DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Ever Been "Outed" As a Conceal Carrier?">Previous Post
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: What's YOUR Favorite Pistol?">Next Post

The video above was created by The Guardian, the U.K.’s preeminent liberal newspaper/news service. Denied press credentials, reporter Lois Beckett trolled the sidewalk outside the NRA convention asking members “What do liberals get wrong about guns?” It takes all of 54 seconds for Ms. Beckett to present the appropriate OFWG NRA “extremist.” That said, this is an incredibly positive piece. In fact, at 1:08 she finds a unicorn! A progressive NRA gun owner! I knew someone who also fit that description and we were good friends. Do you have any liberal friends? If so, do any of them own guns? And do you debate the issue or just leave it?

desantis blue logo no back 4 small

DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Ever Been "Outed" As a Conceal Carrier?">Previous Post
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: What's YOUR Favorite Pistol?">Next Post


  1. I love my Liberal friends and offer to discuss gun issues with them any time they are willing. Just because some of them were trained to be gun haters doesn’t make them bad people.

    Also I feel it’s important to let them see that all gun owners aren’t evil right wing militia members.

    • Friend 1, liberal bearded white guy. Introduced me to reloading ammunition.

      Friend 2, gay man. Can out shoot me in a quail hunt any day… and he uses a coach gun!

      Friend 3, lesbian. She has more guns than I do, and she is deadly with her ported .357 snubbie. (maybe she doesn’t count though, because she usually votes conservative. She is pro-life and pro 2A, but works towards gay marriage equality.)

    • True. Same here. I find that when i get into a rational discussion on guns with a liberal, I often bring up ways of thinking they never even considered. Really, especially with, for example, big city libs (I’m thinking of a New York lawyer friend I see at Bonnaroo), they’ve truly never been exposed to gun culture, to hunting culture, to the joys of shooting, to the pleasures and responsibilities of gun ownership They have no idea just how much fun it is to blow shit up, and they don’t realize how responsible, careful, and safe most gun owners are. They have this mental picture of “gun nuts” that is perpetuated within the Left and by a lot of media, and they rarely venture outside of that. They live in a cocoon, and some of us should admit to the same. A lot of liberals are intellectuals, as well, and are a sucker for a calm debate. At least I’ve found that to be true, much more so in person than online.
      Fair video, for the most part.

  2. Left wing/progressive friends, no. I do get along well with some at my fencing club though. We don’t talk about politics there.

  3. Q: “Do you have any liberal friends?” A: No. All my friends are highly intelligent.

    Q: “If so, do any of them own guns?” A: This is a trick question. Under Federal laws, chronic drug abusers and mental patients can’t own guns.

    Q: And do you debate the issue or just leave it? A: An honest debate with gun-haters is a contradiction in terms.

    • I’m a pretty smart guy and I have many liberal views but I bet we wouldn’t disagree on very much if we sat down over a beer or two. If you started calling me names, well, we’d disagree about that.

      • Liberal is a terrible term, modern use is supposed to mean statist but it used to mean liberal as in liberty. Same thing with progressive, The people who call themselves progressives/liberals are socialists and communists – Democrats, and most Republicans to boot.

        I try and use statist to describe non conservatives. It covers them all more accurately and means what it is supposed to mean.

        • Kinda true unless related to personal liberty in which case conservatives are the statists

          And here I am thinking bush era patriot act, drug laws, asset seizure laws, (4th amendment? What’s that, can’t hear you owing to my focus on the second) general views on state torture and other authoritarian acts and control of women’s bodies

          Though I do know some disagree

        • Lib lurker, Republicans are not the same thing as conservatives.

          Bush was no conservative, and these things you mention are statist.

          He did some good things, but he was a terrible president. None of that is any excuse for power grabbers of today of course.

    • Could not say this better. I interact with liberals daily. Friends with liberals? Fock no. Not just because of guns. There is a reason shrink’s offices are flooded with liberals.

      • It is both funny and unfortunate that you believe that old meme.

        Especially when we have so many veterans with PTSD and TBIs that need/deserve some friggin support.

        • I didn’t say all patients of those facilities are liberals. I said those facilities are flooded with liberals. Liberal.

  4. I have lots of liberal friends. After attempting to debate gun control with me, all have told me that they no longer care to hear my opinion on the matter. It seems that facts destroy their dearly held narrative and they are therefore unwilling to hear them. I leave it at that, since I would rather preserve the friendships. Perhaps one day they will become more open minded and be less afraid to discuss the issue with me.

  5. How about the entire organization known as “The Pink Pistols”.

    After all, it was one of their members that just forced Washington DC to become SHALL issue!!!

    • Funny how you don’t hear much about that organization, from either side. They’re alright in my book.

    • THAT is a great victory on all fronts. The Pink Pistols is a perfect example of getting out of a comfort zone to stand up for your rights.

      That said, I take from your comment you (meaning Pink Pistol members) vote mostly Democrat?

      • My understanding is that the Pink Pistols was founded in San Francisco by a bunch of gay men who were tired of being attacked, but were precluded by the official SF “no issue under any circumstance” from obtaining CCWs. So yes, they were a bunch of Democrats. I’d be surprised to find many conservatives in that city. The City Council has been entirely democrat for many years. The Pinks spread nationally from there.

      • That’s a nice link. Check this out:

        “Now the office of Karl Racine, the Washington, D.C. attorney general, has ordered D.C. government employees to ignore a court order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The order by the D.C. District Court Judge Richard Leon was to stop denying individuals applying for a concealed-carry permit from requiring a “good reason,” and to immediately update the forms to no longer require that.”

        Wasn’t Judge Richard Leon the same judge that wasn’t impressed with DC’s foot-dragging?

        Perhaps the good judge could introduce DC AG Karl Racine to a cell in the DC jail until he gets an attitude reconsideration…

        • Go to the end of the article. The AG has ordered muni police to drop the “good reason” requirement, and reconsider applications resubmitted that were denied on this basis., without fee.

    • The Pink Pistols is a single-issue advocacy, the motto of which is “Armed Gays Don’t Get Bashed.” And guess what — they’re right.

      I’m not sure that the Pink Pistols are considered a “liberal” group. In fact, it has incurred the animus of other gay groups because the PP is not radical enough to suit them.

      In terms of guns, PP is about at right-wing as can be. I support what they are doing and call them brothers and sisters, because we POTG have a big tent and all are welcome.

  6. My wife is liberal. She’s not a hoplophobe but I don’t think she quite gets why I oppose UBC’s, still trusts government to keep us safe. But she knows to tread lightly on gun rights, because not just me but both of our families are full of gun people.

    I have another old friend who is a flaming libtard. Total California Beta male. Needless to say, the relationship is very strained.

    • My wife is a liberal, absolutely hates guns and bullets, but appreciates the art of my black powder pistols and authentically styled holsters. She also hates Hillary. He brother is a progressive, and her whole family was a bunch of liberals. Strangely enough, my wife’s uncle on her mother’s side hunted in his youth, and still has a handgun that is used as is necessary. Gun rights and gun related conversations do not go well. She is obviously fearful of guns, but at the same time is exceedingly aware of the fact that as a physically disabled person, she is completely defenseless.

      My daughter is liberal leaning, but not nearly as liberal as her friends and associates from her achingly liberal college in Ohio, people whom she loves to shock with the fact that she owns handguns and loves to shoot. I just sent her 500 rounds of .45 ACP.

      My son’s politics are unknown, the issue never comes up, although he falls on the outdoorsey, eco-friendly kind of guy, and has lived in Tacoma and Tahoe, the latter a pretty liberal enclave. He has been into guns since he was a sprite, and also owns guns (shotgun and handgun) and loves to shoot.

    • In a chimpanzee troop there is an alpha male, singular, and others

      We are not decended from chimpanzees and the whole application of that theme has flaws, but keeping in mind two alpha males means one has to die it is not necessarily ideal to idealize the alpha and knock the beta

      More honeys for the alpha either way

      • Well we are both monagamous, and live on opposite coasts so not much chance of a fight over the harem. I used that analogy because he acts like he’s ashamed to be a man. Fuck that male privilege crap

  7. I’m very liberal myself. I believe in personal liberties but also responsibilities.

    I am not “left-leaning” believing that my only path to happiness is limiting others.

    I have many friends and acquaintances that are liberal to some degree and not aware of it.

    It usually becomes apparent when talking about crime or whatnot, and they say “what does society expect”? “They are poor (or strung out) and angry at the world” “Of course they’re going to commit crimes.”

    The left-leaning liberals generally have the “I want mine” attitude and are willing to trample on other people to get it.

    I may not like what other people think but they have the right to think it. If acting on it affects me, that’s a different story.

    • “I’m very liberal myself. I believe in personal liberties but also responsibilities.”

      You’re *not* liberal.

      Outright rejection of personal responsibility is woven into the cloth of today’s Progressive-flavored liberalism.

      Repeat after me:

      “It wasn’t my fault! I’m a victim! Save me, (someone else)!”

      • Yes, he IS Liberal. The concepts of having rights or personal liberties, hand in glove with responsibilities are not exclusively, or even mostly, Conservative ones. My previous posts on just this subject at most websites of a gun oriented nature tend to get deleted. I guess conservative web masters, writers, & editors don’t want to dilute ideological purity? Whatever – I’m gonna take another stab here, because yours is the kind of post that exemplifies a larger problem, and it needs to be addressed.

        First, let me say I’m a long time gun owner and often have discussions with my less enlightened friends on the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment. It’s not often an easy conversation, but surprisingly I only have a one liberal friend that won’t discuss it – the rest engage the debate in the best way possible (meaning, they listen to what I have to say, and even admit to being wrong about a point here & there). OTOH, I have one conservative GOP supporting friend who admits to thinking no one should have a gun but the police.

        Which leads me to the following: Throughout my 50-ish years of life, I’ve known more politically ‘right leaning’ people (mostly men, strangely enough) who acted, professionally as well as personally, as if neither consequences nor responsibilities nor even personal freedom (for anybody but them) mattered all that much. Whatever they could get away with, they did. And getting into another person’s business, unwarranted and unsolicited, has also tended to be a ‘thing’ with them. This is from my experience in college, the military, and working life (both running a business & ‘working for the man’).

        Conversely, most ‘left leaning’ people I know are usually (though not always) pretty conscientious – towards the law, other people’s right to be left alone, et al. And the most Christian people I’ve ever known (meaning those who truly follow the teachings of Christ, not just mouth the words) have been Liberal Democrats. Crazy nonsense I’m sure you say, but true as the day is long.

        Every woman I’ve known who was abused (and I’ve known more than a few, unfortunately), it was always by a man who no one would confuse for a Democrat. Abusing a woman is the height of irresponsibility. Usually the people who I see protesting the surveillance state, which anyone who really believes in what America was founded on should be 100% opposed to, are Liberals. Republicans just seem to sit on the sidelines on that important issue (way to protect those personal liberties y’all)!

        I remember an uncle back in the 70’s when I was a boy, when I asked him some sort of political question, saying to me ‘Everyone’s a liberal when they’re young or have nothing, but when they get older and/or have something to lose they become conservative real quick’. Maybe that was true once, but I have to say the older I get, the less his statement applies. Not just for me mind you, but successful people in general seem to be going that way too. If anything, it seems the real ‘have nots’ in this country – white, black, hispanic, no matter – lean more towards conservatism & ‘me-first’ thinking & looking for a ‘Strong Leader’ to fix things for them.

        Meanwhile, liberal dems are out there, dissing Obama & Hillary for being war mongering Republicans-Light, in numbers that should make Conservatives ashamed of how they supported Bush & Cheney almost without question when they were still in office. Oh sure, NOW some (and only some) conservatives have the ‘courage’ to say something like ‘Well, THOSE guys weren’t really conservative – they went too far in the whole WOT thing and I never really liked em anyway’. But back when they were calling the shots, it was all about circling the wagons. If conservatives took a stand for personal liberties & common sense foreign policy back when they were in charge, maybe we don’t have to watch those liberals with some backbone carrying our water on the subjects now. Maybe we don’t have to watch the GOP seemingly fracture into irrelevance.

        In other words, maybe we should stop pointing fingers at & labeling the other side ‘The Bad Guys’ & get our own house in order.

        I say “we”, but I have to admit I’m definitely more liberal now than I was when I was young & can’t really identify as a Republican anymore. Too much crazy coming out of that party. But I will say I care a helluvalot more for people and my country and the world than I used to as well. It bothers me when I see people of color being shot up by cops in ways that no white person ever would. It bothers me that my kids are of age in a world that clearly doesn’t want them to grow into thinking rational human beings. It scares me that every single political decision of any consequence our ‘dear leaders’ (Dem or Repub) make anymore seems to come down on the side of not “We the People…”, but ‘Them, the Corporations & Their Money’, even when it clearly could bankrupt the country or cause WWIII. Does that make me less Conservative? More Liberal? The reverse of both? Some combo of the two?

        Who the F cares? It makes me human.

        Repeat after me, Geoff: “Human beings are, and always have been, more than just ideological cutouts, & most of what I was taught to believe by AM radio & the boob tube turned to cable news is just plain old b.s.!”

        If you can let that sink in & take hold, you will feel better. And the world will probably make a small move towards being a better place too.

        • +1. I like what Commenter said and I want to add some ideological terms to the mix. Rather than focus on liberal vs conservative both of which can be arbitrary terms taken out of context, we need to think COLLECTIVIST VS INDIVIDUALIST. No better way to explain policy, history, rights, etc than from this standpoint.

          In short: Is your statement or belief, regardless of what you identify as, willing to subject ones individual liberty, free will, and natural rights to an ambiguous, dubious, body of bureaucrats working for the “common good” which in reality is just about hording power over others? Or, do you champion people freely and PEACEFULLY doing as they please weather you agree with it or not?

          Me personally, I’m all about maximum individual liberty and the happiness, wealth, and well-being that results for everyone when we support it.

  8. What if I told you that there are many liberal gun owners that fully support the second amendment but can’t abide all the other baggage that comes with the Republican party? And some of the comments I see above are exactly why you rarely hear from them.

  9. Firstly, the question, “Do you have any Liberal friends?” makes the assumption that none of the people you are asking are Liberals themselves. Secondly its perpetuate the false dichotomy of Liberal vs. Conservative, while continuing to pollute the term Liberal, when what is generally meant is Progressive.

    Believe it or not, most people in this country fall into a socially liberal and fiscally conservative, political spectrum. Both Liberal and conservative views can be held, and are held by a majority of people. Even Centrist fails to capture them because that term itself is beholden to the dichotomy.

    Few individuals are completely liberal or completely conservative. Even the most die-hard religious conservative, generally just wants to be left alone – that is a Liberal principle, but not a Progressive one.

    These stupid questions are NOT introspective, they are polarizing. You should consider not posing them.

    • “socially liberal and fiscally conservative”

      A nice thought. Social programs cost money, when the choice finally comes down to who pays for it and who gets the benefits from it, where does this ‘socially liberal and fiscally conservative’ person land? You are going to land on one side or the other. You cannot be both.

      • Is this going down the road of “if I’m a gun owner I gotta be big on Jesus”?

        No, it doesn’t have to be “one side or another”. Religion and my feeling on gays has zero, zip, nada, to do with my stance on guns, and this constant pressure to sign up for “one complete package or the other” is unthinking bullsh*t.

        • “Is this going down the road of “if I’m a gun owner I gotta be big on Jesus”?”

          Where did that come from? Did I mention religion at all?

          “No, it doesn’t have to be “one side or another”. Religion and my feeling on gays has zero, zip, nada, to do with my stance on guns, and this constant pressure to sign up for “one complete package or the other” is unthinking bullsh*t.”

          I am talking about political/economic systems, not political parties. I really think you missed my point. If you say you are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, then this is my question, do you support a program such as social security? This is what socially liberal people do, they spend money on social programs. You cannot be fiscally conservative and support something like social security, a ponzi schema meant effectively to redistribute wealth and effectively nothing but a jobs program for state employees and a financial account with which to drain of money for other government spending. But it’s a socially liberal program.

          I never said, nor does religion or whatever sexual proclivities you like to engage in have anything to do with this.

        • @308

          Er, no. You missed her point, she didn’t miss yours.

          I’ve found that when someone says they’re socially liberal but fiscally conservative, they’re generally saying they’re in favor of gay rights, allowing people to do what they want to in the bedroom with consenting adults, more than likely repealing drug laws, things like that. In other words, maximizing freedom in the sphere of social relationships (not socialist relationships). They’re NOT talking about “social programs” which they recognize as being a fiscal disaster.

        • “SteveInCO says:
          May 25, 2016 at 19:18


          Er, no. You missed her point, she didn’t miss yours.

          I’ve found that when someone says they’re socially liberal but fiscally conservative, they’re generally saying they’re in favor of gay rights, allowing people to do what they want to in the bedroom with consenting adults, more than likely repealing drug laws, things like that. In other words, maximizing freedom in the sphere of social relationships (not socialist relationships). They’re NOT talking about “social programs” which they recognize as being a fiscal disaster.”

          Oh yes, I understand that. This really is libertarian, but what happens here is that these people end up voting for the socialist on the ballot and SL/FC talk is just that, talk.

          It’s always the case with these people that when you get down to substantive questions as to what they really support you will find very little if not nothing whatsoever that satisfies the FC side of the equation; its socialism all the way no matter the pretty sounding words.

          I just hope there are some out there that will read this stuff and start thinking for themselves.

      • Hence the reason Psychiatrists, Psychologists and Therapist’s offices are overrun with majority Liberals. All these thoughts that make sense in their heads that don’t work in the real world. They are trying to process all their contradictions.

      • Social Liberalism doesn’t have anything to do with Social Programs. Social Liberalism is a tolerance for a wide variety of life-styles and life-choices. Social Programs are progressive wealth redistribution schemes.

        You are making the very error I am talking about – confusing Liberalism with Progressivism.

        • Social liberal is just another buzzword for socialism. You can be as fiscally conservative as you want to but to address social issues at some point the state needs to spend money, and the social liberal will look to the state to solve the problem, which is the opposite of conservative.

          Look, I don’t care if you are a gay Pastafarian who likes to dress up as a nun in your bedroom, and most any conservative probably feels exactly the same.

          Conservative means keep the government out of it; socialist means keep it in. You cannot be both.

        • “Justin says:
          May 25, 2016 at 13:06

          Spot on.”

          No, not spot on.

          “Social liberalism, sometimes known as modern liberalism or reform liberalism,[1] is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education”

          As a socially liberal man, do you support Obamacare or single payer (yes I am picking this out just as an example for discussion)? If you do then you are a socialist, not a conservative. There is nothing fiscally conservative about Obamacare,

          If you believe the state should not be in charge of healthcare, then you are not socially liberal, you are a conservative.

          If you think the state can take control of healthcare and do so in a fiscally conservative way, then you are very confused.

        • Mr 308 – The system won’t let me apply to you above, but “pretty much this”.

          I don’t care what Wikipedia says, when 99% of the people say “social conservative”, they mean evangelical Christian; and when “fiscal conservatism” comes into play that includes things like social security.

          *Most people* when they say they’re “social liberal”, they are not talking about socialism, which is (mostly these days) an economic or fiscal philosophy.

          I get that the words “social” are in both, but what they mean is in terms of societal norms, such as religion / sexuality etc — not socialism or social security.

          Now I know there are people who conflate “necessary Christian mores” with gun ownership, but I find those to be a stretch at best.

          On the other hand I do understand with and agree with the incompatibility of true statism and gun ownership.

          But when most people say “socially”, that’s not what they’re trying to relate.

          If you can suggest better terminology, let me know.

        • confusing Liberalism with Progressivism.

          BDub, there’s a lot of truth to that. The reason why were are conflating the two is that Liberalism, in the style of JFK, Scoop Jackson and other flag-bearers, is dead. Sad to say, it’s deader than dead.

          It’s been totally devoured by Progressivism, which is a small step away from all-powerful, all-consuming central state control.

        • DBud you’re trying to live (or hide) in Websters of a century ago.

          Social Justice, Progressivism, Liberalism (mix/match) and all their mishmash of statist BS – were all co-opted and recast by Uncle Joes apostles decades ago.

        • “Michi says:
          May 25, 2016 at 15:45

          I don’t care what Wikipedia says, when 99% of the people say “social conservative”, they mean evangelical Christian; and when “fiscal conservatism” comes into play that includes things like social security.”

          I do think you meant to say social liberal up there, but anyway this really illustrates what I am talking about very well. Conservatism – everyone obviously will have different definitions of the words to some degree, but there are some fundamental things in what conservatism means, namely limited government – preferably constitutionally limited and individual liberties. When you add fiscal in there that also implies prudence in government spending, low taxes, balanced budgets, etc.

          Social security is bankrupt – all the money that has been paid into the system has literally been stolen by the federal government and spent on programs that have nothing to do with paying people their social security benefits; these monies were promised to us by the state to be used for this purpose so not only have they lied about this, they have wasted all of the money. It’s gone, your money, all of our money is gone and we are 17T$ in debt so they are not repaying it.

          There is nothing whatsoever conservative about social security, even a little bit.

          So tell me, what is there about a social liberal, fiscally conservative ideology that is in fact conservative? It’s not gun rights, it has to be fiscal conservatism.

      • Frankly, bs. I’ve considered myself socially liberal and economically conservative for years. I.e. Let people live the way they want to live (social freedom) while limiting governments ability to affect the economy (and people). Social Liberty doesn’t mean social programs by default.

        • “Let people live the way they want to live (social freedom) while limiting governments ability to affect the economy (and people). Social Liberty doesn’t mean social programs by default”

          What you are talking about is libertarian. Conservatism and libertarian are almost the same things.

          What aspect of your ideology is ‘socially liberal’ as distinct from plain old libertarian?

        • Precisely defining liberalism is like defining porn. Don’t bother. I know porn when I see it and I know liberals when I see them.

        • There is more than one axis here, and when you use a word like “libertarian”, it usually defines your position on them all. Libertarian (without any other qualifiers) = fiscally conservative, socially liberal. But socially liberal by itself doesn’t mean libertarian, because the fiscal axis can be anything.

      • Probably about on the same side of the road that “socially conservative” means spending tons of money making laws that regulate the personal lives of people.

        • What part of what you just said has anything to do with conservatism?

          You’re just talking about big government, this is the opposite of conservative.

        • Then why do the majority of social conservatives support this government intrusion?

        • “Then why do the majority of social conservatives support this government intrusion?”

          Well I don’t know because I don’t know who or what you are talking about?

          I would guess you are speaking about the Republican party, and if that’s what you mean there are plenty explanations on this page explaining why the Republican party is not conservative even in the slightest.

          Is this right or are you thinking of some other group?

        • “Ironhorse says:
          May 27, 2016 at 02:42

          Spare me the No True Scotsman bullshit.”

          This is non-responsive. I am not trying to say that real Republicans will or should do something or other, I am stating a fact that is backed up by evidence that Republicans are not conservative. This is in no way an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

          I simply asked you for clarification, you state (between the lines) that Republicans are ‘Social Conservatives’ and I say they are statist, and there’s a lot more evidence that my description is correct than there is yours. You then attack the question while being non-responsive.

          You can answer the question or not, I don’t care. All you do is throw accusations around and point fingers, without backing up your points with logic and evidence and you aren’t looking very credible.

          That’s what I think.

  10. While I’m against any law that restricts gun ownership or lawful gun use, I guess I’m pretty much a liberal. While I’m against abortion, I don’t want it outlawed. I’m against the death penalty. I don’t think the government should ask the sexual orientation or gender of people who want to marry. I don’t think immigrants are a drain on our economy, rather they fill a necessary role in our capitalistic society. I’m not against the idea of socialized medicine single payer healthcare of some kind or another, although I don’t think we can afford Obamacare. Repugnant as I find it, I think that burning a flag is the most pure form of political speech and it is protected by the first amendment.

    That said, I’m pretty conservative on other topics.

    • You sound completely conservative with one or two things to learn. Namely about socialized medicine and how terrible it is..

      • Of course its terrible. But I think that is a decent idea to have a basic level of medical care available to everyone. Basic, cheap care for illness or accidents. It would benefit the economy to remove healthcare from the backs of employers so that they can just run their businesses. It would also benefit workers to have some level of insurance for their families regardless of whether they work part time or full time or during periods of unemployment, kind of like workers’ compensation but for their whole family. (It could replace worker’s comp and various social services, also.) And yes, everyone would pay for it, like Obamacare, but through an honest-to-goodness no bullshit tax. The difference is that it would be basic (shitty) coverage. You wait for appointments, maybe you get only a limited right to sue for malpractice. For those who want it, buy a supplemental HMO or PPO policy to pick up the slack and get back to modern levels of healthcare.

        Obviously I’m talking out of my ass, but it’s the internet, so I’m allowed to do that.

        • “Obviously I’m talking out of my ass”

          So am I 🙂

          I don’t think this post is a good place to get into a big Obamacare discussion, but the short version is, yes of course what you are talking about makes a lot of sense. It all sounds good.

          But what we need to look at is the basics; why is healthcare so expensive right now – it wasn’t this way a few decades back, we were able to pick whatever doctor we wanted and we didn’t get hospital bills for $200 aspirin tablets. What happened to cause this increase in prices? The state got involved, with HMOs and regulations and other things.

          The problem exists because of the state, and Obamacare is going to solve this? More state involvement? I predict disaster. There are lots of things that could have been done to reduce cost – insurance allowed across state lines for one, make all healthcare related expenses tax free for another… none of these things were done.

          Anyway, something you can think about.

        • The rising cost of healthcare has nothing to with government intervention. For instance, there are no government sanctioned price controls on the cost of prescription medicine, so the prescription companies can charge the insurance companies whatever they want. Have you seen the profit reports for the pharmaceutical industry? Guess what the insurance company does? Jack your rates up. Also- 3/4 of every person who has ever lived to the age of 65 is alive today. The cost of care for an aging population is causing a rapid spike in the cost of insurance. Obamacare is anything but socialized medicine. As far as Obamacare is concerned, Its a market place where people buy health insurance from private healthcare insurance providers. It’s really the embodiment of free market capitalism: you go to the market and choose a product or service at the best rate possible from companies competing against each other. The program does subsidize the cost of insurance for low income users, but guess what? Hospitals wont turn away uninsured or underinsured people from an emergency room and because of that, if there weren’t government subsidies, the insurance providers would just jack up the premiums on those who pay because the insurance companies aren’t going to eat the costs of unpaid emergency room visits.

        • “Justin says:
          May 25, 2016 at 14:11

          The rising cost of healthcare has nothing to with government intervention. […] As far as Obamacare is concerned, Its a market place where people buy health insurance from private healthcare insurance providers. It’s really the embodiment of free market capitalism:”

          Oh lord. It’s free market? With customers who are forced to participate? Where their profit margins are fixed, where the services they provide are dictated by the state. Free market? You don’t even remotely know what you are talking about. Oh yea:

          “The program does subsidize the cost of insurance for low income users”

          That’s what we call socialized medicine.

          “but guess what? Hospitals wont turn away uninsured or underinsured people from an emergency room”

          And, why is that? Why don’t ER’s require people to pay their bills? Look that one up.

          “and because of that, if there weren’t government subsidies, the insurance providers would just jack up the premiums on those who pay because the insurance companies aren’t going to eat the costs of unpaid emergency room visits.”

          Indeed. Now what were we talking about?

          “The rising cost of healthcare has nothing to with government intervention”

          That’s a whole lot of government intervention in there, and these points just barely scratch the surface of the ACA — and they are *your* points! We all know Obamacare is meant to fail and bring on single payer, so as ugly and complex the ACA is, it’s nothing compared to what they have planned. You won’t have to worry about the rising cost of healthcare, you won’t be getting any.

        • Perfect example of Liberals flooding the Psychological services offices. The stuff in their brains is not reality. They need to talk it out with another understanding liberal.

  11. I have friends and acquaintances of every walk of life.
    A liberal kid called a woman I know a conservative. Her response? About what?
    I find that as easy as it is to stand under a title it is harder to see the shades.
    Many liberals start getting the absurdity of the anti gun talk once they get more info.

    Example. Most folks don’t know there is a NCIS system so of course “universal background checks” make sense.
    When the lib folks realize they are responding emotionally and three times the number of children die in swimming pools they start to get it.
    Now that they’ve heard Hillary say her piece about Heller they no longer hear the right’s impression as a conspiracy theory.
    So we have to talk to each other. If we align ourselves just by “team/party/race/religion/etc. we exclude the vast majority of people who have been scared by the media emphasis.
    You heard them…”Zika virus! Kill all the mosquitos!” Hardly the astute response.
    We have to talk to find that our values as Americans are basically the same. We want our kids safe. How can we do our best to make that sure? What’s outside of our control? If we don’t talk then the uninformed think that magazine size will keep their kids safe. Wow! So many people think that “AWs” are fully automatic. You’d be shocked.

    If we just say we’re right then the two sides are in their corners and one side may win by attrition. Wouldn’t you want the gun issue to go away because the ignorance of their arguments become clear?

  12. I have liberal friends. Not all liberals are bad people; many are just misguided due to liberal media programming, liberal education, or growing up in liberal families.

    Some of my lib friends have shot guns and a few own guns. The latter fall into the small-town/rural moderate socialist liberal category; they don’t have much money and wish the govt would redistribute wealth equally, which is the gateway drug to more sinister Marxist-liberal beliefs. They think the govt should take from others and give to them, but not take from them and give to those with less, of course; that would be stealing.

    I’ve also taken very liberal girls shooting. If they like you, they find a way to override their prejudice against shooting. One ironically once told me, well I should probably at least learn to shoot because “statistics show that one in four women will be a victim of rape.”

    The real problem is that liberal transgressivism has replaced our traditional religious and cultural values, just as people predicted it would as the first TVs started shipping. The left-wing media elite decided early on to erode belief in freedom and individual rights, replacing them with belief that freedom = inequality and privilege, and that Marxist authoritarianism is desireable and necessary for addressing that inequality.

  13. While trend to the left of many conservatives, I don’t consider myself liberal.

    I do have liberal colleagues that I get along with, but with a social circle as small as mine there isn’t opportunity for a lot of political diversity. The colleagues will talk guns with me, with both sides willing to concede to respect the others perspective. It’s never gotten heated, although one did shut down the conversation, once. But, she also went shooting, enjoyed it, and admitted an appreciation for those who enjoy it – while making it clear her interest in repeating the activity is limited.

  14. I dont exactly consider myself either conservative or liberal, nor particularly “right” or “left”, but I’ve never had a problem with anyone I’m friends with knowing I own guns.

    I even managed to talk one of my former high school pals, now almost stereotypically an ultra hippy who went to Berkely and she now works as a doctor in SF, into going shooting with *gasp* evil rifles like AK’s. I’ve sat in my apartment cleaning rifles in the living room while roommates waxed high about Hillary or Obama, and nobody cared that I was sitting there elbow deep in CLP with an EBR on the table.

    If people are truly your friend, then they arent going to let their politics on something like the fact that you own firearms destroy the relationship. You’ll get loons that might, but lets be real, thats neither particularly unique to any part of the political spectrum, and anyone who would do so probably isnt someone you want to be friends with anyway.

    Honestly…almost overwhelmingly the response I get from “liberals” (or more accurately, non-gun people in general) is curiosity, not hostility.

    • And when the state’s DA (as in Hi) wants to know about you and your ilk for his records, how long will it take these “friends” to drop a dime on you? Think they will have huge internal conflict and battle over competing ethics?

  15. I’ve got friends that are right about guns and I’ve got friends that are right on every other social issue. Most of my friends are somewhere in between; Fine with unrestricted gun ownership but single, non-religious, anti-corporate-personhood and supportive of government social programs. Is that liberal enough for this site? What’s up with the framing of this question? Are you trying to lose readers that fail a political purity test?

      • It’s more than just a question. It’s an attempt to divide people into two, easy-to-distinguish political camps. This kind of thinking breeds fear and prohibits real political change.

        • You can make that argument about any issue that has more than one side. I’m starting to suspect you are the control freak kind of liberal, in that you are trying to shut down conversation that makes you uncomfortable. Are the arrows striking a little too close??

        • You’re the one trying to shut down discussion with your lazy accusation that I’m a liberal. If your political opinions fold neatly on party lines, good for you I guess*

          *It’s not good for you

        • “Jaekelopterus says:
          May 25, 2016 at 14:17

          It’s more than just a question. It’s an attempt to divide people into two, easy-to-distinguish political camps. This kind of thinking breeds fear and prohibits real political change.”

          No, it’s just a question. People place themselves into buckets of political ideology. It’s not something I made up, or was made up by the Republican party, it’s the nature of people who have thinking brains and made political decisions (votes) based on those thoughts. Note for example the way Democrats in the house often ally themselves 100% with party lines when important votes come up. Do you think Republicans make them do this?

          What is this magical gray area you seem to think people need to adopt? Can you explain it?

          I think what you are doing is trying to influence people to be reluctant to think this all the way through and stand up and say to the world ‘I am a conservative’ by painting conservatives as some kind of evil anti-gay, anti-religious, anti-environment, anti-poor cabal, which is totally and completely false.

          Conservatism – free markets, equality under the law, individual liberty, all of these things make societies prosper, they drive economic activity, result in more jobs and less unemployment, greater freedom for the individual, all kinds of benefits.

          But you don’t want that, you want to maintain your precious social programs that are proven failures time after time, you want to keep all the cushy government jobs in place and keep taxes high and individual liberty low. There is no gray area, the socialist is anti conservatism and calling it ‘fiscal conservationism’ is nothing but so much BS.

  16. When with liberals, I get labeled a conservative.

    When with conservatives, I get labeled a liberal.

    Oh well, that’s what happens when you think for yourself and dont drink ANY of the kool aid (red or blue). Most people can’t even defend a belief logically and what not.

    This entire “us v them” of the “Republicans v dems” is idiotic no matter what side you are on… and compromise has become a 4 letter word.

    When will BOTH sides realize that this is insane and hateful? When the education system of this country produces free thinkers and not sheep.

    I full heartedly support the 2A. As I do abortion, the death penalty and gay rights. I am not a social justice warrior or a bleeding heart flower child. I THINK FOR MYSELF, AND FORM MY OWN OPINIONS.

    This whole bathroom nonsense is a bunch of BS tho if you ask me…

    • “When will BOTH sides realize that this is insane and hateful? When the education system of this country produces free thinkers and not sheep.”

      So it’s never going to happen.

      Not to be Debby Downer, but given what is happening on almost every college or university and the majority of K-12 schools (mostly government run, but not exclusively), free thinkers is the last thing administrators, politicians, special interest groups, social justice types, and even many of the students themselves, want coming out of these institutions.

      The education system in this nation has been a significant (but not the only significant) part of the problem. And it’s trending to generating more unthinking sheep who believe freedom of speech is amoral.

      • My point exactly…

        My parents RAISED me to think for myself, and it’s a wonder the school system didn’t beat it out of me.

      • That’s correct, scorched earth ultimatums have taken the place of discourse, and that’s being encouraged and reinforced as time goes on.

        • Michi what does that really mean? This has been one of the most active threads of the month, and there’s also a lot of really good discussion in here on this topic.

    • This whole bathroom nonsense is a bunch of BS tho if you ask me

      True but not in the way you mean. Tell us Mr “Freethinkin” why, at this moment in history, ‘ole Barry and his crew of misfit freaks are pushing the degenerates in little girls bathrooms (and all his other nutty ideas of the last/next 6 months).

      • Didn’t happen until NC suddenly got concerned about a non-issue. Tell me, how effective are those gun-free zones? Oops, I meant penis-free zones.

  17. Everyone knows that liberals_progressives_communist_(D) are severly chronic POS.

    If you “live” in a blue state, you may be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal_progressive_communist, or a rino, THE PROBLEM IS PART OF YOU, and your mother (one of your fathers that wears the dress more often) owes us an abortion.

    Fix yourself.

    • You are the reason gun owner get labeled as hateful, violent, bigots.

      YOU are the problem.
      YOU give anti 2a people ammo to use against us.
      Reign it in, hate monger.

        • N O T trolling. (D)s/Libs are a scourge [wherever in the Universe that you find them], and if you go back to my first TTAG post (~ two years ago or better) you will find it repeated in that post too.
          I love guns. L O V E T H E M. They are my hobby and (now) part of my livelihood.
          I could talk/text/write about them all day, but instead we have to put up with discussion about the latest liberal_progressive_communist_(D) cr_p from around the world. They put forth failed notions by the truckload as though Society hasn’t already considered them and rejected them at every turn. More than a year ago, we were discussing some stupid liberal cr_p that was the “latest thing” and everybody at TTAG was by and large amazed by the craziness of it, and I said, it’s only going to get worse as we draw closer to the election, and here we go with transgender bathrooms as though the libs can’t cr_p on (what has been decided and what works and what is survivable) fast enough.
          If you or anyone else doesn’t think so, you are only not paying attention or lying, but don’t give me any of your cr_p [no matter what side of this battlefield you claim to be on] about me losing any PR war with anyone whose “on the fence” or “on the other side”. YES, Y O U ARE THE PROBLEM.

      • I believe Joe was the one around here who used to quote his own unpublished manifesto as if it was third party information he just happened to agree with.

        He’s trolling or in an overly emotional condition , one of the two.

        • If you mean posting something I wrote, copyrighted, paid other authors and publishers to obtain licensed permissions to cite their work that I use as supporting references, and I then attributed what I wrote to that work, THAT is in-fact [also] a legal form of “publishing”. If you don’t agree with it, call it a manifesto, but by acknowledging it here, you have helped me preserve my copyright, so, thank you?

        • I hate liberalism more than most, but I don’t wish time machine abortions on liberals. Good grief.

        • Notice the very high freak-count here today, lots of libs trying to soft-sell you on liberal_progressive_communist_(D) cr_p. Whine, whine, whine boo hoo, don’t call us liberal, don’t equate us with the evil that it is. BALONEY!
          If you can’t get us to equate ourselves to your liberal cr_p [and you can’t] you have to do something else to distance yourself from it, AND SAYING IT AIN’T SO BAD, OR SOME PARTS OF IT HERE AND THERE ARE KINDA GOOD, OR YOU’RE LIBERAL IN THIS OR THAT WAY OR ANOTHER IS JUST A BUNCH OF MALARKY, and those old enough to know better (everyone here) know it’s not going to change.
          I’m going to warn my great-grandkids against liberal_progressive_communist_(D).

        • Arlington National Cemetery has hundreds if not thousands of marble monuments erected to prove how important it is to defeat liberalism_progressivism_communism. YES, IT’S WORTH THE TRADE IN TIME/TREASURE/BLOOD/SWEAT/AND TEARS TO WIPE IT OUT, or at least beat it into submission wherever we find it.

          Very Very Timely to be ‘arguing’ about it here.

        • I’m still waiting for that manifesto to be published. Probably won’t be until after you bomb a post office or shoot a deputy.

        • Ya, I get it. My comments hit too close to home with you, and you’re hoping for the last word instead of rebuttal. As I’ve said before, you obviously don’t have any idea of what the process is to write a book, you don’t give a sh_t about anything specific to write one yourself (even a picture book). The work has been published (in part) in several places already [again, technically, even parts here count]. I am busy enough in life that it has not been my primary focus lately, but I hammer away at the final minutia when I can.

          Further, EXPECT PSYCHOSIS FROM LIB_PROGRESSIVE_COMMUNIST (D) a-holes, NOT true Conservatives. Ted Kazinsky (D) shot Reagan in a crowd of Secret Service personel, with a pawn shop revolver that non of the Secret Service would have been able to shoot Ted with as accurately at that distance. But Ted did it for Jodie Foster, so he’s gotten supervised visits home.
          Look em up, all US mass shootings, not attributable to muslim POS, were Lib (D) .

        • My bad, I meant John Hinkley [sp? wgaf]

          See? All you POS (D) lib-prog-comms are hi-pwr crazy. It’s too hard to keep track.

  18. I’ve VERY leftist on most of my views but the constitution is very important. I am very strong second amendment supporter and conceal carry everywhere I go, even at home. I have numerous liberal friends that are also pro-2nd. We exist and we are NOT insignificant in numbers.

    • I couldn’t agree more. I wish the voice of the liberal gun owner was stronger. I think if it were, the stigma about firearms would change.

  19. I’m pretty liberal myself in terms of social issues, needing to reign in Wall St abuse etc but am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and always have been. I have a number of ‘even more liberal’ friends who look to me to help them understand guns and gun issues, and we have had some lively discussions about topics like concealed carry and assault weapons that have fortunately opened their minds and changed some of their previously held beliefs. Part of the problem is the nearly universal tendency for humans to be attracted to their own echo chamber and to uncritically regard their echo chamber as being the holder of truths that need not be questioned. The approach that I usually use when talking to more liberal friends is to raise the following points and ask the following questions 1. The need for critical thinking outside of what the echo chamber is saying is as important for liberals as it is for conservatives; 2. The fact that being assaulted and in need of defending one’s self and loved ones can happen to anyone, and if you aren’t rich and surrounding by bodyguards then who is going to protect you and your family if the need arises? (me having been the victim of violent crime in the past gives me some credence on this point in their eyes) 3. Being against the 2nd Amendment is being for greater authoritarian rule for needed protection and since when are authority rulers worthy of trusting your life to – do you really want to live in an authoritarian surveillance state? 4. Civilian disarmament is equal to personal and collective disempowerment and who benefits from that? 5. Fear of guns is unfamiliarity with guns and fear of their power and danger – so will you really render yourself helpless to defend yourself and your family simply because you are initially unfamiliar and uncomfortable with something that requires skill, knowledge and care to own and use safely?

    • Ummm – Wall St OWNS the dem party. Certainly owns Hillary’s rotten black soul ($12M in speech fees in 16months).

      • Speak for yourself Kevin. I have nothing I need to learn from liberals. I have nothing against your lively discussions with liberals. I just don’t, and won’t.

      • Wall Street owns BOTH political parties. Some people make the mistake of equating non-liberal with Wall St abuse supporter.

  20. If you are not a relative or gun store employee I probably don’t want to talk to you. I might talk to you. But I don’t want to. In fact, I have relatives I don’t want to talk to.

    • What’s wrong with standing up and saying ‘I am a such-and-such’? If you really believe something and stand for something, is this not OK?

      Obviously life is full of grey areas, but I believe when it comes to economics it is very black and white, the state will screw everything it touches up, always, without fail. To me this is a black and white issue.

      Same thing with the constitution – this is pretty black and white, you follow it or you abuse it.

      That’s what I think anyway.

      • Mr. 308 ,

        I agree with many things you have said. However, the involvement of the state does not always screw things up, it is in any cases necessary to protect.

        Let’s take a hated example, the epa. Spotted owls and such, I get the frustration. But the elimination of lead from gasoline has had very large benefits to society for example, and we are still learning how damaged many children were by it.

        Emissions in cars and trucks are sharply down, at great cost, leaving our companies involved in getting there….bankrupt ? Some. Others are global leaders selling cars and technology to emerging markets that are still catching up

        Or to be more simple, if a person don’t like govt. imposing rules on the environment, spend a year in Beijing or an industrial city. Your life will be shorter but you can breathe in the freedom

        Also most countries with socialized medicine have better Health at lower cost, it is not at all clear from experience that government has to be worse

        • “Let’s take a hated example, the epa. Spotted owls and such, I get the frustration. But the elimination of lead from gasoline has had very large benefits to society for example, and we are still learning how damaged many children were by it.”

          Damn straight. Just look at Joe R.

        • “Lib lurker says:
          May 25, 2016 at 20:23

          Mr. 308 ,

          I agree with many things you have said. However, the involvement of the state does not always screw things up, it is in any cases necessary to protect.

          Let’s take a hated example, the epa. Spotted owls and such, I get the frustration. But the elimination of lead from gasoline has had very large benefits to society for example, and we are still learning how damaged many children were by it.

          […]spend a year in Beijing or an industrial city. Your life will be shorter but you can breathe in the freedom”

          But this is just a perfect example of of giving power to the state and the state abusing that power, wasting money and harming both the private citizen and the economy.

          Certainly removing lead from gasoline is a good thing, but did we need the EPA to accomplish this? This issue could have been addressed at the state level. Now we have an out of control EPA that is asserting its power over people based on the fact that they have a small pond or even as some say little puddles on their land, calling it a waterway and using that as justification to throw all manner of regulations and fines against the landowner, ruining property values and bankrupting people.

          Just because an organization does something that is good in the past does not itself make the organization good for our society. The EPA is destructive force, is abusing their authority and is doing very little on the larger scale for actual environmental protection. What they are doing is job protection.

          “Also most countries with socialized medicine have better Health at lower cost, it is not at all clear from experience that government has to be worse”

          This is a complex subject and I don’t agree that there are countries with socialized medicine that have better results at lower cost. But to go into this in any level of detail is well beyond the point of this discussion and would take a fairly long discussion. Just look at healthcare in the UK where you have to wait months and months just to get an appointment and they are actually running a program that encourages people to commit suicide for patients in order to reduce their costs of caring for the patient (search Liverpool pathway).

          Government always ruins whatever it gets involved in and why this happens is simple, their goal is not to accomplish task xyz but to preserve their jobs.

    • War, you assume Jim is old, fat, white and male. Jim may be none, any or all of the above. You preach gray but act black and white.

    • Figuring people as individuals is hard, therefore we must pigeon hole everyone into neat little compartments.

  21. I live in CT, it is hard not to have “Liberal” friends. And yes, some of them own guns and we go shooting together. I have taken them all out shooting with me. The disagreement is they believe background checks and other restrictions are A-Okay.

    One thing they taught me, there is a difference between “Progressives” and “Liberals”

    Liberals like to expand the tent, and while they might not like guns, they are not going to hate me for having guns nor do they care that I have them. “Progressives” are the Social Justice Warriors and closed minded types who have adopted politics as a “religion” and worship it as a “religion” and even have their priests and churches. I have zero progressive friends nor do I believe they would care to have me as a friend.

    Besides guns, my liberal friends and I have one thing in common, the taxes in CT and the current Governor here sucks.

    You can easily spot a CT “Progressive” because they love Malloy and believe the taxes we pay is a bargain and people and businesses should be required to pay more. they cheered as GE chose to leave the state and pretty much any other big company that has left. — oh and they hate guns to the point that I went to a local big box sporting goods store “D-I-c-k’s” and the person across the counter refused to ring up my ammo purchase because “guns” and had to call a manager because she refused to ring me up. I guess the equivalent in the “Progressive” religion of not baking a cake.

    YMMV per state and per person

    • I have to say, I must have missed the memo on the Progressive vs. Liberal distinction in my neck of the woods.

      Liberals in the past were the ones who wanted to get into everybody’s sh*t; things like helmet laws for kids on skateboards, & mandatory reporting to your doctor if you own a firearm because that’s a ‘public health issue’ – that stuff was always Liberal to us.

      Progressive meant you wanted society to “progress” – not “regress”. So in a freedom loving society you promoted personal freedom, in whatever form made the most sense. Gun rights were a-ok to Progressives, as were privacy and freedom from surveillance. What Progressives would push for were things like a progressive income tax (10% flat tax means more usable income is being taken from someone making $30k than someone making $3mil, so increasing the rate the higher income goes means more economic freedom for those at the bottom). Social Security is considered progressive, as would be a non-profit universal healthcare system (NOT the highly selective, for-profit insurance company gift that Obamacare set up).

      I have to say, it still seems that’s the way it breaks down among the people I know – Liberals tend to be retarded about guns & taking away some personal choices (kind of like how some Conservatives I know can be too, though usually on non-overlapping issues), whereas Progressives are more Libertarian in their outlook – they don’t see all government action as something to be avoided (as a Libertarian would), but to be harnessed occasionally when needed.

  22. Thinking inside the left vs right, democrat vs republican, liberal vs democrat box is exactly where the PTB want the once thriving people of the U.S. It’s a false paradigm, both sides are controlled by the same people, families.

  23. I have friends on the right and left, and others that have no idea what they are talking about most of the time, just repeating whatever new thing is trending on Facebook. However, I can say the people that are closest to me are all conservatives. I actually try to take at least one anti-gun person with me to the range a month to show them guns aren’t as awful as they thought. Some change their views regarding guns, others say”well that was fun, but…”, and I’ve even had one person almost break down in tears before she even held the gun. Most people dislike guns because of a lack of knowledge and experience with them, and basing all their opinions on what they see from Hollywood.

  24. “Liberal” is a lazy generalization. None of my friends would think of themselves as anti gun or pro gun control, but I’m sure many of them would vote for an anti gun candidate. they just don’t care about the issue.

  25. Yes, I do. Most of my true friends who are, are generally open minded about guns and recognize that majority of the gun fear of the left is unfounded.

    One of my best friends (we are from VA) got his master’s in engineering from Stanford and found a good paying job out there in Palo Alto. He has some liberal viewpoints tends to look at each individual issue and form and opinion on it rather than following ideological lines. Anyhoo, I was talking to him yesterday and he said the ultra far left PC people in that area are just looking for an excuse to jump down your throat and call you a racist/homophobe etc, and any counter argument is met with essentially them putting their fingers in their ears and yelling “la la la I can’t hear you.” I’m so glad I don’t live out there, I couldn’t do it.

    The same friend was also sitting on his front stoop when group of thugs walked up, pistol whipped him and stole his wallet. His response to me was “damn I wish I had a gun then.”

  26. The lack of consistency of beliefs and morals by the commentators within their own comments is very scary for the future of our society.

    Moral relativism run amok.

  27. A good friend of mine is weak willed and pessywhipped by an obese, leftist girlfriend. It’s starting to seep into into our conversations. Otherwise, no, I don’t have leftist/SJW friends.

  28. I only have one Progressive friend who owns firearms and you will find his picture in the dictionary under the word Fudd.

  29. My only real question here is, how do you define “liberal”? Because nothing in the comments really indicates that there’s any sort of consensus. If you’re still tying “Liberal” to basically mean “Democrat” and “Conservative” to mean “Republican”, that doesn’t really do anything beyond continue to polarize the already-broken two-party system. It would be more sensible [and honest] to list out, “Do you have friends who support X over Y?”. Applying a single-word label to a huge set of opinions doesn’t do anything more than ostracize people who don’t fit either.

  30. I have a few liberal progressive friends, but the number is dwindling. The reason? Modern libbies can’t handle facts. The last friend I lost was because I dared to mention that there could be fraud in the use of transgender public bathrooms. By that I meant that someone could pose as transgender to gain access to the ladies room and then take naked pictures and videos.

    That preposterous!!! Transgenderism is super-über protected and must be protected at all costs and we must dismiss fraud and abuse because it could hurt feelings!!

    Then I cited examples. And I got de-friended.

    When anti-gunners make ridiculous statements, and are confronted with the truth, the cognitive dissonance is usually just too much. ARs being used for hunting, 30 round mags being awesome for self defense, favoritism in the the permit process, government giving guns to criminals and failing to worship government protection are just too epic for many anti-gunners to handle.

    If anti-gunners were open minded, I’d have more of them as friends. That’s usually not the case.

  31. Define liberal.
    All of my friends are pro-liberty. Any acquaintances I have had who were not are no longer in my circle. Over time any acquaintances who are not compatible fade away as we have nothing to say to each other and nothing to share doing with each other. If I wanted to sit in silence with someone or do a thing I’d rather not do with somebody I have a wife for that. 🙂

    I’m sure I know somebody who feels the Bern or somebody who thinks an AK is a weapon of war that belongs on the battlefield just as I’m sure I know somebody who thinks homosexuals should be burned at the stake and holding a government probe between your cheeks 24/7 is the sanctified path to “safety.” These people are not my friends.

    • People feeling the Bern are more likely to be in favor of guns rights than those supporting Hillary. Many of my friends are Bernie supporters and also gun owners.

      • “People feeling the Bern are more likely to be in favor of guns rights than those supporting Hillary.”

        But not by much:.


        “He voted in favor of requiring background checks to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of felons and the mentally ill, passing a federal ban on assault weapons, and closing loopholes which allows private sellers at gun shows and on the internet to sell to individuals without background checks.”

        He’s all for outright banning of modern sporting rifles and outlawing private sale of firearms…

  32. I have plenty of liberal friends. Now if you ask any of them if they have any conservative or libertarian friends they would certainly say “Oh gosh no! Who could be friends with those Teabagger freaks.”

    It’s funny how the progressives in this world all think they are really open-minded. They ain’t.

  33. I have a niece and her husband, both ultra-liberals. However, they live in Florida and both have a CCW. As for friends, no.

  34. My pals and I largely do not give two shits about drugs, abortion, and LGBT stuff, but economic leftists give me ulcers. At best, they snuff out a citizenry’s technological inventiveness, strong work ethic, and motivation to perform. At worst, they bring mass death and starvation.

    It is im-farking-possible for someone who admires Lenin, Sandino, Horkheimer, etc, or even sees them as misunderstood (“communism sounds good on paper” *rolls eyes*) to be pro-gun in the American sense. These people pay lip service to the 2A because it theoretically allows them to transform America into another Venezuela by force, whereafter the entire BoR will be scrapped.

    I have one high school buddy, a proud Sanders lover, who has become more of a FUDD over the years. His college friends may as well be time-travelling KGB operatives. Once upon a time, he was as pro-gun as I. A sad metamorphosis, really, he’s too far gone for me to turn the tide.

    I try to stick to fiscally conservative pro-gun buddies now, and simply don’t talk politics with the ones that aren’t until I’ve heard too much Pravda speak.

  35. I don’t have any progressive/liberal friends. Not that I purposely have excluded them, because I like a good debate, but most people around here are conservative or libertarian even if they don’t know they are. I have some in-laws that are. A sister in law that is normally pretty level headed about finances and just stuff in general but because she is a lesbian she thinks she has to be to the left of Stalin so we do not discuss politics. There are a few nieces and nephews that are products of a public education that are pretty thoroughly indoctrinated which seem about the only thing the public education system is about these days. My oldest daughter finished school indoctrinated but 10 years of life lessons has cause her to take a hard right turn.

  36. Liberal friends, liberal family, sort-of-liberal wife.

    Yeah, at least one of the extended family members is a gun owner. One of them went from going to PETA demonstrations to hunting.

    I try really hard not to talk politics with the liberal contingent. The ones I know are awesome people, but they get nasty when it comes to that. We are all passionate about our beliefs, I guess.

    There are a few that are fun to talk to, though. It’s all about keeping it civil and honestly being open to other peoples ideas. Being a closed minded turd of any kind is bad. Even around here.

    • I guess I’m a close-minded turd then. I have no interest in anything coming out of a liberal’s mouth regarding any political or social issue.

  37. No. I have acquaintances I used to consider friends that I am still friendly with, but I cannot trust them…and I do not wish to have untrustworthy friends.

  38. I have a client who was a former president of the state NOW chapter and was a liberal lobbyist in DC. Her husband was a midlevel Clinton appointee. They are both very liberal. The funny thing is they are shooters and have guns. They just don’t tell their liberals friends for it causes them problems. Her words on their liberal friends: “they are very intolerant on the issue of guns and there is no middle ground”.

  39. Yes, I have some liberal friends.

    We don’t talk about guns much, but when we do I let them get the whole “I know what you’re going to tell me” rant out of the way then ask “Now that you have that out of your system, did you actually want to have a conversation or are you just going to assume you know what I think and hold the conversation with yourself?”.

    That elicits a sheepish look. Then I can actually talk and in every case they’ve dropped their hardcore anti 2A stance and agreed that people should do what they like so if you like guns, buy them, if you don’t like guns don’t.

  40. Was there the same percentage of men there who had beards as the men chosen to be interviewed or was it an unconscious bias of the reporter’s to choose men with beards because they better fit her own leftist narrative that gun owners are goons or macho or rednecks…?

  41. Do you define liberal as super statist? Or as free love hippies who wanna smoke weed and not fight a war?
    I have a friend who is pretty anti-corporation and pro-legalization, pro-union, super anti war, anti force, also pro-environment who puts his money where his mouth is and actually cleans up roads, the trash out of local parks, including our public boat ramp. He’s a gun owner though, he just got his concealed carry license and is looking to buy an AR before Hillary takes over.

  42. weellll now, being here and being from the bible belt, i pretty much go with what my mamma taught me…”Can two walk together, lest they be agreed?”.

  43. I have exactly 4 liberal friends, one of whom is my best friend. I have worked on them for years and successfully brought all of them to the wonderful world of guns. They all own at least 5 now.

  44. Well if the Guardian really wanted an effective hit piece, they would have employed our “friend” Katie Couric’s hand at editing this piece.

  45. Just about everything said here about liberals could be said about conservatives. Whatever those two things are. The political debate in our constitutional republic is, in fact, broader and deeper than democrats and republicans or conservative liberal.

  46. Yes.

    They are real-deal classical liberals, and nothing like the broad swath of faux liberal statists today.

  47. Considering the modern usage of “liberal” and “conservative” I can’t fall squarely into either.

    That said, I have many “liberal” friends, most of whom are not anti-gun, at least not to the level of Bloomberg, Inc. Most are just ignorant of firearms, laws, and their origins. I find many “liberals” can be easily converted to at least not being anti-gun with a bit of soft-spoken education. Running around with a confederate flag screaming about the “ebil libtards” does not win one any friends.

  48. I have no idea of political leaning of my friends, never discuss politics or religion. Family on both sides, fairly conservative, most have fire arms. We will from time to time go to a gun range, regardless of what I’m shooting, always have Ruger SR22 in range bag for those who do not practice much.

  49. Bottom line is a person either appreciates individual liberty, or he/she doesn’t. All the titles, labels, categorizations, stereotypes are designed to keep suckers thinking inside a pre-made box to keep the thoughts and dialogue controlled.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here