P320 Entry: Don’t Fall Into the Single-Issue Trap

Screen Shot 2014-06-04 at 7.54.19 AM By Sgt. Joshua J. I am very liberal. Actually, I’ll come clean, I’m falling off the left side of the scale liberal. Most gun owners see my philosophy on life as the enemy and I can understand why. It is generally those on the left side of the platform who push for strict gun control laws. Funny thing is, I disagree with almost every proposed measure of gun control that comes out. I’m not the evil, gun-grabbing, baddie . . . Being an outspoken liberal and being an outspoken gun owner confuses nearly every person I talk to. Some just cannot grasp that you don’t have to fall solidly into being either being a right-wing nutjob or a communist (their words, not mine). This is a huge problem in our society. A lot of folks have fallen into the mindset that it’s either right Twix or left Twix and our factories just have to hate each other because that’s the way it’s supposed to be. There are valuable views to be taken from the Republican platform (fiscal responsibility), Liberal platform (ensuring all citizens have the means to prosper), Libertarian platform (personal freedom), Green Party (take care of the environment), and others. You can have your cake and eat it too (unless you’re doing the low-carb thing, in which case avoid cake like it’s the plague). I’m huge on social justice, which for me includes gun rights. A lot of liberals wouldn’t classify gun ownership as part of social justice but history has shown the right to bear arms keeps citizens and government on a somewhat fair playing field. Avoid the trap politicians lay for single-issue voting. That is why bad laws get passed. If you only vote for Cindy Bowinkle Hueydueylueyski because she promises you that you can only pry her gun from her cold dead hands, then you should probably lay down some money that she’s avoiding talking about everything behind door number two for a reason. Every platform can incorporate gun rights because they all fall under the law of our constitution. Don’t be scared away from other political parties because of a single issue. Our country is full of checks and balances and it’ll all balance out in the end.

comments

  1. avatar JR says:

    “Funny thing is, I disagree with almost every proposed measure of gun control that comes out. “

    Okay, I’ll bite.

    With which gun control measures do you not disagree?

    1. avatar Clay says:

      My thoughts exactly.

  2. avatar Shire-man says:

    Ah, the mythical ‘social justice.’ Or as Vonnegut wrote it Harrison Bergeron.
    My single issue = the state should leave me the hell alone.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      As Dennis Prager says….

      The reason the left calls it “Social justice” is that it’s wholly different from justice. If it was the same thing there would be be no need for the term “social justice”.

    2. avatar CentralIL says:

      Gun rights give people the means to defend what they have produced from those who would take it in the name of social justice.

      1. avatar Dm says:

        Bravo sir, well said.

      2. avatar doesky2 says:

        Why yes…that’s it.

      3. avatar Pseudo says:

        That is a ludicrous and dangerous sentiment, especially troublesome because of how readily it appears to be accepted here. A huge amount of conservative backlash after Obama’s election was confusing losing a democratic election with tyranny. The idea that our guns are protecting us from public policy we disagree with is fallacious and paints gun rights advocates in a poor light. I, like the author, am very left leaning and you can hate me or my political views all you want. Your right to keep and bear arms isn’t to protect you from what happens when left leaning politicians win congressional majorities or find their way to the white house. That’s democracy. Deal with it. These views have particularly bad optics and I’d warn people who want to keep as many of their rights as possible that enough negative public opinion WILL see increased (and mostly pointless) gun control passed. Just something to think about.

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          “The idea that our guns are protecting us from public policy we disagree with is fallacious:

          Keep an eye on Nevada.

        2. avatar Michael G Marriam says:

          Actually your argument is much more dangerous and wrong too. The government is established as a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Our participation in that government is by a representative democracy. The Republic is meant to protect the rights of the minority from the democratic majority. The framers of the Constitution were unanimous in their concern that democracy would destroy the Republic.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

          You realize that you’re arguing against the first part of the Second Amendment, don’t you? If not the right to keep and bear arms, what, pray tell, ultimately protects us against tyranny? How do you think your socialist utopia will be forced upon a free people (hint: by force of arms)?

        4. avatar Bob Watson says:

          Soooooooo, is this a “please sir, may I have another?” strategy for advocating for our civil rights?

        5. avatar Ardent says:

          The concept that you will take that which another produced is called theft. It doesn’t matter what you do with that product, even if you give it to needy and ‘deserving’ people, it’s still theft. Sanctioned theft is counter to liberty, free economics and common sense, it’s also never worked anywhere it’s been tried. The idea that a person would defend, with violence if necessary, the product of their effort is natural, recognized by the law, and is good and right. If one has nothing one must produce something, not be rewarded with the fruits of another’s labor, acumen, expertise or even luck. Socialism and communism punish the best people in a society while rewarding meagerly the worst. In the end everyone is equally bad off except the rulers. It’ economic tyranny to suggest that since one person has done better he ought to yield some to those who have not, and it robs everyone of the motivation to perform.

      4. avatar Matt in TX says:

        Yup, what he said.

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      Damn straight! (And sweet literary reference, I love that short story).

      The reason social justice [sic] (or as we used to call it: injustice) and gun control go hand-in-hand is that social justice [sic], or any other redistribution plan for that matter, requires the government forcibly taking from some people and giving the ill-gotten proceeds (minus enough to pay some hefty salaries to the redistributors, because that’s important work) to other people (or as we used to call it: stealing). An armed population makes social justice [sic] more difficult, and true social justice [sic], like that implemented by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the late 1970s, impossible.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        It is not hard to understand why someone who plans to rob you would first like to disarm you. What’s hard to understand is why someone who doesn’t seek your property or your freedom would wish to disarm you.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          ” What’s hard to understand is why someone who doesn’t seek your property or your freedom would wish to disarm you.”

          Have you heard of such a person? Where?

    4. avatar DJ says:

      Social Justice: The process of rationalizing the actions of politicians who infringe on the rights of unfavored groups to create privilidges for favored groups (ie, people who vote for them). Synonyms: buying votes, preferential treatment, discrimination Antonyms: equal protection under the law, rights to personal property

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        Nice, you’ve nailed it!

    5. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Wouldn’t the social justice of firearms being a government mandate to dispense governtment-approved, triple safety shotguns firing only non-leathal rounds to the inner-city poor?

  3. avatar BlinkyPete says:

    I predict this comment section will the model of cool, collected thought and free exchange of opposing ideas.

    1. avatar possumdog89 says:

      I think what you meant to say was FLAME DELETED……

      1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

        Lol.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      Are you kidding? I want to %^&*% the ignorant *^^*%*& communist *^% with my bare hands.

  4. avatar Great Scot says:

    All righty, then. Not a bad entry, and very true. As JR said, what’s with the almost?

  5. avatar Akira says:

    While it’s true that politicians’ views on guns are not “black and white”, the problem is that voting for them is in fact 100 percent binary. I either vote for them or I don’t.

    If there were a politician whose platform I liked except for the gun control part, I can’t give them a partial vote. I can’t vote for every part of their platform except gun control. I have to either vote for them, and thus for their stance on all issues, or I can vote for someone else.

    I choose to vote for someone else. While I have yet to find a candidate with whom I agree on every single issue, I believe that gun control is one of the most important. It’s one of the hardest (if not THE hardest) freedoms to gain back once you’ve lost it.

    I understand that there are pro-gun liberals out there, but the problem is that the party as a whole is not going to drop the gun control agenda until they start losing elections over it. By voting for an anti-gun candidate, self-proclaimed pro-gun liberals are effectively endorsing gun control. The politicians don’t care if they approve of gun control or not – they only care about whether or not we vote for them.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Very well stated.

      1. avatar Matt in TX says:

        Ditto

    2. avatar Taylor TX says:

      Great comment, I imagine its hard to admit being a useful idiot as a gun owning voter voting against gun rights.

    3. avatar bontai Joe says:

      Yep, what Akira said +1

    4. avatar JR says:

      Another +1; well stated.

    5. avatar Ed Cardoza says:

      Not so simple for all people.

      For example, let’s say I’m anti-gun control, pro-choice, anti-death penalty. Say I’m faced with an pro-gun control candidate who’s pro-choice, anti-death penalty and a pro-2A candidate who’s anti-woman’s right to choose and pro-death penalty.

      I’d probably vote for the former, but that would depend on a number of factors. Overall competency of each candidate, how devoted and active are they with respect to each of the issues, etc.

      But here’s why I think that there will never be place for liberal 2A supporters among the majority of 2A supporters (I’m speculatin’ here, I haven’t done a survey).

      It’s over the meaning of “shall not be infringed” What is it about “shall not be infringed” that I don’t understand? I don’t understand how it’s supposed to mean that the right cannot be burdened whatsover. For example, I don’t think that 4473’s and background checks are an infringement on the right to keep and bear.

      At some point, burdens become infringements – Class 3 stuff, IMHO are burdens that have become de facto infringements.

      I’m guessing that many liberal gun owners would have similar positions. I’m betting that most gun owners and 2A supporters do not.

      1. avatar Sam Spade says:

        “Pro-choice–anti-death penalty”??? Perfect definition of Cognitive Dissonance.

        What crime did the little baby commit for the mommy to get the right to kill it that’s worse than the mass-murdering rapist for whom the jury gets to assess the death penalty?

        1. avatar Ed Cardoza says:

          I see your “cognitive dissonance” and raise you a “false equivalency.”

        2. avatar doesky2 says:

          Nope, there is perfect alignment with the pro-choice and anti-death-penalty positions.

          It is the disregard for innocent life.

        3. avatar Another Robert says:

          Please point out the falsity. I think I know but I want to be sure.

        4. avatar TheBear says:

          Abortion is one of those really interesting issues that are flip flopped from the norm, the norm being that the Right argues with logic and the Left argues with emotion.

          FOR THE BABIEZ!!! is a purely emotional argument. It is. Just own it.

        5. avatar El Mac says:

          @TheBear, really? Emotion? So you ridicule someone that doesn’t want to see a baby torn limb from limb for the sake of someone’s convenience? Go join the Taliban jerk. You will prosper with them.

        6. avatar TheBear says:

          You just made my point for me.

          That was an emotional response. You even called names.

        7. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          @Thebear

          Abortion is a bit more complicated than many individual rights issues because at some point more than one person is involved. I think all moral people can agree that an infant is a human being and deserves protection under the law. What’s much stickier is the point at which a fertilized egg becomes a human being. At that point (whatever it may be; still wrestling with that myself) the right of the unborn to life must be respected. Of course the mother still has rights, especially if her life is in danger, but at some point there is more than one person to consider. For now, by any criterion I find reasonable, a fetus is a human being at least by the third trimester. So there’s a moderate pro-life position without any emotion.

        8. avatar TheBear says:

          I’m a bit of a weird bird on this one.

          I believe life begins at conception.

          However, I believe in freedom. Period.

          I believe a mother has a right to kill it before it’s born. Period.

          So pretty much both sides can’t stand my opinion on this one. 🙂

          That said, I also believe that it takes 2 to create life. As such, the woman should get the final say over whether she keeps or kills the baby, but if the father wants to abort it, he should not have to pay child support for it. In one fell swoop, this would negate gold digging and “oopsing” men.

          Reproductive rights should not all fall to woman when reproductive responsibilities go to both genders.

        9. avatar El Mac says:

          @TheBear, Pro tip of the day for you: Get some help.

        10. avatar TheBear says:

          @ El Mac

          Please come back when you can have a real discussion without just freaking out and saying something along the lines of, “FOR THE CHILDREN!”

        11. avatar El Mac says:

          @TheBear, come back when you can discuss it beyond the point of shouting “Freedom!” while plunging the scissors into the back of the head of a child.

        12. avatar TheBear says:

          You know you’re parodying yourself, right?

          That was another emotional attack. You do realize you sound /exactly/ like the anti gun people, right?

        13. avatar El Mac says:

          @TheBear, no…if you can’t take an emotional attack, best get back in the kitchen bro. You aren’t ready for prime time yet.

        14. avatar TheBear says:

          Erm…

          It has nothing to do with me being able to “take it” or not (I like the additional veiled insult there btw).

          It has everything to do with not being able to argue rationally with emotion.

        15. avatar El Mac says:

          @TheBear, Leftist Taliban baby killers do not understand logic ergo, it is a complete waste of time to argue with them from any angle.

        16. avatar TheBear says:

          LOL… I have a combat duty DD214. Do you? I’ve actually talked to the Taliban (while they were in zip cuffs), have you?

          Here’s some knowledge for you: The Taliban are against abortion too! Yup. It’s true. So if anyone resembles the Taliban here, it’s you.

          Please try to restrain your head from exploding. I don’t want to be responsible for that.

        17. avatar El Mac says:

          @TheBear, uh, yeah I do. And yes, I’ve zip tied my share of Taliban, DNA samples off deads ones and so on. Big deal.

          As for the abortion issue, even a bling hog finds a nut every now and again – thus it is with the Taliban and abortion. Sadly, you stand four square with the Nazis and Dr. Mengele. Heil Hitler much?

        18. avatar TheBear says:

          Dude I just pointed out how ridiculous you sound and first you brush it off, then you say I’m a Nazi because I’m for personal freedom and reproductive rights.

          Yeah… I think I’m done here.

        19. avatar El Mac says:

          @TheBear, dude, what about the personal freedom of the baby you want to kill? You are the definition of a Nazi.

      2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        And so is the folly of the “serious discussion” about gun control. Gun owners are expected to believe that if we only acquiesce to Universal Background Checks and magazine limits and “Assault Weapons” bans, that somehow all those in the gun control crowd would then cease their quest for more laws after the next round of mass murderers kill innocent people. Of course, gun owners know this not to be true. After the 1994 AWB, it was clear that the law was a mere stepping stone. Look at the additional calls for gun control after Columbine (all firearms and magazines used were AWB legal). Look at the calls/legislation for more gun control nationally and in NY, CT, MA, MD, etc after Sandy Hook. Look at the current calls for more gun control nationally and in CA after Isla Vista. It doesn’t matter what laws are passed. There will always be “one more law” that could have prevented (insert politically convenient tragedy here). And when that law doesn’t stop the next murderer, we just have to pass one more law. And when that law fails, a single additional law will cure all our problems… rinse, repeat. The fact that all of these proposed laws wouldn’t have stopped people like Adam Lanza or James Holmes is lost on those supporting that we must “do something.” Apparently “something” doesn’t ever have to address the deep societal and cultural problems that spur most of the murder in this country. There is only one logical conclusion to those that support gun control. That is why there is no trust, no compromise, and no deals from the pro gun side.

    6. avatar MacBeth51 says:

      I’d just like to add, if you can’t trust them with one part of the Bill of Rights, how can you trust them with the rest?

      1. avatar Michael G Marriam says:

        In reality you can’t trust any politician with the whole Bill of Rights. They call it pragmatism. I call it something else. Regardless of who is in control of government the very last thing a politician worries about is whether he has authority under the Constitution to do what is about to do. None of this is going to change until We The People give them a whole lot less to do by drastically shrinking the size of government.

    7. avatar Ardent says:

      You’ve nailed it. One vote for an anti gun politician, regardless of their redeeming qualities, is a vote against the 2A. This both makes one effectively anti 2A and, if the concept comes to fruition, incapable of dealing with any tyrannical direction the government may take. The 2a issue is as clear as citizen or slave. Anyone who can’t understand that is an enemy of the people.

  6. avatar Taylor TX says:

    ” Every platform can incorporate gun rights because they all fall under the law of our constitution. Don’t be scared away from other political parties because of a single issue. Our country is full of checks and balances and it’ll all balance out in the end.”

    Every platform could, but Dems dont and wont. Grats on being a liberal who can get past the party label, took me a long time to do that with Republicans. But seriously, the checks and balances are pretty much going right out the damn window, and with the system rigged in favor of only 2 parties, you either sit on the sidelines or not at this point IMO. Its a shit sandwich but Ill take a bite for my gun rights and yours.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Actually, the Blue Dog democrats did. The problem was they were the most vulnerable to losing their seats to republicans since their constituencies skewed more conservative than other democrats districts. This unfortunately meant they lost their seats leaving the remaining house dems to skew towards the Pelosi/progressive/the government is the ultimate good and source of everything worthwhile and knows exactly how you should live/think/act wing.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Actually the Blue Dogs didn’t. They talked a good game at home to the rubes, and promptly stabbed them in the back upon returning to DC. They got so flagrant about it that they finally pissed off constituencies that had been acculturated to vote straight Dem since Reconstruction.

  7. avatar Shannon's Pimp says:

    I won’t be seduced by your sweet talk until you completely reveal yourself. Which gun control measures do you agree with?

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    Our country is full of checks and balances and it’ll all balance out in the end.

    No it won’t. Not as long as the bullshitter in chief has a phone and a pen.

    But just to show how evenhanded I can be, I’m supporting Harry Reid for Senate Minority Leader.

    1. avatar Charles5 says:

      Well played.

    2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Not to mention the failure of one of the most important safeguards of all, a free press who constantly work to keep elected officials and bureaucrats honest.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        CORRECT!

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      The “checks and balances” of which the author speaks worked for about 120 years. For the last 100 years or so, not so much.

      Political power, corporate power, and financial power always converge. The more they converge, the more everyone else gets the shaft.

      As it turns out, it is utterly impossible for political, corporate, and financial powers to buy/coerce/corrupt the entire population. Thus, a heavily armed population is the ONLY real “check and balance” on government, corporations, and financial behemoths.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Yep. That’s the heart of the matter. We can never be subjugated without first being disarmed.

        1. avatar joe says:

          we’re already subjugated, unless your not paying taxes and you buy full auto guns made after 1986?

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          To some degree, you are correct. Not all pay the taxes and go through the hoops though.

        3. avatar Ardent says:

          We cannot be fully subjugated without first being disarmed. Perhaps this was your intended meaning? I recall the land redistributions in South Africa and the degree to which it affected individual landowners was dependent on how many armed mercenaries they could afford and were willing to support.

          Before we are fully subjugated there will be a massive upheaval, if not enough to depose the government then enough to temper it and form an uneasy alliance. More likely though is that WWIII begins while we are focused internally. The only check to Chinese imperialism and Russian expansionism is us. If we falter, the world goes to hell, and fast.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        ” the ONLY real “check and balance” on government, corporations, and financial behemoths.”

        I agree 100% on the government part, but without government collusion, the corporations and financial behemoths would be eaten alive by other corporations and financial behemoths, and millions of tiny entrepreneurs in every nook and cranny.

        When was the last time Coke and Pepsi had a turf war, or ran the Fanta driver off the road?

  9. avatar Hkfan says:

    “My single issue = the state should leave me the hell alone.”

    Until you need them, amirite?

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Is that really such an absurd idea? It is, after all, a model that seems to work acceptably well for everybody from plumbers to tree trimmers.

    2. avatar Shire-man says:

      Maybe. Havent needed them yet.
      Even so what’s wrong with having them on call when needed as opposed to up my ass 24/7?
      Hell, I’ll even keep paying the same taxes and fees happily to have them on call rather than always on.

    3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Exactly.

      I didn’t “need” Obamacare. We had our own health insurance, which cost us about $340/month. I didn’t need any help from the government, and wasn’t asking for any.

      After the glorious Barack Hussein Obama’s “help” with our insurance policy provisions, we’re now paying $960/month, mostly for coverage issues that we will never, ever need.

      I didn’t ask for this help, didn’t want this sort of help, and quite frankly, can’t wait until I can find a way to avoid being “helped” like this ever again.

      1. avatar Rob Aught says:

        “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

      2. avatar rlc2 says:

        And thats social justice for you…Sgt Joshua.

      3. avatar Ardent says:

        You aren’t paying for coverage you don’t need, you are paying for coverage someone else needs. The whole of the ACA is based on a communistic principle: You may more as your able and use as you need. It’s the most obviously communistic thing that has ever been foisted on the American people.

      4. avatar dj says:

        …but if you ever want to become a woman – Obamacare covers that…

        WTF are we even talking about this stuff for? It’s a steaming pile of cr@p and everyone knows it!

    4. avatar dj says:

      I need the state for very little.

      Imagine a world where instead of multibillion dollar overruns, crumbling infrastructure, and gas taxes, I just paid a business to maintain the road.

      Etc, etc.

      We only need “the State” if “the State” 1) serves a public need (ie, a general need, not the needs of a few slackers or ne’er do wells) and 2) if it is efficient.

      Neither of those criteria match the US government.

      I have faith, though. Unsustainable systems are – inherently – unsustainable. And the aftermath only matters if you aren’t ready for it.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        http://youtu.be/DCX3ZNDZAwY?autoplay=0

        I’m with him right up to where he says, “No possessions.” That’s the ideal, which we may approach after all violence is abolished and crap, but right up to that point,everything he says is true. The idea of private property and peers relating freely and respecting each others’ boundaries is, I think, what the Universe has been searching for forever: And getting rid of evil is amazingly easy – just don’t obey. Be Free!

  10. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    Chances are if someone is pro-gun and pro-Constitution, they are on the correct side of most issues. For some reason, and that reason is lying liberals, some people think that conservatives are anti-minority and anti-all sorts of things that are not true. As one person here previously said, I’m a single issue voter, and that issue is the Constitution. (Probably misquoted somewhat).

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      Liberals attack the second amendment, conservatives attack the 1st, 4th 5th and 6th amendments. Unless you’re represented by one of the few genuinely liberty-leaning members of Congress, voting Republican (or Tea Party) is about as good for the constitution as letting Barry burn it and start all over.

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        If by “liberal” you mean the DNC, they pose a much bigger danger to the 1st, 4th, and 5th than do the GOP. Though, admittedly, the GOP also has plenty of red in its ledger in this respect.

      2. avatar Rob Aught says:

        Pay attention. The Dems have done far more damage to the 1st and 5th lately. They’ve also run wild with the abuses to the 4th.

        I used to believe the Republicans didn’t respect the 1st Amendment. Then we got into the mess we’re in now and there is a constant cry from the Dems to restrict free speech.

        I won’t argue that the Republican old guard is bad for the Constitution, but lately they have become the lesser of two evils on just about every issue. Something I never really expected to happen.

        1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          Though Obama may not be the perfect representative of the DNC, and Bush 43 may not be the perfect representative of the establishment GOP, it is nevertheless quite informative to compare how the two have responded to criticism, especially criticism by private citizens. It will give you an idea who is more willing to use strong-arm tactics to silence the opposition.

        2. avatar dj says:

          If there is a boot on your neck, would you prefer it to be the right foot, or the left?

      3. avatar Fler says:

        Well-said. Everyone here espouses the tenets of liberty whilst forgetting about the Patriot Act, PRISM (it wasn’t just invented last year), etc.

        As I’ve stated numerous times here, there is no difference between “left” and “right” at the top.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          Exactly–that’s why all Obama’s gun-control proposals sailed right through Congress post-Newtown. Oh, wait a minute…

      4. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Because long time liberal footholds, such as Cal, MA, and NY, are shining beacons of light for the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendement… :\

      5. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        “conservatives attack the 1st, 4th 5th and 6th amendments”

        You can’t be serious.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          PATRIOT Act was drafted by “conservatives”, passed by a “conservative” Congress and signed into law by a “conservative” president.

        2. avatar Ardent says:

          @int19h below. The Patriot Act was passed by conservatives to be used by same. Once Obama was in power and liberals gained access to these laws abuses began wholesale and continue unabated. It’s simply another example of how democrats at the federal level are children playing with adult toys. I fully believe that the NSA answered to Bush, at this point I seriously doubt any part of the federal apparatus feels as if they will be drawn up short by Obama. This is a regime so slipshod and immature that no apparatus of government is going to work right under it. It’s like letting children into an armory. The weapons are useful in the right hands, but dangerous in the wrong ones. Unfortunately the current government are irresponsible children and the apparatus is incredibly dangerous in their hands.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          PATRIOT Act was an atrocity and an abomination when it was passed. It is good in no-one‘s hands. It was never used for anything good. Not to mention that some of the provisions of it that were since stricken down (like the de facto suspension of habeas corpus for detainees) were in fact actively used by Bush and co.

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Okay, I agree with you about the Patriot Act. I wasn’t for it even back when Bush signed it into law.

        5. avatar dj says:

          These people are out for their own power. All they care about is re-election. They do not represent you – you can’t contribute enough money to help get them elected.

        6. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Obama likes his voters the way the people like their guns – unregistered. 😉

      6. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

        So we’re all on the same page, what constitutes a “liberty leaning” member of Congress and whom would you hold up among current Representatives and Senators as an example of such?

      7. avatar CarlosT says:

        The Obama administration’s civil liberties record makes the Bush administration look like the board of the ACLU. They not only endorsed every single policy that had been anathema to liberals under Bush, they dialect them to 11 and then went to realms no Bush official had ever even come close talking about hypothetically.

        No one who is serious about civil liberties can have anything but contempt for Obama.

  11. avatar Pwrserge says:

    Social justice is equality of opportunity, not government mandated equality of outcome. Since the government cannot give anything to anyone it does not first confiscate from someone else, every single form of government handout is basically voter approved armed robbery. You have no “right” to get for free what someone else had to work for.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Important point. Making sure everyone has the opportunity to succeed is a plank in the GOP and Libertarian platforms. It is merely a talking point for the DNC (whose current leadership cannot be described as liberal in any meaningful sense).

  12. avatar neiowa says:

    Liberal platform (ensuring all citizens have the means to prosper) Do tell us how this wet dream of the progressives has worked out of the last 100+ yr (US or Eurup etc). The preamble to the Dec of Independece is all you get. Make your own way.

    social justice Grow up this was a idiotic construct of the marxists to attack capitialism, adopted and promulgated (successfully) by the Stalinists for the same goal. Unfortunately a couple major mainstream western religions have bought into the nonsense.

    Hopefully wiith age you’ll find more smarts. There is black and white in the world.

    1. avatar dh34 says:

      So how did that preamble work out for the slaves owned by the framers?

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Slavery was a serious problem that the USA fixed, at considerable cost. Attacks on personal liberty by those who want an authoritarian central (i.e., illegal) government is a current problem that needs to be fixed. Hopefully at less cost.

      2. avatar Nighthawk says:

        when society started recognising slaves are people it worked out beautifully. No one said it was perfect, but it is superior to the egalitarian, wealth-redistribution bullshit that modern day socialsts tout as the best ever. It’s not sustainable and the elite still control wealth, freedoms and power that the “people” will never see. Capitalism is what ensures that “all people will prosper”. Everyone does better, but the hardest working, the most diligent, aggressive and innovating get to the top. Those getting shafted by regulators, frivolous lawsuits, and other bullshit are victims of the crony system that preserves the status quo and hinders innovation and that is NOT capitalism or the free market, that’s the government and its lobbyists looking out for each other.

        1. avatar JR says:

          Thank-you; well said.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          “when society started recognising [sic] slaves are people it worked out beautifully. “

          It didn’t work out well at all for the Southern half of the US, then and now. The “Carpetbaggers” never really left, and many it seems have returned to Washington to prey on the gullible throughout the US.

          We see the fallout in the slums of New York, Chicago, Boston, LA and DC, to name just a few. That is where the “liberated” slaves of the Old South fled to find their dreams had turned to ashes. To continue their lives of poverty. And demagogues like Rev. Al, Sen Jesse and their ilk still suck the life from them for their own benefit, like the modern Carpetbaggers that they are.

          We don’t have a racial problem in this country. We have a Constitution problem.

          /rant

        3. avatar Jay Williams says:

          +1, Jus Bill.

          As a side note, this is pretty much what Cliven Bundy was saying about blacks.

      3. avatar dh34 says:

        So what I’m reading is that, once it was recognized that rights were not being extended to include all, it was corrected. Which means that the Constitution, itself an imperfect document being born of compromise and political maneuver not to mention humans, is not an absolute and is subject to change if enough are persuaded to do so.

        It’s all grey. One edge is darker, the other lighter.

  13. avatar Charles5 says:

    While it is refreshing to see someone from the Far Left that is also a gun control advocate (note: your use of “almost” gives me great pause, though), you are a walking contradiction. Gun ownership is at it’s core about taking personal responsibility for ones safety, life, actions, etc. Blaming others for your misfortune (or worse blaming the mere good fortune of others for your misfortune) or expecting the all benevolent government to step in and fix everything for you is the antecedent of personal responsibility. The Far Left eschews personal responsibility and demands that everyone conform to one cookie cutter mold. Diversity is a sham and only a means to an end. The thing I hate the most, however, is how the Far Left has the attitude that individual people are not smart enough to take care of their own lives as they see fit. Only big brother is smart enough. I find that incredibly insulting and will never vote for anyone the subscribes to that line of thinking, even if they are a “staunch” gun supporter (I don’t really believe it).

    Also, it is absolutely impossible for all people to prosper. Someone will always have to be at the bottom. If I can live a comfortable lifestyle doing unskilled labor, what is the incentive for becoming skilled labor? Without skilled labor, there will be no technological advancements and we won’t even be able to maintain what we have. I’m not advocating for forcing people to remain in poverty (though, the Democrats have been doing that for decades), but leave people to their own devices and the chips will fall as they may. There will always be a percentage of the population that naturally sifts to the bottom.

    1. avatar Rob Aught says:

      Frankly, it is all relative. Very few countries have “poor” that have cell phones, televisions, or even refrigeration. We have “needs” in the US that other countries see as luxuries.

      Being poor in the US is still likely to get you a better standard of living than being poor anywhere else in the world. As someone whose combined married income still didn’t clear the poverty line, I can tell you we still lived pretty comfortably even if we didn’t see the latest movies, drive new cars, or lived in the bestest everest apartment.

      I busted my ass to get where I am, never did welfare or even food stamps. Now I earn a six figure salary, my wife is a stay at home mom, and I have people telling me I am unfair and greedy for having been successful later in life.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        The vast majority of the worlds “middle class” envies our poor.

        1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          Even royalty of 100 years ago would envy our poor today.

      2. avatar int19h says:

        >> Being poor in the US is still likely to get you a better standard of living than being poor anywhere else in the world.

        This is not true, unless you specifically exclude practically all other Western countries from “world” (including Eastern European ones).

  14. avatar Barry says:

    Many of you reading this have no idea what it is like to have to choose between two rights.

    Do I choose the candidate who would allow me to marry the man I love or do I choose the candidate who would let me keep my gun?

    Do you know what it is like to grow up knowing you are different? Knowing that people would condemn you not for what you do, but for who you are at your core. To grow up feeling a crushing desire to kiss another man? A desire that is so heavy it’s agony?

    So what am I? Pro-gun or pro-me? I find myself voting for pro-gay rights candidates, even if it means voting away my gun rights.

    Very few of you have ever had to make that choice.

    For some people there really is a left and right Twix.

    1. avatar Charles5 says:

      Vote Libertarian.

      1. avatar Shire-man says:

        +1

        Obvious answer is obvious.

        Or just don’t ask the government to approve of your relationship in the first place.

        I don’t get why anyone would have a government marriage like Kunta Kinte. Any imaginary reason to do so can be accomplished with a simple contract or just lie. I’ve been ‘married’ for 15 years.

      2. avatar Wendy says:

        Unfortunately given that our system is slanted toward two parties, voting Libertarian (or for any other party that’s not D or R) effectively equates to not voting.

        I suppose it’s better to vote for the minor party that best reflects your overall beliefs than to stay home, however.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          I doubt we agree on much but I’ll go with you on that one, Wendy

        2. avatar Robby B says:

          Not if everyone who was dissatisfied with either the Donkiphant party or Elephonky party voted libertarian. I bet the LP would be at least 1/3 of the voting public

    2. avatar Rob Aught says:

      I get it, Barry. However, what good are gay rights if you cannot defend yourself from gay bigots?

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Did you mean anti-gay bigots?

        1. avatar Rob Aught says:

          Indeed I did. Gay bigots usually just throw glitter and force me to go to the dry cleaners. (Kidding!)

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Well, in New Mexico and Colorado they might force you to bake a cake for them, with the full backing of the state government. That “government imposing values” thing definitely goes two ways these days.

        3. avatar doesky2 says:

          Oh forcing you to bake you a cake or take their wedding pictures is only the tip of the HomoFascist game plan.

          They’ve already forced the oldest adoption service (Catholic charities) out of multiple states because the agency would not agree to the idea that 2 male dads was just as good as a male/female parent set if all other factors were equal.

          Then there is the ever increasing occurrences of people getting fired from their job for not praising gay marriage or donating to the wrong candidate or cause.

          Remember not too long ago about the Left squawking about “What does it matter to you personally if two gays marry?”.

          Well look at that list above and ask yourself….
          1) Could I possibly be one getting fired for thinking wrong?
          2) Does it matter to our society that the oldest adoption agency is shutting down?

          Tons of examples already in a couple years since the Gay Marriage train pulled into town. The next target (and its already started) is forcing churches to marry gay people and if they don’t they will be made a pariah and sued into bankruptcy. The Left sees it as a grand opportunity to tear down whatever remains of religion in this country.

        4. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          @ doesky2

          Yep, we need to get past this and all learn to live and let live. The bakery incidents are perfect examples.

          Gay couple is told that a baker refuses to sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage. Gay couple flips him off, goes to another bakery, gets their cake. Baker is true to his religious values. All parties move on with their lives, happily doing their own thing. They may not exchange birthday cards, but they can all get together to cheer for their local baseball team, enjoy 4th of July fireworks, or show support for the military who sacrifice so much to ensure that we can all continue doing our own thing.

          At least that’s how it should have ended if all parties were well-adjusted adults. But no, the couple had their precious little feelings hurt because someone dared to disapprove of their lifestyle, so they go out of their way to hurt the baker. “LOVE AND ACCEPT ME OR I WILL DESTROY YOU!” Farking childish. Just as childish as trying to persecute someone for their choice in sex partners.

        5. avatar DJ says:

          The solution is simple. Someone needs to hire a Muslim caterer for their reception, demand pork products be served, the sue when the Muslim caterer refuses to handle the pork.

          Hoist these “human rights” idiots on their own petard.

          BTW – I’m not antigay, but I am profreedom. If people want to have strongly held opinions I don’t particularly agree with I think the solution is reasoning with them, not the heavy hand of the state.

    3. avatar Another Robert says:

      That is a powerful post. And its a shame that both parties put you in that position. The Federal government least of all should have any say at all as to what constitutes “marriage”. I regard is as a state matter myself, but I am coming around to Richard’s view that no government has any business in it.

    4. avatar JeffR says:

      Now, that’s a tough situation. On the upside, I think the gay marriage movement has won the culture war, and the law always changes in favor of the winner of that war. Two years from now, I doubt there will be many states left where a gay couple cannot get married, either through changes to legislation or by court order. Gun control? We’re smack-dab in the middle of that culture war right now.

      1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

        Gays didn’t win the culture war. They won over liberal judges who ruled by fiat. Even when the people have explicitly voted on the issue of gay marriage, we see judges again swoop in and declare it unconstitutional. It was only long, long after these judicial victories did we start seeing any legislatures vote in favor of it. But hey, don’t believe me, ask yourself: who would actually wish for their son or daughter to grow up homosexual? Oh sure, some parents come to terms with the reality, after the fact, but nearly nobody gladly invites the prospect of having homosexual children.

        While you think about that, think about this: should science identify the gene that homosexuals insist drives their orientation, watch for the development of pre-natal tests for it and a surge in related abortions. You may even find singles demanding such a genetic test of each other prior to marriage, as many do for criminal/credit background checks, STD’s, and certain other genetic predispositions. So much for the “won the culture war” myth.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @Jonatha–Houston, stunningly excellent post sir!

        2. avatar Tyler M says:

          …you sir, and people who express opinions like this, are why I like to remain well-armed. I fear for the day that people with this kind of thinking gain control over this country.

        3. avatar El Mac says:

          @Tyler M, fear of what? That we won’t let you and yours infect the minds of our son’s and daughters? That we don’t embrace your filthy lifestyle outside of the bedroom? I personally don’t care if you want to stick your manhood in another man’s orifice, just don’t ask me to embrace it and we will get along fine.

        4. avatar Tyler M says:

          Hi. For one, not that it matters, but I’m fairly straight. Polyamorous, but straight. However, several of my close friends are of alternative sexualities, including some of my past and current lovers. When you and others say things like this, it concerns me greatly that given the chance, people I care about would be in physical danger from people with these ideas.

          Fortunately, most those I care about the most are well-armed.

        5. avatar El Mac says:

          @Tyer M, I have no problem with you or any of “your’s” sexuality. Doesn’t concern me one bit.

          But…you try mentally or physically raping me or mine, you gotta problem.

          Otherwise, we could drink beer together and be just fine amigo. Keep your “junk” in the bedroom and it’s all good.

        6. avatar Tyler M says:

          Okay, I don’t even know how rape got into this, but I’m pretty sure no one I associate with is going to rape anyone.

          Also, you do understand what love is, right? It’s not all “doing the nasty”, there are complex feeling and emotional connections. Reducing anyone to just “the bedroom” is insulting. I don’t expect you to hide affection between you and your wife from the public eye; don’t tell me or anyone else they have to keep their love and affection behind closed doors.

          The only thing that should be kept to private venues is consensual, sexual encounters.

        7. avatar El Mac says:

          @Tyler M, then we are in agreement aren’t we?

        8. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          It is already pretty clear from the relevant literature on behavior genetics that there is likely no “gay gene.” If your identical twin is gay, you have only about a 1/3 chance of also being gay (looking across all published studies). Granted, that’s closer agreement than between non-identical twins and other sibling pairs, so we can infer that there is a genetic component, probably some set of genes that are important. But it’s not like eye color. Sexual orientation seems to be determined by an interaction between genes and environment (either before or after birth), probably a complex one.

          Not that it should matter politically whether it’s purely a choice or not. Warm your bed with whomever you want (assuming it’s all between consenting adults).

    5. avatar John in Ohio says:

      A marriage license is a piece of paper, a government contract of sorts. The ability to be at all times armed represents your freedom. I’ve been married twice and I’d choose to be armed over married any day. 😉

      1. avatar Fler says:

        Hear hear!

      2. avatar Ardent says:

        Yes John, of course, but you’re a mature and responsible adult who has the perspective to prioritize effectively. I have never been married though my GF and I have been together for a decade or so. Obviously, if there were a law against marrying her it would have no effect on me/us whatsoever and the actual fact of our not being married has no effect on us either. I’ve been armed now for 3 decades, and if there were a law passed barring that I’d have to contemplate resistance.

        One of these things is incredibly important, central to the meaning of freedom and life, the other is contrived clap trap and mostly semantics. What you, John, have managed to do is to correctly identify which is which.

    6. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      Barry, no is seriously trying to stop you from marrying another man. The issue of “gay marriage” is one where homosexuals demand government sanctioned marriages, not the freedom to simply marry one another.

      You can get married to another man in any state in America; you just get married in a Unitarian or other liberal church.

      1. avatar John says:

        I think some of the biggest reasons for legal recognition of gay unions is for stuff like power-of-attorney, adoption, and ownership of property after the death of a partner.

        Honestly, though, I think what should be legally recognized is a civil union or domestic partnership agreement, and leave marriage to religious institutions.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          Hell you don’t even need a “civil union” for that kind of stuff. Wills and contracts and powers of attorney work just fine.

        2. avatar Elliotte says:

          And all it takes is the time to fill out the proper legal documents establishing such. You want your property to go to another person when you die? Then fill out a will establishing so. Want someone else to have legal power of attorney? Do the paperwork.

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Our founders were wise enough to decree that the powers of the State should remain with the State, the powers of the God Creator should remain with the religious realm, and the powers of the people should remain with The People. Those boundaries should not be crossed, for then we cease to be America.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Jus Bill: Aye! Well stated. I’ve met quite a few conservatives and liberals who view government as some sort of a god.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          Except that married couples get all these benefits for free, basically, while the ones whose marriage is not officially recognized have to pay for it every step of the way. And this is not even mentioning a bunch of privileges that you simply cannot have without a recognized marriage, like tax benefits or visit rights.

          Why do conservatives insist on handouts from the government? Because that’s what heterosexual marriage basically is, when you compare it to a non-recognized homosexual one.

        6. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Or the poor single working schlub that gets the short end of the stick all the way around.

    7. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Don’t choose either. Just live your life.

    8. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      “To grow up feeling a crushing desire to kiss another man? A desire that is so heavy it’s agony?”

      What conservative candidate says you can’t kiss another man?

    9. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      And remember, though there are plenty of people in the GOP who would not approve of your choice in lovers, I don’t think you will find many (if any) GOP pols who would even consider voting to make it illegal for you to kiss, sleep with, or share your life with another man. And I think you will find that the majority of rank-and-file GOP members don’t really care who you take to your bed. But most Dems have and will continue to vote to tell you what you can and can’t have in your gun safe, and where you are and are not allowed to defend yourself.

      I get that being denied the benefits that come with legal marriage is an important issue, and is well worthy of continued discussion. If the two-party system continues, I think you will see the GOP come around on this issue slowly but surely as new generations come of age. Hell, there’s a gay libertarian-leaning Republican that may well win his House district primary in CA. I think the GOP can be fixed with a good libertarian movement, but I think the DNC is a lost cause as long as it’s run by authoritarian Progs.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        The number of national GOP candidates who are against gay civil unions and the associated benefits that brings is mighty close to ZERO. That’s a flat strawman.

        The whole issue is that the Gay Mafia wants to claim that word MARRIAGE and for the public at large to cheer and give lavish praise to the concept of gay marriage. And by golly you better toe the line or you’re gonna get your ass fired or your business wrecked.

        1. avatar bigfinger76 says:

          Doesky, you are either woefully uninformed or you’re intentionally spreading misinformation. This is ridiculous.

        2. avatar El Mac says:

          @doesky2, Spot on!!!

        3. avatar doesky2 says:

          @bigfinger

          Feel free to educate me and point me to a list that shows the GOP national pols that take a public stance against gay CIVIL UNIONS.

          Since I imagine the homfascists keep finely detailed lists of their political enemies (like all good fascists do) I assume the link will be forthcoming. My guess is that it will either be non-existent, or short, or a lie.

        4. avatar Ardent says:

          Agreed doesky2. As someone here at TTAG said a while back “You’re queer, you’re here, we’re used to it”. Frankly at this point we’re talking about privileges, not rights when we’re discussing gay ‘rights’.

          The baker example works here: If I want a cake that says “F*** religion on it and the baker says he won’t make it I have no recourse, because atheist isn’t a protected class. If I want one that says “Guns are Awesome” and the baker doesn’t want to make it I have no recourse, because gun owner isn’t a protected class. But if I want one that says ‘Gay Marriage Rocks’ on it and the baker won’t make it I can sue him and in some jurisdictions bring criminal charges.

          We’re no longer discussing rights, we’re discussing privileges of a protected class that already has ‘rights’ that others don’t. There are those who actually want the ‘right’ to never encounter someone who disagrees with them, or to silence that person if they are found. Most of these people are registered democrats and the ‘right’ they’re looking for can’t be found because they are looking in the wrong place. It’s filed under tyranny. If they would look for it there they would find that the power to force others to accept your line of thinking or your lifestyle to the detriment of their own is tyranny, it’s not something anyone can ever legitimately have.

        5. avatar El Mac says:

          @Ardent, amazing. You are able to cap and put to words my thoughts exactly. I wish I had your prose.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Spot on as usual, Ardent!

      2. avatar int19h says:

        >> I don’t think you will find many (if any) GOP pols who would even consider voting to make it illegal for you to kiss, sleep with, or share your life with another man.

        Rick Santorum has repeatedly said that recriminalizing homosexual intercourse would be a good thing, and not only he is a prominent Republican politician, the guy actually had some serious backing in the primaries mere 2 years ago.

        And he’s not the most extreme of the bunch by far.

    10. avatar rlc2 says:

      Barry, just as one data point, and I suspect there are many like me in the POTG- I dont care what you do in your bedroom. Thats your business. I also believe you should have the right to be with whom you love, in a civil union with the same legal and property rights as any other traditional married couple.

      And the right to self defense, by same token, is a “given” as a basic and straightforward personal liberty. For those who are small or slight of frame, elderly, physically disadvantaged, then a handgun is a way to level set that.

  15. avatar Another Robert says:

    Has it ever occurred to you “2A” liberals that there is a reason that Dems/leftists in general (and pretty overwhelmingly so) do not support “gun rights”? I mean, it’s not like they all got together once and decided what they support and gun rights just coincidentally didn’t make the cut. Dems are statists, who want to make everyone, businessman and “little guy” alike, dependent on the state (ie, themselves, the statists). They want to make businesses the slave of the state, and the “little guy” a ward of the state. Gun rights are the last, best practical impediment to that cause. They do not mix. What is so difficult to see about that?

    1. avatar JR says:

      +1000

      An armed population is much more likely to ensure it has the government it wants.

      A disarmed population has to take the government it is given.

      So, for gay rights and other issues (having read the post above a bit), ALL freedoms stem from the Constitutional ideal of “We the People.”

      In order for that to work, we the people must have some sort of teeth to keep those that would LIE to us about what freedoms they support (all the while consolidating their own power and control) at bay.

      Be careful who you vote for; if a politician is for gun – control, it is HIGHLY unlikely they support the notion of your personal freedom in any other way.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Or, as that icon of the Left Chairman Mao said, “political power grows from the barrel of a gun”. The statists realize that, that’s why they want a monopoly on guns.

        1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          Chairman Mao also said (to Kissinger I believe) “I prefer dealing with the right. The right says and do what they say, unlike the left who say one thing and do the other.”

  16. avatar DisThunder says:

    Hey, I remember thinking I was a liberal. Turns out I was just a Libertarian who hadn’t defended his home with a shotgun just yet.
    Now, things are much easier- I believe you can marry who you want, smoke what you want, and carry what you want, and unless you try to make it a problem for me and mine, I’m going to cheer you on while you do it.

    1. avatar John says:

      Likewise. I remember being so frustrated with traditionally conservative views on what I saw as ‘nobody else’s business’ that I was blind to what liberals were up to simply because of a few individual issues here and there.

      Ultimately, I have come to believe that the only thing forcing big “G” of any flavor to respect anyone’s rights (except those of their own special caste) is the literal deterrent of force of arms among the general populace; ergo, the 2nd protects the rest. It does not make for a perfect voting atmosphere, but at least now I’m a lot more comfortable my politics.

      How about this, Sgt. Joshua J – show me a pro-liberty liberal on the ballot and I’ll reconsider my vote.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      Funny that. I thought I was a libertarian, until I realized that laissez-faire markets are “efficient” at one thing only: creating monopolies that rob everyone else. That’s why I call myself a liberal: because as far as economy goes, I believe that some degree of regulation is necessary to keep the markets healthy. On all other issues, I’m libertarian.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “laissez-faire markets are “efficient” at one thing only: creating monopolies that rob everyone else.”

        I’m sorry, but you have been misinformed. Laissez-faire markets do NOT create monopolies. Government favoritism and crony capitalism are what create monopolies. With laissez-faire markets, other robber barons will keep the robber barons in their place, along with the millions of entrepreneurs eating their lunch out from under them. When was the last time the Coca-Cola company sent men with guns to collect money from you?

        Government is not the solution ANY problem; government IS the problem. With apologies to Ronnie.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Rich, let’s just say that we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I used to be an extremely fanatical libertarian, so I know all the arguments. But at some point I had to admit that Austrian school of economy is basically bullshit built on bullshit, and how they claim things to work is simply not how they work in real world.

          As for free market leading to monopolies, Adam Smith warned about that 250 years ago already.

        2. avatar Tyler M says:

          Hi, former anarcho-capitalist here. I think we can be friends.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Get back to me when the corporate monopolies send men with guns to confiscate your money without government support.

        4. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          One thing the free market isn’t good at preventing is the old tactic Blockbuster used: Come into town, start renting movies at prices so low that nobody (including Blockbuster) could match without losing money, then jack up the prices again after all local stores go out of business. But even that is temporary. More efficient business models were developed (with the aid of new technology), and Blockbuster was out-competed in turn.

          What is toxic are regulations that protect established companies from competition. Just the burden of complying with regulations can be a barrier that small operations cannot overcome. And if that doesn’t work, the big companies can use the “screw you I have more lawyers than you do” approach of constantly filing lawsuits that have little merit and are just designed to burn resources a small company cannot afford. It really seems that most of the problems the small companies face come from regulations. Could there be a place for some regulation? I don’t know, perhaps. I don’t know much about economics. But if there is a healthy level of regulation on the market, I’m willing to bet that that level is much lower than what we currently have.

        5. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Could there be a place for some regulation?”

          I think laws against fraud and theft (which we already have) should fill any need for “regulation” quite nicely, thank you!

        6. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          Inclined to agree with you at this point.

        7. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Well, sure, it’s not rocket science. Once anyone really opens their eyes and gets past the memes and judgements and imprints, it’s obvious that Freedom is Better, and More Freedom is More Better!

  17. avatar chris says:

    Considering we are giving tens of billions a month to rich folk who speculate.how bout tens of billions a month to fix thousands of defective bridges or improve broadband coverage.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      How about bringing back the CCC and WPA? Instead of another war, maybe in Africa? Or shipping money to the “despot de jure?” It would be cheaper and much better in the long run.

  18. avatar doesky2 says:

    Well if you’re really a free thinking liberal than you won’t mind getting you mind expanded here…..

    http://www.prageruniversity.com/courses.php

  19. avatar Nighthawk says:

    I vote for what I can live with and what ultimately affects me. Gun rights are at the top namely because I still firmly believe the only reason we have the quality of life we have and aren’t descended into the madness of a socialist police state brought on by BOTH parties is because of the Second Amendment. It safeguards the rest of the Bill of Rights, should have no limits on it, including the existing limitations it has, and should always remain the foundation of all legislation in this nation. Liberals support a lot of other political initiatives I find appalling, as do Conservatives. They are both statists, both want to meddle in the lives of citizens and impose what they believe to be their superior morals upon everyone else. Neither one of them are inline with the foundations of this country and I am ALWAYS skeptical about the ones saying “I support 2A” more than I am about the ones who make it clear extreme gun control is on their agenda; Obama is a clear example of why to be skeptical. There was a time when he expressed that he knew so-called Assault weapons were hardly ever used in crimes and now we are where we are, wondering when that executive order will be signed. When, not if. If you actually care about gun rights you won’t stand with people like Feinstein, Bloomberg, Raum Emmanuel, Cuomo, et al. If it’s not a big deal to you, to the point where you happily vote in Liberals who want full gun bans in effect, don’t state how important it is to you since it clearly isn’t.

  20. avatar John in Ohio says:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, I am a single issue voter. Liberty is the single issue when I vote. Among all of the rights protected from government encroachment in the BOR, I believe the 2A ultimately protects individual Liberty so I give gun rights the most weight. No politician is going to strongly support the real RKBA if they don’t also believe in a free nation. Of course, many are long on talk and short on action. When their actions show that that don’t truly support the individual RKBA, they lose my support.

  21. avatar ST says:

    I’ll say it until my tablet screen turns blue: we cannot afford to play Sectarian Sam with regard to gun rights.

    Unless we can integrate gun rights into the Democratic Party platform , it’s game over for the RKBA in twenty years.

    Period.

    Take a look around. What are the schools teaching? What are the leaders of every major city in America? Like it or not, we can’t just pretend NYC and Los Angeles and millions of liberals don’t exist. We either get evangelical with gun rights, or we get extinct.

    I’m not talking about SWAT raids for our guns. I mean our kids and grandkids handing over the safes long after were gone.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I agree with you. For a long time I’ve been warning that this nation will not remain free as long as the young are being taught as they are. Each generation knows less about Liberty than the one before it. We’re allowing our people to put the chains upon themselves. IMHO, the scale has tipped too far. I can’t conceive how this nation will avoid large scale conflict unless the People simply give up and accept servitude. This generation would have to see large scale civil disobedience to even hope to avoid the storm on the horizon. Even then, it might be too late to avoid it.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Don’t worry the economy will crash before then.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          IMHO, that will be one of the better things to happen to us in the big picture. Cut the credit cards, government reduced, the party is over. Where there is Liberty there is prosperity. We cannot have the latter without the former. When the economy crashes, I hope it is while the People still retain at least as many arms as it does now.

        2. avatar doesky2 says:

          Oh I was saying that crash was a bad thing.

          Personally I’d favor the crash to start with an education bubble burst…. like today… like right now…please.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I didn’t think for a moment that you meant that it was a bad thing and I agree completely. 🙂

      2. avatar John says:

        I, too, worry about this. My sisters have come home with stories from school about some classroom teachings and debates that have me shaking my head and lamenting “the good old days” when I was in the same school system even just 10-15 years ago.

        As an aside, I am also in Ohio!

    2. avatar brian says:

      You will never do that because the Democratic agenda requires a disarmed populace to succeed.

  22. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    “Liberal platform (ensuring all citizens have the means to prosper)”

    See, my problem with that is saying “means” instead of “opportunity.” “Means” implies those of higher must provide for those of lower. Whereas opportunity is just ensuring everyone has a fair shake and can prosper (or not) based on their intelligence, work ethic, and ingenuity.

    1. avatar brian says:

      Can anyone point to me where the Democratic platform leads to either increased opportunity or means for anyone? My experience has been that the Democrats are more interested in causing the most suffering in the shortest time possible.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Seems to me like the Dems are for getting the most for themselves as fast as they can, and losing the least. Just like the Republicans. And the Libertarians. And in the end, it still all comes out of MY pocket.

  23. avatar Bigred2989 says:

    I guess I would consider myself a liberal. I am a registered democrat after all. The author is right that we on the liberal side have a very hard time finding a politician we agree with on guns that isn’t 99% what we don’t like, be it anti-gay marriage or pro-life, pro-christian, pro-illegal pot. I’d kick myself if I ever voted for someone who managed to get me one great gun law but also became the next Putin when it comes to gay marriage. My family would disown me for thinking that that person was a good candidate.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Do you mean that evil “Putin” type marriage that’s been around for a few thousand years and Obamessiah was championing until 20 months ago? Idiots.

      I think churches should just let the gays have the word MARRIAGE and start to calling their traditional marriage ceremonies Real Marriage (TM).

      1. avatar int19h says:

        The problem that we have is with the government, not with the churches. If churches want to not call it marriage, and not perform their ceremonies, it’s their right. But when it gets down to tax code and other laws, equality or FOAD.

  24. avatar Yellow Devil says:

    That’s why it really isn’t conservatism vs liberal. Most voters get wrapped up with labels and single issues, but it is a much bigger picture than that. What the overaching ideological struggle should actually be viewed as is personal Liberty vs collective Statism. Society and government won’t be 100 percent either way, but people obviously needs to do is push toward Liberty. Unfortunately Liberty requires constant work and eternal vigilance, while Statism just needs enough people off guard for a minimal amount of time to take hold.

  25. avatar PeterK says:

    “Our country is full of checks and balances and it’ll all balance out in the end.”

    Until it doesn’t…. which is more and more lately…

  26. avatar Phil says:

    Don’t worry about the single-issue for me. I disagree with just about everything the Dems do these days. I disagree with about half o the republicans and agree totally with the libertarians.

    I guess I do have a single issue; I’m against laws and policies that do or could at some point infringe on my personal liberty as defined by the constitution and bill of rights.

  27. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

    1) I’m against gun control, because as long as I’m not hurting anyone, the government should stay out of my life.
    2) I’m against welfare, because I work 70 hours a week and I don’t feel that I should be forced to pay for the lifestyles of people who won’t.
    3) I’m against legislating morality, because [see #1].
    4) I’m against abortion, because my mother carried me to term, despite my father arguing for the abortion. I’m a person, unborn babies are persons. It’s murder. Besides, you should be against abortion, so hopefully there will be enough people to support all those government programs you like to make other people pay for.
    4) I’m against corporations as people, until we pass a law making all stockholders and/or board members criminally liable for the laws they break.
    5) I’m for term limits. Politician should not be a career choice.
    6) Any politician who receives a gift [money, trip, mansion in Monaco] should be executed for treason.
    7) People should have to produce valid photo I.D. to vote, but not to purchase a H&K G3.

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @Alan Longnecker, substitute FAL for the G3 and I’m right there with you bro.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Hell, how about adding it? And M1As and AR10s while we are at it?

    2. avatar DJ says:

      #4 – Corporations as people is an artifact of the court system. They are treated like people, in part, so you can sue them. I think being able to sue a corporation is a good thing.

      And executives can be held liable for corporate decisions that break the law – if you can find one who isn’t protected by political allies he paid to help elect.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Corporations are a legal fiction created by crony capitalists to protect the individuals who are doing the evil to escape punishment for that evil. Without the government protectionism of incorporation, the individuals that did the bad thing would be accountable for their actions.

  28. avatar BDub says:

    The problem as I see it is this. There is not a single Liberal policy that can be implemented without government coercion or outright force. So even if you are against gun control all of your other voting efforts serve to build a machine that will, by its very nature, seek to disarm the populace.

    So there really is only a single issue with a liberal platform and it is government control. Regardless of how you feel about other issues, you are voting for that single-issue.

    The cake is a lie!

    1. avatar Tyler Moore says:

      Explain how conservative policies don’t do the same?

      1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        Yes! All government action is based on force and coercion, the deciding party is irrelevant.

        1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          Well, yes. But to be fair not all force is bad. The cop who shoots a murderer to stop him from killing an innocent victim is a good and proper use of government force. A judge who locks up a rapist, same. A cop who kicks down a peaceful tax payer’s door and shoots their dog in the process of confiscating an “assault weapon” that was legally purchased a few years ago? Not so much.

        2. avatar El Mac says:

          @Henry Bowman, the deciding party MAY be irrelevant; the deciding political philosophy is not.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          If only we had some sort of document that stated here are the specific government privileges and that’s it. Oh, wait…! 😀

          The usurpation of power by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison was the killer of constitutional government. Without Judicial Review, government couldn’t infringe and usurp with a straight face as it does today. http://constitutionality.us

      2. avatar El Mac says:

        @Mary Tyler Moore, no…how about YOU tell us how conservatives policies/philosophy originate and follow through via the barrel of a gun? And while you are at it, why don’t you tell us why we should switch to Leftist Godvernment policies that lead to millions upon millions of lives lost in the 20th Century?

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          How would you propose that a ban on abortion be enforced, if not ultimately through the barrel of a gun?

          Or a ban on gay marriage? Or the current ban against (some) drugs?

        2. avatar El Mac says:

          @SteveInCo, a ban on abortion? Well…doctor’s license is revoked, DEA license to scrip drugs is revoked, doctor tried for murder…that would put a huge dent in the horrific practice. Would it stop all of them? No. Does it tell the world that we won’t tolerate our most innocent and defenseless citizens from being mutilated and killed? Yes.

          Gay marriage should be a state’s issue. And in every state I can think of, the population of the state voted it down. It took Leftist fed judges to reverse the will of the people. So can it be outlawed? Evidently not if you let one judge override the will of the people. Clearly, the majority of the American public do not want it. Clearly, the majority of the state run media types do. Clearly, the leftist judges installed of late, want it. Does that make it right? Not in my book.

          Drugs? I didn’t bring up drugs.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          >> in every state I can think of, the population of the state voted it down. It took Leftist fed judges to reverse the will of the people.

          You’re either uninformed, or you have very selective memory.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Referendum_74

  29. avatar Tyler Moore says:

    This is the article I have been waiting for. …and by ‘Sgt’, I am hoping this is a fellow service member (PO1, USN here) as well. I consider myself a socially-progressive libertarian. If it’s a social issue, I’m about as liberal as they come. When we get into economics, I’m not a Ayn Rand-ite, but I’m not chilling over in J.M. Keynes’ or Karl Marx’s camp, either.

    Social justice is a huge issue for me as well. Despite the right-wing rhetoric that it’s a communist plot; how can you not look around the world, see people who are struggling and disadvantaged, and not feel empathy? I don’t know how people who call themselves Christians want to do nothing to help the poor, sick and disenfranchised. That was like half of the issues Christ talked about.

    However, the economist in me wants to find solution that can be done at the grassroots level, those which can be done with the assistance of private parties and the local community, long before I want to go the the Federal, or even the State level for help. Sometimes we need laws repealed, or protections granted, but most of these issues have to be solved by the people ourselves.

    I like that the author considers firearm ownership as a social justice issue. Indeed, the most venerable populations have oft been deprived the use of arms; while the presence of arms (as a means of defense) has allowed them to prevent violent silencing by those in power, so that a peaceful dialogue is possible (i.e. the civil rights movement in the 1960s).

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Charity is voluntary. It comes out of the goodness of the heart. Wealth redistribution at the barrel of a government gun is NOT social justice. There is no virtue in relying on (or worse, calling for) government mandated “social justice.”

      1. avatar Tyler Moore says:

        While I am inclined to agree in principal (and if you are an anarchist, I realize this next line is irrelevant), but then what function of government doesn’t involve some form of taxation and the use of that money for some public service? I’m not making a ‘muh roads’ argument here, but if there is to be a government, said government must have funding and then the question is, what does that government do for society? I would argue that redistribution of wealth is an inefficient way to create economic equality, but at one point is a Republic justified in ensuring the health and welfare of its citizens? Is it just protecting their civil liberties from the infringement of a powerful majority, or does it go any further?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

          There is the purpose of our government. These are the guiding principles. Nothing in the preamble creates new powers. The Constitution created and defines our government. Anything outside of enumerated powers is null and void. The way that our government is supposed to do these things is simply by defending rights. Every enumerated power in the original Constitution was to that end. Where there is individual Liberty there is prosperity. So, yes, the only function of our federal government is to protect rights. That’s it!

        2. avatar Rob Aught says:

          Our “poor” are better off than most citizens of any other country. I haven’t seen an updated statistic in awhile, but as of 2000, 98% of Americans have refrigeration in their homes.

          We think of that as a necessity, but in many parts of the world it is a luxury. We are so well off as a nation, we see things as “needs” that most other countries see as “wants”. The term “poor” is relative.

          In the name of “social justice” we have seen a DECREASE in opportunity. We currently have a horrible labor participation rate, we have a large number of workers who have simply given up looking for work. We have had one of the worst economic recoveries ever. The Great Depression did not last this long. Unemployment for blacks is at an all time high, and those are the OFFICIAL numbers. That doesn’t even count able-bodied blacks who have dropped out of the statistics due to their benefits running out and giving up looking for work. In the name of social justice we are creating more poor people. I guess the bright side is that poor is relative, but that is cold comfort to families going from middle class to lower class lifestyles.

          You know what creates prosperity? Jobs! You know what kills jobs? Regulations. Every government regulation comes at a cost. The amount of money the corporation I work for spends on meeting government compliance is staggering.

          You want social justice, create opportunities. The US is one of the most charitable countries in the world. However, as we are FORCED to contribute then charitable giving goes down. Furthermore, I always like this saying “They always say it is for the children but the money always seems to go to the office of some guy downtown I’ve never heard of.”

        3. avatar Austin says:

          “What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

          Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

          Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

          If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.”

          Frederic Bastiat, The Law

    2. avatar El Mac says:

      @Mary Tyler Moore, sister….. Christianity and enforced socialism are two distinctly different sides of a coin.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        And yet the uniquely American Judeo-Christian men and ideas that founded and guided this country resulted in an entirely different country and mindset than socialist Europe. Than along came socialism into the US.

        Your coin statement is stupid and wrong.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @doesky2, so you think godvernment enforced socialism and Christianity are one and the same thing? Well, if that is what you believe, have at it. There is no helping of the blind that REFUSE to see.

        2. avatar Rob Aught says:

          Not entirely.

          A tenet of Christian faith is helping those in need.

          Socialism by its philosophy, though maybe not by execution, is taking care of all citizens.

          Both have a central philosophy of helping those that need help.

          It is the execution of each when they begin to differ. Christianity is all about choice. You choose salvation, you choose to do good, you choose to help others.

          Socialism there is no choice, and your contributions most often just go to pay the bureaucrats that administer programs that “help”.

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Firearm ownership is NOT a social justice issue. It is a natural civil RIGHT, identified in the Constitution. Calling it anything else diminishes it.

    4. avatar doesky2 says:

      “Social Justice” is not justice.

      Social Justice is something OTHER than justice.

      If “Social Justice” was Justice you wouldn’t need the word social.

      Social Justice is socialism dressed up with utopian phrases from Leftists.

  30. avatar ProfBathrobe says:

    Glad to have you as a fellow.

  31. avatar El Mac says:

    More leftist douchebaggery disguised as “come on guys, we aren’t really all that bad” BS.

    Pound sand Sgt. Lefty.

  32. avatar Jus Bill says:

    I have found in my journey through my life that most politicians are terrified of anyone discovering what’s behind their personal “Door #2,” regardless of party affiliation.

  33. avatar Rog Uinta says:

    In neither live conversation nor online dialogue do I ever state a party affiliation. In fact I have no affiliation, and complain equally about both major parties.

    Yet when I hint, indicate, or flat-out announce that I am a single issue voter and will always vote against the pro-gun-control candidate, the only people who tell me I “shouldn’t be a single issue voter” are Democrats.

    I wonder…why is that?

  34. avatar gloomhound says:

    I stopped reading at “I am very liberal.”

    1. avatar Logan Miller says:

      So you’re admitting to being ignorant, stubborn and close minded. Excellent. Glad to see you’re part of the problem.

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @Logan Miller, no…I think he was just being honest. And spot on as well.

  35. avatar Michael G Marriam says:

    Here’s the deal my liberal friend, it’s not the government’s responsibility to insure equal outcomes. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is how the parchment reads. If you as a private individual want to get together with like minded people and put everything you earn into a great big pot and distribute it evenly amongst yourselves and those that have experienced a lesser outcome that’s your value judgement and that comes under the liberty part. We’re cool so far. Some might do it differently. Some might not do it at all. That also comes under the liberty part. And regardless of liberal views on guns most advocate government dictated outcomes. When government dictates outcomes that’s a big problem.

  36. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

    Sooo……….he’s not a single issue voter, but he can attach cute little labels to define each party’s supposed platform in terms of a single issue. Notice how each label is a positive generality? That’s meant to suggest everyone’s out to do some kind of good, just in their own way. No one’s a bad guy, no one’s selfish, no one’s ruinous, no one’s statist. We’re just one big mishpocha and sure, we sometimes disagree, but by golly, gosh darn it, we all *LOVE* each other and just want to do what’s best. Piffle.

    What I’m reading here are the third rate rationalizations of a typical liberal who just happens to have found something he likes which is associated with conservatism, namely, firearms. No doubt Bloomie and DiFi like their guns, too. Even Obama likes to slip on his Mom jeans and fire off a few rounds, in front of the cameras, to establish some street cred. That doesn’t stop them from trying to take yours and control every single other aspect of your lives.

    Firearms are about so much more than the actual tools themselves, that it’s almost easy to forget about the firearms themselves. Firearms are about personal responsibility, self-reliance, continuous improvement, individual initiative, private property, community, precision, accuracy, integrity, legacy, respect, heritage, history, freedom and far, far more, too much to mention here.

    All of those are inherently in conflict with the liberal agenda. The proof? Name for me just five issues/policies that are predominantly associated with liberals, which do NOT entail taking something from someone and/or forcing someone to do something. I dare you. No one can, because liberalism in intrinsically a philosophy of force and fraud: forcing others to give up something, compelling them to do something, and promising what they know doesn’t exist. Liberalism isn’t the only fetid flavor of statism. It’s just the one that looks the prettiest, from a distance, and that’s why it’s so dangerous.

    Nobody who has done any serious thinking about firearms and political philosophy can reconcile liberalism with firearms ownership, outside of the narrow, selfish sort of “I got mine, so screw you and yours!” While I welcome the author’s submission and entry into the marketplace of ideas, sorry, this one is a no sale.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Very well said; big thumb’s up.

    2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      “Liberalism isn’t the only fetid flavor of statism. It’s just the one that looks the prettiest, from a distance, and that’s why it’s so dangerous.”

      I’m saving that under the file “tasty prose of the day.”

  37. avatar Paco says:

    “Checks and balances…”, where does this site find such claptrap?

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Well, in fairness, it used to be a valid concept. But now we have the guy with the pen and the phone, and an “opposition” party that is spinally deficient controlling one part of one branch that is supposed to be a “check” on him. And a third branch with 4 on one end, 3 on the other, and a couple loose cannons in the middle.

  38. avatar Korvis says:

    It is the nature of liberalism (as that term is used these days) to increase the power of a centralized government. A powerful, centralized government is in natural conflict with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So has it always been, so will it always be. Liberalism (statism) naturally begets citizen control.

    There may be some Democrats who espouse positions on some issues with which I agree. However, I never will feed the cancer by voting for one again.

  39. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    +1 Ralph. I am not a one issue voter. 2 or 3maybe. Social justice is Odumbos playbook. No gun for you Sgt. Things NEVER balance out.

  40. avatar publius2 says:

    Josh, I appreciate what you are trying to say here, and the reasonable tone, and I agree most mature adults, which is about 90% of the folks I know who are responsible gun owners, and thats also my impression of most of the long time posters here at TTAG get it that life is not black and white, and sometimes if not most of the time you vote for a politician who is the best choice but not the perfect choice on all issues. Thats just life.

    But I also disagree on another idea, and with your conclusion, that sometimes one issue is enough, al by itself to choose one over another, on something so fundamental, or morally important by the voter’s perspective, that it outweighs all others. It wont work out alright to deny a basic human freedom, no matter what other “balance” you imagine. It is not just to enslave another human being, even if a regional economy might depend on it. It is not right to put millions of women and children in gas chambers because they follow a different interpretation of your holy book.

    So, sometimes, you have to pound your stake in the sand and make the line simple. This right is what I believe in, and I will only vote for those who share my belief in the god given natural rights of free men. For without that right, history has proven, over and over, that man, or governments, can do horrible things, and it jyst doesn’t work out ok, otherwise.

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      Wow, I’m going to agree with publius2 tonight. Sometimes there is an issue so salient and so imperative that it separates those who are pro-liberty from those who are anti-liberty. The 2A rights are one of those things, either you believe in it or you don’t. If you believe in it, you’ll never cast a vote for a democrat again. It cannot be another way and there is no compromise. Liberty or not liberty, that is the question.

  41. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

    I don’t disagree with liberals because they also largely support gun control, I disagree with them on most everything based on my understanding of the issues.

  42. avatar Tom says:

    It would be great if gun rights were not an issue dividing Republicans and Democrats. We need 2nd Amendment supporters in both parties to ensure long-term success. However, the Justices appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the past three presidents have very different views on the 2nd Amendment. We’re one more liberal Justice away from losing the last “check” in our system of checks and balances. That should be reason enough to be a single-issue voter.

  43. avatar Logan Miller says:

    Great post and I apologize on behalf of close minded TTAG’ers for their comments bashing your train of thought without giving it any consideration because they’re so stuck in their grumpy old man ways.

    Also, props to TTAG for having a good balance of posts from ALL stances on gun ownership lately. It’s been a pleasure visiting the site.

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @Logan Miller, no….not grumpy at all. Just stuck on TRUTH. Big difference.

      1. avatar Logan Miller says:

        Thanks for proving my point.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @Logan Miller, and thank you for proving mine. There is no advantage to meddling with either “useful idiots”/liberals or their Statist puppetmasters. Both are the enemy of freedom and free will.

        2. avatar Scot says:

          @Logan Miller

          Your point being that anyone who ‘considers’ the points in the article must inherently agree with it? That seems to be rather close minded of you.

      2. avatar Logan Miller says:

        Sound like one of the nuts, I see. Go back to your bunker where there’s no wi-fi and prep for the end please.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @Logan Miller, and perhaps you might consider extracting your cranium from your rectum?

  44. avatar Franko says:

    Liberal platform (ensuring all citizens have the means to prosper). Translation, taking money, things and rights from people other than liberals.

  45. avatar Herb says:

    Mr. Dan Zimmerman, you’re not fooling anybody. So your personal private brand of liberalism does not leave you hostile to citizens owning guns. Fine & dandy. Then you should inform us that your apostasy on that issue has already cost you lots of liberal friends. Otherwise you are sailing under a false flag.

    Kind of like Muslim spokesmen who insist that their personal private brand of Islam would never allow them to kill an infidel & that they condemn “all forms of terrorism”. Again, fine & dandy with a large helping of “yeah, right”.

    Underneath all that kumbaya & let’s us gun owners all get along despite our diametrically opposed beliefs lurks the spirit of DiFi: “Guns for me but not for thee”.

    Either that or you’re a Hindenburg-sized cloud of cognitive dissonance.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      Dan Zimmererman didn’t write this claptrap. Try actually reading it.

    2. avatar Sock Monkey says:

      Dan Zimmerman really should keep his name from appearing on articles written by others. This is a problem.

      Can’t blame folks for being confused, when the post is labeled, “by Dan Zimmerman.”

  46. avatar Ed Cardoza says:

    You mean Sgt. Joshua. Dan Zimmerman didn’t write the article, he just posted Sgt. Joshua’s letter

    1. avatar Herb says:

      My bad. Be more careful next time. Sorry.

  47. avatar Hal says:

    “Liberal platform (ensuring all citizens have the means to prosper)”

    Pass. The moment I read this I stopped reading. Pretty confident I missed nothing of value. Unicorns and leprechauns.

  48. avatar Scot says:

    Joshua

    Most gun owners see your political philosophy as ‘the enemy’ not because it is leftist politicians that push for gun control, but rather because your political philosophy cannot survive long term without gun control.

    It’s not as if there could be somewhere some non-control leftist, leftism is paternalism, and leftists can’t conceive that their ‘children’ can be trusted with guns.

    Gun control isn’t a problem with leftism, it’s a necessary feature of leftism.

    1. avatar Publius says:

      Exactly. The “Left” platform is about absolute control over every aspect of your life, thus gun control is a necessary feature to ensure obedience.

  49. avatar Publius says:

    ” Liberal platform (ensuring all citizens have the means to prosper)”

    Sorry son, but that is NOT the Liberal platform at all. You’ve been duped, badly. And no, I’m not a Republican either.

  50. avatar Dennis says:

    That was a very long-winded way of saying “I believe in the 2nd Amendment but…”

  51. avatar Sock Monkey says:

    “Liberal platform (ensuring all citizens have the means to prosper)”

    What does that mean, and how is it compatible with fiscal responsibility and personal freedom (the planks the OP chose from the Republican and Libertarian platforms)?

    1. avatar Roger says:

      He lost me with “ensuring all citizens have the means to prosper”.

      It’s not the government’s job and it’s not my responsibility to ensure that all citizens have the means to prosper. It never has been in this country and anytime it’s been tried elsewhere it fails. The only way eventually to keep the house of cards from falling is to enact gun control. That the OP doesn’t see this doesn’t speak well for their intelligence.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        The closest anyone has ever come to ensuring the means to prosper is when the government has gotten out of the way and simply not interfered with Free People’s natural tendency to prosper on their own.

        Compare Chile and Argentina, for example.

  52. avatar Vasili Arkhipov says:

    I didn’t realize Michael Bloomberg wanted a P320.

  53. avatar Ardent says:

    There is no such thing as a pro-gun pro-rights democrat, that’s a unicorn. There are libertarians who are confused about their nature and affiliations, and thus end up identifying democrat, and there are confused people of all sorts who think they are democrats because of labor issues (like the entire population of KY and WV, where they have effectively voted in a régime that is now shutting down the only industry they have). There are even people who vote democrat who believe in individual rights because of a single issue, generally abortion who don’t understand they vote for a party that is generally opposed to individual rights. There are not, however, any people who both believe in gun rights and vote democrat. It’s not possible, since either you’re not really pro gun rights or you’re not really a democrat.

    Gun control is in their party platform, it’s not like they are hiding it. The two are mutually exclusive. Just as the unionists in KY and WV have managed to vote themselves out of work with their democrat leanings (understand that these are all fiercely anti abortion and against most social welfare programs) by voting against their conscience but for their union.

    Pro tip: a vote against your industry is bad for you job. A simple fact that is just now coming home to roost in these areas. Talk about egg on your face, you voted against your conscience and for your wallet and end up broke both morally and financially. It serves them right.

    A pro-gun democrat is an oxymoron. Either you’re a left leaning independent or perhaps a libertarian but if you’re pro gun, you are, by the definition of the democrat party, not a democrat.

    You might have been born a democrat, educated to be a democrat (though there is an argument that states that’s the opposite of education), and think of yourself as a democrat but the moment you actually vote democrat you are no longer pro gun. You lose your pro-gun card the moment you vote D, everytime, and always. The candidate doesn’t matter, they caucus democrat, and democrats are dedicated anti gun. You can go tell yourself whatever you want, but the fact is that it’s not possible to be pro gun and democrat. It’s oxymoronic. If you ever think you’re a pro-gun democrat, you’re confused about what you are, what those things are, or what words mean.

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @Ardent, TRUTH post right there. Most excellent.

    2. avatar DTAL says:

      Spot on as always, Ardent. I’ve believed for some time now that many “liberals” and “Democrats” would actually be libertarians if the media wasn’t working overtime to demonize them. And the Progs convince liberals that their party is the bastion of freedom, offering them gay love and marijuana and a bunch of superficial junk in subtle exchange for their rights and real freedoms.

      Many aren’t worth the effort. Like it or not, a large chunk of the public will always be slave-minded scum yearning for the yoke and eager to bring everyone else down with them. But many Democrats just need to be shown what libertarianism truly is.

  54. avatar DTAL says:

    “Our country is full of checks and balances and it’ll all balance out in the end.”

    Like the kind that’ve kept politicians of the last decade from systemically destroying the foundations of this country?

  55. So, a gun owner who supports racist discrimination against whites, welfare cheats and massive immigration of Democrat voters who will vote for gun control. Thanks for nothing.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email