it’s not about voting *for* one person, it’s about voting *against* the other guy.

          And for a party that doesn’t care about social issues, they sure have spent a lot of time fighting gay marriage and abortion.

        • Joke & Dagger, what puzzles me is why you’re bothering to argue so much about something that you didn’t even read. Talk about low information…

        • Because the proof is in the pudding, not in the talking. The results of the elections speak volumes. I don’t believe any of you gun-owning Obama voters are going to vote any different next time. Once the divisive social-issue rhetoric starts pre-election, you will be voting Democrat, just like the last time. You will vote for Hilary over whatever pathetic candidate the Republicans put up and the Libertarian will be marginalized. Predicatable as the sun coming up in the East tomorrow morning.

        • J&D, all I can say to that is that I look forward to proving you wrong when it comes time to vote again.

      • “Unfortunately we can only vote for one person for president”

        Generally that proves to be two candidates too many.

        Let me say it in clear terms: when they place a plate of fresh, steaming black shit and one of fresh steaming yellow shit in front of you, that doesn’t mean you have to eat. They’re BOTH shit, and you’re seriously mad if you eat either one!

        • I sat this one out as well. Romney was from MA. Hardly a champion for gun rights. Do we really think he’d have been much better? And Obama? Eff that. Giant douche or turd sandwich?

  13. A very good article. People generally do not like to question their political or social views regardless of which side they support. I know quite a few shooting buddies who support gun ownership yet can’t logically argue why they hold this view. Screaming, “Second Amendment’ might seem like a good idea at the time, but if you cannot explain why people have a right to self defense and why guns should not be exclusively in the hands of the military and state, then you seriously need to rethink where you are standing.

    • I completely agree. It can be uncomfortable to challenge your beliefs. But, there are those out there that oppose gun ownership, like I did, who are open to rational thought and dialogue. I debated a lot of pro-2A individuals who lacked on substance, so I always thought I was in the right. When I debated someone on the actual issues, then I came to realize the error of my ways.

      • I am comfortable with my beliefs. They are rooted in the Bible and the Constitution. Nothing in those documents is up for debate with me.

        • And that, sir, is actually your problem!!!!… You put yourself in a bind and despise anybody that don’t take your words as face value…

        • Yet, do you pick and choose what you believe out of the Bible and/or The Constitution, or do you take it as a whole?

  14. Great article John G.

    I too am a left leaning, Democrat… most of the times. Like you said, we can’t all be perfect. But over the last year (with the help of finding well thought out and reasoned sites like this), my support of the 2nd Amendment has gone from luke warm to white hot. As I’ve said before, I may have differing views with others here on health care, use of military force, collective bargaining etc… but I would gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with ANYONE on this site in defense of the 2nd amendment. In the recent past, I’ve watched with disdain under both the Bush and Obama administrations on the distortion and outright trampling at times of the Consitution in the name of “National Security”. Now I see the current gun grabber efforts in their attacks on the 2nd Amendment in the same light.

    Supporting the Bill of Rights should be an American priority, not left to either Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians. And the more D’s, R’s and L’s we have as a group will ensure that the 2nd A is ALWAYS in the majority, whoever is in office.

  15. “I hate that the party that talks “get the government out of my personal business” is the same party that wants to legislate their beliefs into law.”

    Well said! I have voted republican in the last few elections because I felt that I had no choice. They can go shove a gavel up their hypocritical @$$es. Next political season I am voting libertarian.

    • Shawn, please enlighten me and list these laws that have been proposed that will “legislate their beliefs into law”. I just can’t recall any. You’ve been indoctrinated quite well by the Progressives. I certainly agree with you on the Libertarian position.

      • You can’t recall any? Let’s see – trying to ban gay marriage, trying to legislate that creationism has to be taught as science, trying to legislate that a high school student has to swear *to god* before he can get his high school diploma.

        Please, get your fracking religion out of my laws.

        • Dave, there is no gay marriage to ban. Also, no laws have been passed stating your examples. You are using what is already in place as “the Republicans telling me what to do”.

        • That’s called keeping the status quo, not legislating morality. Not passing laws to change to your views does not equate to “Republicans telling us what to do”. Big difference.

        • Jim Crow Laws were intended to keep the status quo as well. You claim the constitution as one of the documents that guides you, but you dont want it applied equally to all. I can’t get on board with that.

  16. John G., although you voted for Obama twice (proving that you’re not sane enough to own a gun), I speak only for myself when I say that I accept your mea culpa. Go and sin no more. And if some day we should meet in a place that serves adult beverages, you’re buying every fre@king round. You owe me at least that much.

  17. I say he helped create the Brave New World, that now terrifies him, so he can dam well sleep in it.
    Metaphors purposely mixed as a show of disrespect

    • I assure you I live with the decision daily. Sorry that despite us never meeting, you feel comfortable disrespecting my opinions and honesty. It was with people like you in mind that I wrote the article.

      • And it is with people like you in mind that I will not read your trash. Wise up and use your actions to speak for you, not use words later to try and feel better about your actions. Everything that is presently occurring was as clear as day before the 2012 elections.

        • It must be immensely comforting to reflect that you’ve always been on the right side and you knew everything all along, unlike those who were wrong once and are now forever tainted.

          John G. is a man who has thought things through and is suiting word to action. Let his actions now speak for who he is now.

        • Don’t project clearly seeing the stated Progressive agenda to “always being on the right side”. There is not a chance of me always being on the right side.

      • Is that the world you envision as paradise, the one where you get to spout-off on a public forum and then slam those that don’t fall for your rhetoric?
        Perhaps you would feel better in a world ruled as a dictatorship, opps, my mistake, YOU voted for that world

  18. Well,

    I’m neither a Democrat or Republican. Both parties have sold their souls to the devil. The Democrats to the witless poor/minorities/liberal whites and the Republicans to the corporate welfare companies (the Dems are doing this too).

    We as a country have lost our way and the only hope is that you folks vote out the incumbents of both parties. . I like the Tea Party but the two Dems and Reps are way too entrenched.

    I have several guns as a sport shooter and a CHP. For those reading this, you need to preach to someone else other than the choir.

    Find a liberal gun grabber and have a conversation, take them out shooting, better yet take them to IDPA or IPSC or wherever to meet other gun people . . it works to show them we’re all not nuts.

    Though I’ve always thought 1) You can’t carry on a rational conversation with a gungrabber and 2) Both major political parties are using gun control to divert folks from our countries’ real issues.

    One last thought. Several years ago I did the Census as a Census taker. The intelligence of the average American is highly over rated. I don’t mean that as an insult, just a comment on reality.

    Short Jingos work for politicans, the devil is in the details. . . which those morons don’t even know or understand.

    • Thank you for your thoughts. I agree that we need to preach to people besides each other. I definitely agree that the intelligence of the average American is over-rated, and I’m sure you had plenty of firsthand experience with that.

    • Find a liberal gun grabber and . . . take them out shooting

      I’d use them to hang the targets if I didn’t think they’d put them up sideways.

      • Agreed, this “Crossing The Isle” BS has got to stop Leftists never move from their dogma as a result the Constitutionalists who do not see what the tactics of the LEFT are find themselves witless enablers of the destruction of America. Those who will not stand in eternal vigilance for the Founding Principles will ultimately Fall, all in pursuit of being part of the Cool Crowd. Baa Baa Baa!

  19. The 2nd Amendment is a single vote issue for me as well. I would vote for a Democrat that supports the second amendment over a Republican that doesn’t.

    • Yeah, me too — although the “pro-2A” Democrap would probably turn into Joe Manchin. It’s in their political DNA.

  20. “…votes predominantly Democrat because of my socially liberal views . . .”

    Soon you’ll have to make a decision on which is more important to you, late term abortion, gay rights (whatever that is), free contraception, high taxes, high unemployment, your children drowning in debt, amnesty for illegals or your natural right to self defense for you and your family. Eventually, pro-gun democrat politicians will be a thing of the past. Choose wisely.

    • The Republicans have yet to offer any plan on dealing with the debt. The “cuts” are just spending cuts, and not enough to stop taking on more debt.

      Nobody is really doing anything, except for the very few acting alone like Rand Paul.

      I’m done with both of the big parties. Neither one of them is actually going to do a thing to help save this country from going over the cliff anyway.

    • Which is why the Libertarian party is the natural choice. You’re not forced to choose between your gun rights and the rest of your rights.

  21. Wow. I never expected to read such a bunch of liberal drivel here. Let’s not make it a habit, shall we?

    • Bunch of gay, liberal men here trying to make themselves feel better via group therapy as to why it’s okay they voted for Obama.

  22. I welcome your further revelations on freedom. First its guns, then its free market, then its rest of the Constitution.

  23. I believe there are quite a few people who have had views or changes in views similar to the author’s. Mine political views are similar to the author’s except that I never supported or thought a gun ban was a good idea. Although have voted primarily Democratic & voted for the current president both times. The ironic thing is except for the health care bill (that really hasn’t done anything for those who need health care & don’t have it or can’t afford it), a failed pork project to invest in solar power & his attempts at gun control legislation his policies are very similar to G.W. Bush. If you are paying attention to what both parties are really supporting, other than a few bills they can pull out when election years roll around they don’t give a flying f*** about the 99% & seek to keep the populace distracted with either keeping a roof over their head & food on the table (in the case of the lower class) or pop culture, electronics & reality TV shows (in the case of the middle class) while they pillage the country’s wealth & maintain the herd mentality. And they say people with views like this are a threat to the national security (i.e. don’t believe in a two party system, believe in things like individual freedoms, the constitution etc.). Don’t believe me? Just look at the recent FBI .pdf’s they’ve been sending out.

  24. Well lets face it, as supporters of the 2nd Amendment, we would all do well if a Republicans ever found and nominated a man like Harry Truman again. Sadly, both parties have become so polarized, there is no room for a man like Harry in the R column, nor is there space for significant influence from blue dog Dems.

    And as a country we suffer as a result.

    • Harry Truman was a wad of chewing gum in the jaws of history, a dimwit tool of Boss Tom Pendergast who barely graduated high school. HST was picked by FDR because HST knew his place and would do what he was told because that’s what he’d been doing his whole political life.

      Until the current POTUS, nobody since Andrew Johnson came to the Presidency with less ability than Harry Truman.

      • Thanks for catching my mistake, meant to say Eisenhower…. and yes, I agree with you on Truman. Eisenhower… he had a wee bit little better resume. And while he was republican in the ’50’s, he’d have no home in the party today.

  25. ummm, yeah I don’t need to challenge myself because I am on the right side of the gun debate and you are just getting here. If you oppose gun ownership you are flat out wrong. There is no need for discussion or debate. Sure we can debate things like can AK’s be carried openly to a baseball game or is it better public policy to require concealed carry of pistols in public. Again, there is no possible reason for a debate on gun owning or carrying.

  26. “Shawn, please enlighten me and list these laws that have been proposed that will “legislate their beliefs into law”.” Sure, there is a lot that republicans have done over the past few years that has angered me. To name a few there is the patriot act , the drug war, defending NSA data collection and spying… You are probably a lot like me in that you are a strong defender of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and hate to see politicians screwing with your rights because they believe they know what is best for you. Although I oppose gay marriage because of my religious views the author and the people you are debating are correct in saying that the government does not have the right to ban gay marriage . Likewise government cannot recognize gay marriage as it conflicts with the separation of church and state. Really, if you believe that marriage is a right and also believe in the constitution then you must abolish marriage certificates. They are also correct in saying that republicans are wrong to press any religious values on the people, which would conflict with religious freedom. Hell, do you really want to be as holly as a politician?

    • Again, no Republican in recent memory has passed a law changing any of the social policies you hold so dearly. Saying a Republican is “banning” gay marriage is not correct. The Republicans are simply refusing to go along with any laws that would change the long-standing laws in place regarding marriage. Once again, BIG DIFFERENCE!

      • Yep, that’s “almost” right, in the sense that in Washington they did not succeed in having any of those law passed… At the local level, however, several examples come in mind… what about creationism at school?…

  27. First of all get God in your life.In the bible homosexuality is a sin,I follow the bible,because a Supreme being made us,even if the non-believers or scientists say a big boom made everything,Who made the stuff that came from the big boom?we can

    argue this all day.Plus I don’t believe in evolution,if it were true how come all animals aren’t still evolving into something else ?On the matter of gun control,your wife is not a conservative,if at all she might be a liberal conservative but maybe not because gun rights is a corner stone of the conservative belief.Plus what would happen to her and your children,when you were not at home,in the event of a home invasion,natural disaster,when crime would be prevalent,or any breakdown of society?My wife along with our kids and grand kids all have been trained in using weapons for hunting or self defense,as long as people have the training and are responsible with weapons,there shouldn’t be a problem.It is when people are irresponsible with firearms that the problems arise.Be ready and prepared.Keep your powder dry.

    • Plus I don’t think that this letter should be considered to win anything at all,my two-cents!Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

      • I appreciate your thoughts and concern, Andy. I certainly agree with you on the points of gun control. As for the religion, that is certainly no where close to where I intended the article to go, but I respect your decisions nonetheless.

    • Yes, because calling an individual a “foolish moron” certainly raises a person to the status of maturity. Regardless, I am curious to know your reasoning.

  28. “Thinking you are right is wrong”

    Here’s an idea. STOP SMOKING SO MUCH DOPE.

    PS

    Libertarian = immoral conservative.

    “The kind of wicked fool who wants to keep more of his money in order to have more drugs, prostitutes and porn.

    Real conservatism is principled, moral and honors God above all else, rather than promoting narcotics and destructive sexual immorality.”
    -Interwebs

  29. “Saying a Republican is “banning” gay marriage is not correct. The Republicans are simply refusing to go along with any laws that would change the long-standing laws in place regarding marriage. Once again, BIG DIFFERENCE!”
    Come on man, you are splitting hairs here. I think we can admit that they have a point that republicans are against gay marriage and support current legislation, which is essentially a ban

    • Bullshizzle. Not changing is not banning. Since when do a lousy 3% of the population get to drive the social agenda in our nation. Shut the fvck up and live your lives like the rest of us. We just don’t care.

    • Politicians and governments haven’t the legitimate authority to redefine that which pre-existed both by millenia, just as one’s right to arms pre-existed the politicians and government, and they haven’t the legitimate authority to nullify THAT, either.

  30. John G.
    Ok. You regret your last Presidential vote. Don’t overvalue its effect. If Romney (my guy) had won, he’d surely disappoint me over something. The thing is, we have divided government, so it’s tough for anything to get done (as President Obama has discovered regarding his gun control agenda).

    For 2a issues, you can compensate in other ways – the local political process, engaging people you know, and making financial contributions. Your piece here is excellent too.
    What matters is that you’re engaged in the process and you think. And when thinking about what’s reasonable regarding firearms rights, one realizes how unreasonable the left often is.

    (My personal peeve regarding the left’s ‘unreasonableness’ is their religious-like devotion to unrealistic government pensions. Props to lib-dem Gavin Newsom, who, when Mayor of San Francisco, said that the Democrats can help the poor or pay retirees $60+K pensions. Pick one).

    Don’t worry about offending both sides. Thinking people do so.

  31. John G.,

    Well Done. I sympathize with you and my life has mirrored yours in many ways. I also operate in a two drastically different populations. I do love my guns and I am also an athiest. I served in Army on active duty for 6 years, so I know exactly how frustrating is it when trying to grapple with the beliefs of others and your own identity. It’s like trying to juggle for the first time, but with chainsaws instead.
    Thank you for posting.

  32. When you get to the point that you realize that without accepting the concept that your right to arms comes from the Creator, you will have gotten there.

    Until then, if you’re honest, you will be struggling with the fact that men who believe that their rights exist only at the behest of other men are feeding the alligator hoping it will eat them last.

  33. “… read a gun control book …”
    WAIT!!
    If you read a gun control book, realize that you will be reading a pack of lies.
    30 years ago, the Brady Campaign, then call Hanguns, Inc. published a study that “proved” that the #1 cause of death for children were handguns. The problem with that study, assuming the data was valid, was that they called anyone 21 years and under, a “child”. Normally, a “child” is under 16.

  34. Not going to read through 130 responses, however I submit this thought to the author:

    How a politician feels about gun rights is a great barometer of how he feels about all your other rights.

    You got what you voted for.

  35. I feel your pain. I have tended to vote Democrat but also believe in self-reliance, self-defense and the 2A. I own guns and train with them for self-defense and hunting. I have felt recently that I should actually vote Republican just to try to bring some balance back politically, but living in California, I don’t have high hopes that it would make a difference. BTW, I very much respect your willingness to research opposing views and come to your own conclusions based on reason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *