Meet Sarah Cade, Liberal Gun Rights Advocate

courtesy startribune.com

It goes without saying. Not all gun owners are right-leaning, Trump-voting, old fat white guys. Take, for example, Sarah Cade, the subject of a profile today in the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Cade is young, biracial and passionately liberal. She’s also become a self-described gun nut and a staunch defender of gun ownership.

But she wants to be nice about it.

“I have a talent for disagreeing with people without being a jerk about it,” she said. “I don’t like hostility in any of my interactions. I’m very nonconfrontational.”

Which helps. Gun rights supporters have had just about enough of being called racist, Nazis with blood on their hands who value their firearms more than children’s lives.

In many ways, she defies the stereotype of a Second Amendment crusader.

She has empathy for people who are scared by AR-15 rifles, one of which she owns.

“I get why people are afraid of them. Like, I understand that. I get that it’s scary for people to think that other people have the capacity to cause harm,” she said.

And she understands just how negatively gun owners are often viewed. “There’s a perception that gun owners don’t care,” she said, “and that could not be farther from the truth.”

 

But Cade believes that ideas about gun control should be judged on their merits, not where they fall along political lines. She hopes to persuade, not just win arguments. And she doesn’t lecture opponents about the origins of the Second Amendment or wrangle over whether semi-automatic weapons should be called assault rifles.

“It’s not an assault rifle until you assault someone with it,” she said, adding, “I don’t approve of anyone being mean about it, or rude, because that doesn’t help anyone.”

And while you may not always realize it — it’s too easy to think you’re always dealing with like-minded people here in a pro-gun bubble —  there are lots of other left-leaning gun owners like Cade out there. Plenty of whom read TTAG. Check out our ‘I am a gun owner’ photo collection from a few years ago if you doubt that.

With well over 100 million people who own firearms in this country, it only makes sense that, despite their depiction in the media, gun owners actually come in all shapes, colors, sizes and political predilections. And that’s a very good thing for everyone who values the right to keep and bear arms. The more of us there are on every point along the political spectrum, the safer our gun rights.

Read the full profile of Sarah Cade here.

 

comments

  1. avatar barnbwt says:

    Not buying it. Either she/they are lying/exaggerating about the liberal part, or lying/exaggerating about the pro gun part.

    The ideologies & politics are too contradictory to fit inside one head

    1. avatar achmed says:

      No – they are not.

      I’m a military veteran, lifelong Republican, NRA life member.

      I also don’t care if gay people get married, think pot should be legal, think a reasonable social safety net is a good thing, and hate $20 trillion in debt (sorry, but Americans like our candy and gum from the government, someday we’re all going to have to pay for it).

      Modern “conservatism” is really not and Fox News did a lot of people wrong. Gun rights supporters should focus on gun rights and not all the other hypocritical crap that is modern “conservatism”.

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        So you’re a classic liberal / “conservative”, but think you’re edgy by saying your not. Here’s a thought, just stop giving a shit what others think and advocate for things that make sense and make life better.

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          What would be wrong with taking each as an individual with his/her own ideas and feelings, instead of insisting on pigeonholing everyone as “liberal”, “classic liberal”, “conservative”, “socialist”, etc.?

        2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          There isn’t. But I’m way over every wannabe edgelord saying that they’re for these things which would clearly define them, but they’re too cool for labels. If you are not concerned with what people think, then don’t shun a label.

        3. avatar doesky2 says:

          A trait of a someone mentally handicapped is not being able to recognize patterns and similarities in life and thus every experience is a brand new experience that must be navigated.

          A sign of intelligence is being able to make generalizations (or “pidgeon hole” ) a set of inputs to be able to make an intelligent classification.

          If something waddles like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s then efficient and effective to call it a duck.

        4. avatar doesky2 says:

          The first thing is to properly define the terms.
          Liberal vs Left
          “The biggest enemy of Liberals are Leftists, not conservatives”…Prager

      2. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Well, a lot of people don’t really know what a conservative is anymore, or a liberal for that matter. “Liberal” now means socialist, when “liberal” was meant as a laissez faire term. Liberals were the biggest capitalists out there. At some point in the 60s That began its transformation into what is now actually, Statism. Modern liberals really shouldn’t even be called liberals at all.

      3. avatar burley says:

        Liberty is letting the married gay couple defend their marijuana and poppy crops with full auto machine guns while defending their right to not do business with anyone they damn well please.
        Regrettably, very few of us seem to understand that.

        1. avatar burley says:

          …and that’s a short list.

        2. avatar El Bearsidente says:

          That is 100% correct.

        3. avatar Toni says:

          Spot on Burley. i am one half of a lesbian couple who later this year are having a commitment ceremony. gay marriage is now legal however we strongly dont want the govt paperwork and disagree with the way it was brought in along with the legislation which was what the politicians wanted to bring in which contains loopholes for pedophilia as well. we want the govt out of our lives as much as possible. i have been a shooter for years and i introduced her to it though she had been interested before just never knew anyone that was a shooter before she met me. personally i want to see govt back at the levels it was back around the time of federation here in australia but with a lot of harsher restrictions on govt but not on the people. i would be happy to have barest minimum of laws and restrictions on the people eg. murder rape theft etc and see the punishments be harsh as can be for those. yep i am Ye Olde Schoole conservative/liberal and statists really get me pissed off

      4. avatar El Bearsidente says:

        But modern “liberalism” would fall into the same box as what you call modern conservatism.

        The people who call themselves “liberal” and “progressive” in the US right now? They are neither. They want more regulations about pretty much everything, from guns down to words you can say. That is not liberal. That is totalitarian.

      5. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        You’re just another self-loathing liberal. Own it.

        Gay marriage? Seriously? What matterdms on these issues is not your personal opinion, but you willingness to allow government to impose your opinion on others. Your little gay marriage indifference really translates into a whole host of imposition on others.

        Now everyone has to recognize those marriages. Now everyone is compelled to make spousal benefits available to them. And while the the gay marriage ruling isn’t exactly the same thing as anti-discrimination in retail sales, it sure as Hell is part of the same movement. So now people get fined and run out of business unless they betray their religious beliefs and bake the gays a cake. You even have gays seeking out businesses to set them up for such cases. Anything that involves the government necessarily involves forcing someone to do or not do something.

        If you are in favor of government action beyond what is explicit in the Constitution (Safety net? Where is that written?), then you’re a liberal in the modern sense of the word. It’s two-faced, self-deceivers like you who are enabling the destruction of this country.

        1. avatar JD says:

          For that matter where does the Constitution spell out marriage? Hint, it doesn’t. Marriage is a matter of the church. Other than collecting a tax in the form of a license why does the government have any business being involved in marriage?
          I don’t consider myself affiliated with any political party. I’m conservative in most beliefs but think the government has zero business being involved in anything outside the limits of the Constitution. War on drugs, poverty, etc are two big issues where the government needs to sit down and shut up. Gun control? Not allowed per the second and specifically states the government shall not Infringe. All gun laws on the federal level are unconstitutional. Since the 14th was ratified all gun control on the state level is also unconstitutional. As long as my actions harm nobody else I should be allowed to do as I please .

      6. avatar BLAMMO says:

        No, the ideologies and politics are not necessarily contradictory, but who can she vote for? Liberal pols are anti 2A, virtually without exception.

      7. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        So you’re more of a libertarian with a conservative skew. When you get right down to it I think many people (including me) are in that category.

      8. avatar Alexander says:

        Well, Achmed, you do seem to have contradictions in your head – you say that you believe in a social safety net, but are not happy about the $20 trillion debt… Think about this contradiction…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The “contradiction” between a robust “safety net”, and $20trillion in national debt is easily relieved (which is probably what is in Achmed’s mind: the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. The middle class and lower shouldn’t have to subsidize the rich. There should be no federal income tax on people earning less than $75,000 per year. The government should confiscate all income over $250,000 per year. In 2011, the Simpson/Bowles blue ribbon panel determined that if we did that, the government could function for nine months, with the tax revenue from the $75,000 to $249,999 filling in the rest.

          Or something.

    2. avatar Chris says:

      I’m a liberal leaning Independent that hates both parties that votes (R) because I vote my issues, the military and gun rights.

      We don’t all have to ascribe to narrow minded boxes that people love to put themselves into.

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        ^ This

        1. avatar jeff says:

          This ^^^^^

      2. avatar Xopher says:

        You mean a person can go through life without a political party dictating their every thought and belief?!?!?
        /s

        There are lots of liberal 2A supporters especially in the Midwest. There is absolutely no reason support for the second had to be divided on political lives other than our stupid 2 party system forces it

    3. avatar Ing says:

      I dunno about that.

      It is true that if you value your right to keep and bear arms, voting for any Democrat anywhere is a head-exploding political contradiction. (I’ve had some unpleasant arguments with my D-voting, gun-tolerant wife about this.)

      However, the values behind it aren’t necessarily so contradictory. I’m socially liberal *and* a Second Amendment absolutist. If it wasn’t for the fact that “liberalism” has been co-opted by regressive leftists who hate the country I love, I’d still be calling myself a liberal instead of a (small-l) libertarian.

      There might still be some Democratic voters who believe, like I do, that the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land and that its language means exactly what it says. Maybe. If there are, they’re blind to what their party is up to…

      I think the biggest difference is where we stand in regards to the scope of government power. If this woman believes more/bigger government is a good thing, she probably fits pretty well in the liberal camp; most conservatives (and most TTAGers) seem to believe increasing gov’t power is usually the worst answer to any given problem.

      1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

        Here is a portion of the 2016 Democratic Party Platform, word-for word. I’m really not sure why the intent of the Democrat Party regarding guns is up for debate. They very clearly state their position:

        “Preventing Gun Violence
        With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.”

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Yes, exactly.

          In so many words, the Democratic party has officially dedicated itself to destroying the Second Amendment as a functional part of the Constitution. It’s been that way since the early ’90s at least, but they’ve…er…strengthened that language considerably in the last 5 years.

          The Democratic party is the only major party in American history (that I know of) that has ever campaigned on an explicit promise to entirely remove an existing, constitutionally protected civil right from people who peacefully exercise it.

          I don’t think most people realize the implications of that.

          Until I became a gun owner, it wasn’t on my radar at all. Even then it took until Sandy Hook for it to fully sink in. The progressive/leftist propaganda is powerful and ubiquitous.

        2. avatar Alexander says:

          Likewise, Hitler had been very open about his agenda. He wrote a book about, he spoke loud and clear about it – and yet, people just refused to believe him. The American communists, aka the Democrat Party, has been open about their goals – “transforming” America into a Marxist state, but supposedly sensible people are refusing to hear and comprehend it.

    4. avatar FedUp says:

      Methinks you’re confusing Progressives with Liberals.

    5. avatar jeremy says:

      Well, other than being pro-gun to a “you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands” extent, I’m extremely liberal. I wanna tax the shit out of the rich. I want to give the money to the poor. I want open borders. I am 100% pro-union. I want to fund public education and defund private schools. I want socialized healthcare. So you’re wrong. Sorry, dude.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Wrong about what? I’m not sure what part of my comment you’re referring to. In fact, I think you’ve provided a good example of what I was talking about.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Argh! You weren’t replying to me at all. Never mind. 🙂 This comment system isn’t very clear that way.

      2. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

        Well Jeremy, even though you and I disagree on everything else, at least we can agree on guns. Lol.

      3. avatar JD says:

        “wanna tax the shit out of the rich. I want to give the money to the poor. I want open borders.”

        So you believe in theft and open invasion? You are nothing more than another socialist that needs to be put up against a wall and shot. Yeah that sounds harsh but it’s the only solution for those who openly want to destroy our constitutional republic.

        1. avatar michael says:

          a real american!!

        2. avatar jeremy says:

          Bring it on, motherfucker.

    6. avatar kevin says:

      I buy it. I can’t understand how liberals think trump is the new Hitler, but want to outlaw the tools to overthrow him. Likewise, police are trigger happy racists, but they should be the only ones with guns. It makes no sense.

      She gets it.

  2. avatar bryan1980 says:

    I’d just like to know how she votes, if she does so at all.

    1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      ^That. Right there.

      If she voted ‘D’ she does not support gun rights. Voting in that manner indicates that no matter your support for 2A rights you believe other issues are more important and you are willing to cede your 2A rights for those ‘other issues’. If you KNOW the people you vote for are AGAINST your rights, and will take every opportunity to do so, you are voting knowing the thing you claim to support is less important than other reasons you are voting for them.

      ‘Nuff said.

  3. avatar Larry Macneal says:

    Good for her. I was at my LGS and a woman was buying her first pistol. She was a set designer for plays. Seemingly not a conservative. She really researched the hell out of her purchase and settled in on an M&P 2.0 Compact. Not a bad choice

  4. avatar Templar says:

    Daily reminder: liberal or not, you can’t vote Democrat and consider yourself a 2nd amendment supporter

    1. avatar Gator says:

      That’s really it. In a nutshell.

      Cognitive Dissonance.

    2. avatar El Bearsidente says:

      Democrats are not liberals. They stole the word, flat out appropriated it, and keep lying with it.

      1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        The far left took over the leadership of the democrat party long ago as a front.

        When I was growing up democrats were patriots who supported the constitution, the military and loved America.

        The communists in control of the DNC are dedicated to overthrowing the constitution and destroying America. They are in absolute control of the democrat party, note how democrats in congress vote the party line.

        So my question, is she an old time “liberal” like democrats were 60 years ago or is she a modern “progressive” liberal who toes the line?

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      This. ^^^

      And “guns” ain’t the only problem with the POS (D), and the problem didn’t start within the last 100 years, so nobody try to talk about the good-ole days of the POS (D).

    4. avatar Danny338 says:

      Not much of a difference between Dems and Rinos though. I agree with the other comments saying that a person who votes for Democrats doesn’t really support or believe in the 2nd Amendment, but unfortunately a lot of Republicans fit into the same category: Statist / Totalitarian. It is the single most important reason to learn and know about your Representatives and Senators. They are either for everyone’s individual rights or against them. There is no middle ground. *That sentiment right there confuses a lot of people, because they are unwilling or unable to think through the implications of what they have chosen to believe.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Not much difference between either party. They both kneel to same power brokers.

  5. avatar crndl says:

    ” ‘It’s not an assault rifle until you assault someone with it,’ she said.”
    She needs to tighten up her presentation. It’s not an assault rifle at all. Words matter, especially those the anti-gun side have intentionally misrepresented, or in the case of “assault WEAPON,” conjured out of thin air.

    1. avatar N64456 says:

      I think she means ANY weapon can be an “asssult weapon” when you assault someone with it… “Happy” vs “Glad”…

    2. avatar El Bearsidente says:

      Assault rifle is a defined weapons type, one which is treated as machine gun under US federal law and getting one legally is a huge PITA.

      1. avatar crndl says:

        I’d bet a limb or two she’s not talking about the narrowly defined item you reference. An attempt to be cute that to me falls flat.

  6. avatar TomD says:

    There is the problem with the current 2 party political system…

    When I went to the gun rights rally in Harrisburg, I stayed overnight with some good friends of ours who are married lesbians. The left would have you believe the right hates gay marriage, the right would have you believe the left hates guns. There are an awful lot of us “in the middle” who don’t give two shits and just want to be left alone on the respective issues.

    While there I met Dale Kearns (a libertarian senate candidate) who spoke at the rally about lessening the divide. I brought up to him afterwards how strong a message of “Liberty is for everyone” could be in a purple state. The unions around me are still pro gun because we live in a huge hunting state. The Union says vote dem, the gun lover says vote repub.

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    Advocte?

  8. avatar rt66paul says:

    Many of us are called liberal because we are liberal on social issues, but conservative in fiscal issues. We are Libertarians. Most of us believe in a literal translation of the 2nd, most of us believe that less government makes us freer. We believe in an individuals right to live his/her life without intervention(if it affects no one else). We are live and let live. We are anti U.N., we do not believe in using the military to shore up a corporations supply of materials of transfer of materials across their country. The military should be defensive in nature and for the most part that would mean on out own land.

    I am proud to call myself a Libertarian, smaller government would allow us the freedom mentioned in the Declaration of Independance.

    1. avatar Kendahl says:

      Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party is no longer libertarian. It’s Democrat Lite. For confirmation of this assessment, consider whom they nominated for President and Vice President two years ago.

      During the last election, no matter who won, the country was going to lose. I voted for Trump only because the alternatives were even worse.

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Being “liberal” (the correct term would be left wing) on social issues is totally contradictory towards limited government. This is why libertarians never get anywhere. True libertarianism is not anywhere near the left on most social issues due to the extreme taxation, government spending, and reliance on enourmous government programs. Being “socially liberal” doesn’t mean you simply support gay marriage or abortion, because the left is far, far beyond mere recognition of those things.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Our terminology is all borked up. “Liberal,” which should mean supporting the right of people to decide those things for themselves, now implicitly (if not explicitly) entails using government to *force* people to do those things.

    3. avatar El Bearsidente says:

      You are not many, you are a minority.

      Most “liberals”, who have simply stolen the word and use it to lie a lot, are against people’s rights. They want regulation and legislation for pretty much everything. From guns down to the words you can use, including 3rd person pronouns.

    4. avatar Joe R. says:

      Unless you are a Conservative, you’re asking for support of Societal Agreement in some way that you are not otherwise providing it yourself.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Agree.

        A “liberal on social issues” always means using government to make other people “do right”. Using government to coerce others to act in a particular manner is still using government as a cudgel.

        I can respect someone who declares that sexual intercourse with an animal should be a matter only between the person and the animal. I cannot respect someone who demands that government sanctions be applied to force other people to arrange society to make it cheaper or less inconvenient to obtain a willing animal.

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Whoa dude. I was with you till you said beastiality is ok. Jesus Fuck man. That got out of hand quickly. Beastiality is not now, nor ever will be ok, because an animal cannot consent sex with a human. Anyone who engages in the rape of an animal is an inherent danger to everything and everyone. (See: existence of AIDS).

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Whoa dude. I was with you till you said beastiality is ok.”

          Didn’t say it was “OK”. Just said I can respect a personal choice, but not a personal choice forced by government to be accepted, promoted and mandated to be treated as “normal” or enviable.

          Animals do not consent to be dinner, either. Which outcome is worse for the animal?

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          Sorry Sam, I’m with N.C.A. on this one.

          We POTG don’t need a “tent” big enough to include beastiality. Same shit as the OP, I don’t give a fat Fuck if you’re into guns, I have one policy, many times recited:

          IF YOU LIVE IN A BLUE STATE, YOU MAY BE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
          IF YOU HAVE A POS (D) AFTER YOUR NAME, OR ARE A LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST, FACIST, GLOBALIST, OR GLOBAL-WARMINGIST, THE PROBLEM IS PART OF YOU. YOU ARE PERMANENTLY BROKEN, AND YOUR MOTHER OWES US AN ABORTION.

          If they ban guns (and actually manage to “do-away-with-them”) we’ll kill them with whatever’s left (no pun intended) and burn their shit to the ground. Open season, no tag, no limit, no quarter, no prisoners, no mercy (NTNLNQNPNM).

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We POTG don’t need a “tent” big enough to include beastiality.”

          It isn’t about beastiality. It is about personal freedom. If POTG are only interested in the personal freedom they approve, what is the difference between POTG and gun grabbers. The taking of personal firearms is to remove an activity the gun grabbers disapprove. They don’t want a “tent” big enough to include POTG because guns. POTG want to restrict their “tent” to only those whose activities are approved? Different prejudices, same goal: control the individual freedom of others.

          My mentioning of animal sex was to over emphasize the meaning of permitting free people to act as free people, so long as those activities do not harm other people. To hammer home that government coercion to force people to act in government approved (mandated) behaviors is government coercion, no matter the intent of the political drivers of government coercion.

          I have a lot of objections to many personal actions of others. However, I do not support codifying and enforcing them. I will state my objections and preferences, but have no illusion that you will agree and act accordingly. Intellectually, I am an authoritarian (maybe even a totalitarian). But I do not believe I have a right to force people to comply with my moral ideas. Neither do I believe it is the “right” of government to protect us from ourselves. “If I were king of the world”, things would be different. But I am not, and I accept that boundary. If I do you no harm, get out of my face. If I do you harm, take appropriate measures.

  9. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    As a black gun owner I don’t trust liberal gun owners.
    Being a former California resident has left a distinct impression on me. The test is are liberal gun owners willing to vote for Republicans who support gun Civil Rights???? Because the Democrats have been historically voting against gun civil rights, particularly for black people, biracial or not.

    Liberals can talk about the Mulford Act and the NRA all they want. The bottom line is liberals publicly stated they are against repealing the Mulford Act.

    So yes liberals do support racist gun control laws.

  10. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    The democrat party has effectively removed every pro 2nd Amendment politician within it’s ranks which is a shame really. The dems are now the default “gun control” party as well as the “open borders & pro choice” party. The Republicans are the ‘most of the time’ pro 2nd Amendment, immigration control pro choice party.

    The 2nd Amendment is my critical deciding factor in every election cycle.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      The Republican Party has never been “pro-choice” (which is a specific term of art referring to abortion.).

      1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        Meant “pro life”, but often times only when it’s useful at the national level for fund raising.

  11. avatar Shire-man says:

    The only “liberal” position the write-up attributes to her is being pro-choice.
    If she votes for (D)’s she’s eating herself alive. Even if she votes for a solidly pro-2A (D) that candidate will still vote party line when the time comes because that is the party platform after all.

    Appears she’s a Maj fan:

    “I don’t care if they wrote it for me. It’s mine now.”

    Cool.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Being pro-choice isn’t really a liberal position as it hinges not on you view of the proper role of government but your understanding (or lack thereof) of prenatal science.

  12. avatar Sam I Am says:

    A modern day liberal is, by definition, anti-personal liberty (other than their own). Anti- taking responsibility for yourself. Anti- protecting yourself. Anti- any activity that does not depend upon, or promote government programs, government expansion, into every facet of life. Therefore, a modern day liberal really cannot be supportive of gun ownership by the masses. They can be pro gun ownership for themselves (because they are special and righteous), even though that too flies in the face of liberal dogma.

    The truth, the proof of concept is to ask a so-called “liberal” gun owner if they would vote against, demonstrate against restrictions on gun ownership at the expense of some other favorite opiate.

    Yes, there are 100 million gun owners (I guess) in the country. Based on population (~320 million), they can’t all be staunch 2A believers. And the dichotomy should make their brains explode.

  13. avatar Removed_californian says:

    As a removed Californian I call serious BS. That’s nice that you call yourself a liberal and like guns. I don’t care about that. What I call BS on is loving the second amendment and then supporting candidates that hate the second amendment and actively try to destroy it. I’ve seen it before and I’m not convinced.

  14. avatar Heartbreaker says:

    I identify as a Constitutionalist. I am a strong practioner and supporter (no ifs or buts) of the Second Amendment. My political beliefs lean more towards the Republican side, but it doesn’t mean I agree with everything they do. I believe in the “No victim, no crime” legal system. Again, doesn’t mean I agree with the actions of others, but I don’t want to restrict their freedom.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      ” “No victim, no crime” ”

      A concept so narrow in application that it isn’t viable. If there is unmerited adverse effect (or criminality) upstream or downstream of your action, then there is a victim. If the intention of the concept is to convey that an action that does not result in direct and instant unmerited adverse effect on yourself, or another person involved in the activity, that philosophy might be arguable. However, is it morally/ethically correct to narrow the scope of effect so as to be beneficial to you at the moment, and call it “No Victim, No Crime”?

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        “Unmerited adverse effect upstream or downstream”

        So if I sell my Jeep to someone, and then that someone has his vehicle stolen, and then the thief loans it to his buddy, then his buddy gets hammered and kills a family of 4 in a car crash, is that on me? Fvck off and grow up. We are so interconnected with others that your criteria is so broad as to be absurd. If your actions DIRECTLY harm someone else (rape, murder, robbery, etc) then that’s a problem. If not? No problem. I fail to see why this is such a hard concept for you statists to grasp

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Grow up?

          It is only a child who thinks they should have no responsibility for their actions.

          In the vernacular, “victimless crime” is generally ascribed to things like trafficking in illegal drugs (or making illegal drugs legal) and gambling.

          Your juvenile example is a legal act (selling your jeep). If there is no criminal act, there is no victim, no “victimless crime”. If your drug activity or out-of-control gambling requires criminal acts before, and results in criminal acts after, your “victimless crime” does not exist. If we legalize a drug (all drugs), the production of which is a crime in the producing nation, using that drug is de facto not “victimless”. If your use of the drug then causes you to go bankrupt, to lose your job, put your family at risk of losing a home, then your drug use is not “victimless”. If your drug use, the cause of death or injury in the nation of origin, causes you to commit a crime as a result of the use, your drug use is not “victimless”.

          Underlying all the “victimless crime” propaganda is the assumption that “If I do something dangerous and get hurt, that is my problem. And all that matters.” My proposition is that actions can have consequences beyond the instance of the action. With criminal actions, the consequences cannot be declared “victimless” simply because I am considering only myself.

          All of which has nothing to do with statism.

          Are there truly “victimless crimes”? Yes. The difficulty is ensuring yours is one of them.

        2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          So drunk driving is OK, unless you actually injure someone? Let’s celebrate–and test–your commitment to that little example of dorm room libertarianism by inviting your kid’s bus driver inside the house for a half a dozen rounds of shots before ferrying the lad off to school. What do you say? Bottoms up!

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You miss the point entirely.

          However….

          There are two matters here: liberty and “victimless crime”.

          From a liberty standpoint, anybody should be able to drink all they want, and operate machinery. That does not give license to do damage or injury. Thus, if a drunk driver successfully navigates the route without damage or injury to another person, or the property of another, where’s the foul? Should damage or injury happen, and the driver is convicted, the penalty should be severe, up to murder or attempted murder (it is the rare person who becomes drunk and doesn’t know it; reckless disregard/depraved indifference).

          As to driving a school bus while drunk, you have a violation of policy and law. The bus driver is no longer an individual agent. The driver is now responsible for more than self. The dynamic changes. Here, society does have a call on the driver’s liberty (the driver freely gave up a certain amount of liberty as a condition of the job).

          As to individual actions, laws designed to “prevent” something are pre-crime curtailment of individual liberty (POTG just really love pre-crime laws). The “risk” and individual poses to other individuals is theoretical….until unmerited damage occurs to other, or the property of others. The result of the action is the “crime”, not the potential. When a free person voluntarily relinquishes certain freedom of action, the individual is now in an inferior position (only insofar as the individual is engaged in agreed activity) to a larger entity.

          If one declares that laws preventing activity are permissible for one thing, the same concept must apply to all the others. Arguing that preventing drunkeness/or drugedness is valid, but preventing domestic abusers from access to firearms is not permissible is an unsupportable disconnect of logic (no, this is not a situation where enumerated rights cannot be preempted on grounds of “maybe”, but all other activity can; individual freedom is the essence of what the constitution protects).

  15. avatar ImAComedianSoICanSayAnything says:

    This so confusing I could just shoot myself.

    Bwaaaahaaaaaahaaaaaaaa

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    Meh…even us OFWG can’t be pigeonholed. I’ve had 2 black wives but I’m extremely anti-demtard. Honestly hadn’t voted since 1972 but went all in for Trump in 2016. I smoked pot for years but really don’t want it completely legal as it makes you stupid and paronoid. I’m pro baby human but I’m not carrying signs demanding no one murder their child
    . I’ve met a boatload of supposed gun owners who truly believe voting D is OK. He!! voting republitard sucks lately(SEE:Floriduh and Vermont). This gal may be brain dead if she tilts leftard and believes “their not taking my guns”.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      What does being an OFWG actually have to do with having a black wife? I get that it may violate some stereotypes others may have, but what actual, substantive, real connection is there?

      With a liberal claiming to support the 2A, there are plenty of connections to actual, real life, anti-2A outcomes. It isn’t just a stereotype.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Stereotype dummazz…if it offends you tough shite. The “biracial” label is meaningless. If you’re married to a colored gal idiots expect you’re a Democratic loser. I don’t care if Democratic voters and leftards have guns!

        1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          Seriously, how many times has fww/ofwg pointed out he has a black wife? Gotta be in the hundreds. We get it.

  17. avatar Robert Crawford says:

    Many gun owners, and gun owner rights organizations, make a mistake. They take a position that, if someone isn’t with them on every point and nuance, even those that have nothing to do with the rights of gun owners, then that person is entirely against them. It is all or nothing thinking.

    I ended up spending quite a few years outside the US . This also allowed me to view policies in a less impassioned manner. I also studied Economics until I wound up teaching it at a college.

    That was the source of my fracture with the Republican party. In simple terms, they do not do economics well. The economics they peddle make sense from a simplified model appropriate to an Introduction to Economics course. The trouble is that the Introduction to Economics course is just that, an introduction.

    I don’t want to spent the entire length of this letter going on about the flaws in the simplified economic model; because it is useful, to a point. You may have read this and are left sputtering with indignation that an educated person would have a different opinion than yours; the freshwater school is definitely easier to understand and promote than the vastly more complex saltwater school. That being said, it has nothing to do with my support for gun owners rights.

    I realize that some will identify me as the enemy of gun owners rights due to the fact that I do not support the Republican parties economic policies. I see that the two issues have to be able to both co-exist. Gun owners rights is not an economic position and should not be packaged with one.

    We need to have supporters on both sides of the isle. As some have pointed out, there are few pro gun ownership members in the Democratic party. However, we are partly to blame. Once we said that, if someone isn’t with them on every point and nuance, even those that have nothing to do with the rights of gun owners, then that person is entirely against them, we said that a pro gun owner legislator will have no support from either side of the isle.

    Here, even though I am a life member of about twenty-five years, I see the NRA as missing the mark. We need to be letting politicians, on both sides of the isle, see that supporting gun owners is a political viable position.falling down. Right now, with the all or nothing rhetoric, that isn’t being communicated.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      It’s not about agreeing on every little issue, it’s about a fundamental difference in the most basic foundations of the underlying ideologies. Personal gun ownership and everything it implies is a concept that is FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with the underlying assumptions and ideologies of the political left

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        There ya’ go.

        Nicely done.

      2. avatar Robert Crawford says:

        I respectfully disagree. The descriptions of what is left and what is right shift far too much to say that either is fundamentally incompatible with the rights of gun owners. I remember a recent discussion that I had with someone who clearly self-identified with the political right. This person could not even agree that this is a great county.

        I am not going to dwell on the point of American Exceptionalism, the point is that the right has members that insist that this country is not great and that it needs some major shift to become great. Frankly, this could have been lifted from extreme left positions of the 60’s.

        The political Us vs Them is not helping us as gun owners. After all, what would success in this discussion look like for you? Would your success be for me to sell my guns (not likely) and donate that money to the Bradey Centere, or whatever they are calling themselves this year (even less likely, hovering right on the brink of that unreachable zero). Would it be a success to you if I and the person highlighted in this article suddenly devoted our energies toward some ban scheme?

        I don’t think that is what success looks like. Instead I can, and do, make the effort to speak at the local caucus meeting and speak against the anti gun owners rights plank in the Democratic party. I am not so naive as to think that my, three minute timed, speech will change the party. However, I do feel it reminded them that their membership contains those who oppose restrictions on gun owners rights.

        Would your vision of success have had no one standing and speaking up for the rights of gun owners?The way many here come off, I see the answer to that question, from many here, to be yes. On that point we can say we have a fundamental disagreement.

        So, I have painted a dark caricature of what success for you, in this conversation would be. I really doubt that you want to see me sell my guns (however, there are a few I would part with) and donate that money to sme group that grew out of handgun control inc. (remember them? . . . Really, the money would go to a new rifle I have been eyeing).

        Success to me would be the agreement that the pro gun owners rights camp should be open to any lawful and upright persons that want in.

        1. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

          It is the leftists that control the Democratic Party that demand everyone must think and act in the same manner (Borg). With the right, especially Republicans, it is like trying to herd cats. Yes, there are Democrats that own and love guns, but they are a minority within the party. It needs to be pointed out to them that if they truly enjoy their firearms, they need to leave the party that wants to disarm them!

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This person could not even agree that this is a great county.”

          Of course not. And you are surprised by this?

          I was alive when the nation was “great”; this ain’t it. Hence, MAGA.

          I would rather live in the US than anywhere else, but that may may be more an acknowledgement of how bad any/everywhere else is.

        3. avatar LC in CO says:

          I applaud and welcome what you are doing, as would any THOUGHTFUL gun owner. Thank You! I personally vote Libertarian and thought that both Hilary and Donald were scumbags. So I don’t ‘fit’ in the pro-2A camp either.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Your theme is that only government can establish and maintain a rational economy. That there is something intrinsically valuable in a managed economy. Econ 101 is about how freedom to choose, succeed and fail, recover, and carry on. When government (or business cabals) conspire to interrupt the randomness and chaos of a free market, you move from Econ 101 to Totalitarianism 101.

      Freedom acknowledges that the universe isn’t fair, and it is not the business of any government to make it so.

      1. avatar Robert Crawford says:

        You are attempting to create a false dichotomy of some totally unencumbered, solitary, existence on one side and totalitarianism on the other. The reality is that we live between those two points. The remaining question is where, between those, is the greatest good.

        The fact that we make our marks at different points on that line has nothing to do with gun owners rights. The attempt to tie it to one will eventually lead to a loss of rights. As gun owners, we disempower ourselves by making that unnecessary connection in at least two ways.

        Firstly, the pro gun owners movement distances itself from those who want to be part of the support. this hostility distances those who should be welcomed. Who should be welcomed? Any upright and lawfull member of the greater community who want to be a part of the pro gun owners rights community.

        Secondly, these attitudes politically neuter us. The Republican party knows we have nowhere else to go. As such, they see little need to court us, as seen by the turncoat Republicans; after all, they reason, who else will we support?

        Along the same vein, we give Democrats no reason to court us. If there is no possible way that they can get our support, why should they stand against the central committee of the party?

        This one party alignment is not a long term winning strategy.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The remaining question is where, between those, is the greatest good. ”

          For the individual. It is called “enlightened self-interest”, a concept to be incorporated into an individual’s life, by the individual. Not the state, or “society”. The founders were big on “enlightened self-interest”.

  18. avatar Red in CO says:

    So, like all leftists she’s a hypocrite. She wants her guns but doesn’t want us to have ours, and presumably she thinks she can keep hers because she’s on the “right side of history”

  19. avatar Maxi says:

    “passionately liberal” “staunch defender of gun ownership”
    Yeah, i’m sorry but you can’t have both. It’s either one or the other.

  20. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    No such thing as a liberal gun rights advocate. Oh sure, you may love to shoot and you may correct your friends when they say “assault weapon”, but that’s more to convince yourself than anything else. If you vote liberal, you’re anti-gun in practice, regardless how pro-gun you imagine yourself to be.

    Hey, new TTAG, I’m not buying this subtle transition, more like co-opting, of the site from being The Truth About Guns into being Liberalism Infilitrating Every Story.

    That plunge in site traffic since the sale isn’t a random coincidence.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Has there been a plunge in traffic? And if so, how do you know?

      And if liberal gun owners do exist (which they self-evidently do), how is it consistent with the truth about guns to pretend they don’t?

      The only part of the article I take issue with is the conclusion that “the more of us there are on every point along the political spectrum, the safer our gun rights.” I disagree, since it seems to me that gun owners at the end of the spectrum where government is the highest value aren’t likely to defend it against government encroachment. But it’s a reasonably defensible assertion, even so.

      Aside from having a liberal in it, what’s wrong with this article in your opinion?

  21. avatar Tietonian says:

    I’m not sure what a “Liberal” even is any more…

    That being said, the fundamental worldview of American Left-of-Center (wherever that is..) is, in its essence, completely incompatible with almost *all* conservative beliefs, RKBA (after God) perhaps chief among them.

    I don’t buy the “I’m a liberal but I’m on your side” spiel.

  22. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    If she advocates for the ‘right’ of gun ownership as opposed to the social utility she is not a liberal in the modern progressive sense but more of a classical liberal / libertarian. She doesn’t argue about the 2A so all you can really say from this is that she’s not a Christian conservative.

  23. avatar 2aguy says:

    If she votes for democrats she is voting to end gun ownership. These left wing gun owners can play at this all day long, but each to,e they vote for democrats they are ending the 2nd amendment. The democrat party is going to put anti gun judges and justices on the courts and democrat politicians are going to enact gun control laws…and they will get to a gun ban and confiscation as soon as they have enough power…which this woman gives them every time she votes.

  24. avatar Ralph says:

    You can be a liberal, a libertarian, a moderate or a conservative and be in favor of gun rights. You just can’t vote Democrat.

    The Republicans are squishy on 2A and certainly untrustworthy, but the Demon’s platform is totally anti-gun, which you will not find in the Republican platform. The Dems are simply anti-American and anti-Constitution.

    1. avatar Tietonian says:

      Yep. This is where the problem lies. The “liberal gun owner” is all too willing to vote Democrat in support of their (more important) progressive causes.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      You can’t be a liberal in the modern progressive sense and believe in gun rights. You could conceivably support gun privileges but not rights. And only then if you understood the social utility of civilian gun ownership, which isn’t likely because gun ownership promotes self reliance and progressives want as many people as possible to be as dependent as possible on government.

    3. avatar Pg2 says:

      Newsflash Ralph, both parties kneel to the same power brokers: The superficial differneces are designed to give us the illusion of having a choice, and the illusion of having some say in our policy making. Can’t believe how many still fall for this.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        There is a left wing and a right wing, and both are connected to a bird of prey.

        1. avatar Armed Partisan says:

          And that bird is named Socialist Imperiavem.

      2. avatar Andrew Lews says:

        Well what exactly are you proposing we do at it?
        Being woke to the fact that either candidate is just as likely to tyrannically dick us over as the other one does not alter the fact that we still only have those two to choose from.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          I guess we can continue pretending that voting the lesser of 2 evils is somehow ok.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I guess we can continue pretending that voting the lesser of 2 evils is somehow ok.”

          Not voting at all is better. Why reward people for doing stupid stuff that takes your money and gives it to someone else? We don’t have a formal “none of the above” option like some countries. Refusing to vote at all is the best we can do. It would be interesting to see what happens.

        3. avatar michael says:

          you should never giver up your right to vote, all republicans deserve to be eliminated!!

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “you should never giver up your right to vote, all republicans deserve to be eliminated!!”

          Withholding is 180 degrees from “give up”. In a dream world, everyone would refuse to vote. Curious to see what happens when a politicians term is up, and there are no votes in the elections. I guess governors could appoint Senators, but the constitution is silent on how to replace Representatives without election.

  25. avatar John J. McCarthy, Jr. says:

    If these gun-toting liberals still vote Democrat, they remain useless liberals.

  26. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    “It’s not an assault rifle until you assault someone with it,” she said,
    Its not an assault rifle unless it can run on full auto.

  27. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    You cannot be for gun rights yet advocate an authoritarian government state that controls everything as modern Liberalism demands. You are either for individual rights or against them; and are for a system in which the individual is sacrificed for the good of the collective state..

  28. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Oh my goodness, Sarah could be the double for our bridesmaid at my first wedding, She looks just like her. 1980 till now and she hasn’t aged a bit, that’s fucked up.

  29. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

    * I get that it’s scary for people to think that other people have the capacity to cause harm.” She needs to inform her friends that are terrified of guns, that in a country that bans firearms they still will not be safe. Even if the county bans everything that might be considered a weapon, they will still not be safe. If I were so inclined, even without a specific weapon, I can kill someone. The military teaches some interesting ways to eliminate another human being!
    Fear of guns is a mental disorder- the same as the racial supremists have about folks of another race. If they do not have a mental, or emotional, fear, then they can be educated how on gun safety and not be terrified when in the presence of a firearm.

  30. avatar Armed Partisan says:

    Leftists aren’t Liberals, and while almost everyone who descrbes themselves as the latter is the former, obviously not all are (but it’s statistically irrelevant.) Leftists, by definition, are Nihilistic Post-Modernists, which is a bunch of five-dollar-words which mean they do not have morals and believe in nothing; not as atheists, but as anti-theists.

    Someone who supports gay marriage, abortion, open borders, recreational drug use, and gun rights isn’t a “liberal”, but rather, a Libertarian. A Leftist believes whatever their masters tell them to believe, and that’s never gun rights (all Fudds are Leftists).

  31. avatar John says:

    Hire her as a writer.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Hire her as a writer.”

      Actually a good idea.

      Her articles will melt down the comment section, generating Beaucoup page clicks…

  32. Medford, Oregon Mail Tribune: Monday, November 15th, 2010/Letters To The Editor

    Liberal vs Conservative Are Distorted Terms

    KABA (Keep And Bear Arms) at http://www.keepandbearams.com posted a dynamic video for Tuesday, Nov. 9, titled “Why Tea Party Conservatives Believe In Gun Rights.” My contention is the word conservative. I wish these distorted terms called liberal and conservative were deleted, dropped and erased.

    The battle for America is not between “liberal vs. conservative.” It’s between “good vs. evil,” “freedom vs. slavery,” “human dignity vs. degradation/victimhood,” “self-reliance vs. dependency,” “decency vs. immorality” (i.e., pornography, homosexuality), and a “constitutional republic vs. socialism.” The Biblical term liberal, for instance, is good and means generous (Proverbs 11:25). (King James Version)

    Bill Whittle, who narrates the video, is pro-gun. However, he uses a term I dislike: gun violence. In proper hands guns are an asset to a free society and republic. I have previously stated, “a .38-caliber revolver defines homeland security, affordable life insurance (for working class people) and beats falsely trusting in 9-1-1.” See JPFO’s report “Dial 9-1-1 and Die!” via http://www.jpfo.org.

    I’m relieved the Tuesday, Nov. 2, general election is past. Naturally, I voted. However, I refused to “suck up” to the establishment two party line! And remember: “the Second Amendment is the original equal rights amendment.” — James A. Farmer, Ashland

    Now a resident of Merrill, Oregon (Klamath County). Sara Cady is an intelligent woman and rightly deserves
    our respect, support, and gratitude. Pro-Second Amendment institutions which are non-NRA affiliated on
    the net include:

    JPFO, Inc. at http://www.jpfo.org. JPFO’s 1999 book: “Dial 911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About The Police
    Protection Myth” by Richard Stevens. Also on You Tube. JPFO, Inc. is “America’s Aggressive Civil Rights
    Organization.”

    The John Birch Society in Appleton, Wisconsin at http://www.jbs.org and http://www.thenewamerican.com, respectively.

    Gun Owners of America at http://www.gunowners.org

    The Constitution Party of Oregon at http://www.constitutionpartyoregon.net

    News With Views at http://www.newswithviews.com.

    The Roseburg Beacon of Roseburg, Oregon at info@theroseburgbeacon.com.

    I also endorse Paxton Quigley’s 2010 revised book: “Armed And Female: Taking Control.”

    Don’t get me wrong here. The NRA is a fine credible institution. In fact I’m a paid subscriber
    to their weekly periodical or magazine: “America’s 1st Freedom.” The NRA rightly deserves
    and earns the moral high ground on firearms safety and training, hunter safety, conservation
    programs, and yes…..even women’s safety. However, bear in mind too the other non NRA
    institutions I alluded to. They deserve our attention and support also.

  33. avatar CV76 says:

    I don’t care what she says to you or anyone else, liberals ARE the sworn enemy of the Constitution and all Law-Abiding citizens.

  34. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

  35. avatar Raed says:

    There are thousands of issues, the idea that everybody or any individual either falls into the blue teams or the red teams view on topics is more than idiotic. Even principled organizations with narrow purposes like the ACLU leave out the second amendment from the Bill of rights. The idea that a person can’t believe in the right to own guns of all types and still believe that college or health care should be free is isn’t revolutionary at all.

    I believe in the 2nd amendment, do you really think you can figure out what rate I would set taxes at for a given income level, or my trade policy, or my stances on immigration, health care, civil rights, infrastructure, budget spending, transportation, etc?

    Finally, the truth is that political parties are groups of people that band together to rule over countries. If the definition sounds sinister is because it is and they are. They are both corrupt, just corrupt in different ways.

  36. avatar Warlocc says:

    I just wish there were a way to vote for a pro gun Democrat, or a pro choice Republican. Just to mix things up for a change.

  37. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    I am pro-gun rights, pro LGBTQ rights, and okay with legalized abortion. Some would say you are against the last two if you vote Republican and against the first if you vote Democrat. The thing is, you do not have to worry about LGBTQ rights or abortion rights being tossed out the window in the way that you have to with gun rights. There is no recourse with the courts regarding gun rights. Whereas the courts very quickly will strike down any kind of LGBTQ right infringements or abortion rights infringements.

  38. avatar michael says:

    now thats a real woman, intelligent, on the proper side of the political spectrum and and a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment!!

  39. avatar Eric Jones says:

    A gun owner being a liberal is akin to a Jew being a Nazi.

  40. avatar Duncan says:

    Why not just call/label the “left/liberal/progressive” what they are? Anti-civil right, freedom haters that are scared of their own shadows.

  41. avatar Russ H. says:

    LOL. If she thinks she hasn’t already been labelled an ignorant, right-wing gun nut by the left she’s only kidding herself. The divide exists, it’s us against them (gun owners vs anti’s). It’s unlikely the two will ever meet in the middle, at least not in my lifetime. I wish it wasn’t so but events over the last ten years created that.

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