This came over the electronic transom the other day; “Good job fellas. You’ve managed to turn your focus on supporting second amendment into a one sided political attack on ‘dem liberals and dummocrats that votes for Obummer.’ As a liberal that supports full second amendment right, I am pretty sure that it is the negative, racist, and stereotypically far right, neo con, bigotry and ignorance that will make you lose the fight against gun grabbers…because you will alienate us…the liberals that support The 2nd amendment. I don’t even know if fearful, racist, bigots even deserve to have full gun rights with minimal background checks. Some of you, and judging by the content of your website, probably shouldn’t even be near one, for fear of your own, misguided paranoia. Goodbye from a former TTAG supporter.” Is TTAG too right wing, generally speaking?
Home Housekeeping Housekeeping: Is TTAG Too Right Wing?
Not even Close!
No such thing as a “liberal that believes in the 2nd amendment.” Oil and water.
Well, you say that, but in doing so you alienate any 2nd Amendment supporters who are left wing. Yes, pro gun liberals do exist. Your generalizations only hurt the gun community.
Nobody who holds a serious commitment to a bedrock issue such as RKBA would give one rip what some conservative has to say. If one can be alienated by such, then one was never serious in his stance in the first place.
Really, suppose the same wacko far right blah blah blah mean old conservative said something like “Liberals are amoral perverts incapable of authentic human interpersonal relationships.” Would you feel alienated? Would you stop loving your wife? Would you turn gay?
It’s ludicrous in the extreme. Liberals cannot be pro-2A, while voting for gungrabbing liberals. Liberals: they like all our pretty rights, they like to read along and they like to shoot their guns, but they don’t know what it means.
“Well, you say that, but in doing so you alienate any 2nd Amendment supporters who are left wing.”
Who cares about those two guys?
At least 90% of anti-gun laws are sponsored by Dems. If you vote Democratic you are anti-gun, no matter how much you live in a fantasy world.
91.334% of statistics online are made up.
Mike…Make that 100% of anti-gun laws are sponsored by Dems…otherwise…+1
I guess in theory, left wing 2A supporters exist, but if they keep voting for left wing gun grabbers, who cares if they are in favor of RKBA?
One of the hallmarks of leftism is a statist orientation, a belief that “rights” are granted by the government. It’s anti-freedom generally, regardless of stance on any particular issue. Since Dems are the more statist of our two parties (yes, unfortunately it’s a matter of degree right now), it doesn’t really matter if an individual Dem is pro-freedom on any specific issue. If you support the Democrat party, you support statism, and therefore the “rights” your government thinks you should have can and will shift over time to suit the needs of the government. If one supports statism, it doesn’t matter much over the long haul whether one is personally RTKBA.
I might vote for a Democrat if I think they’re the best candidate. I might vote Green, Republic, Libertarian, for any party or for an independent belonging to no party if I believe they’re the best candidate to vote for. But I won’t vote for an anti-gun crusader. If part of their personal platform is infringing the right to keep and bear arms, I won’t vote for them. But if they’re running to win in a Democratic-controlled district and so enter the primary as a Democrat, but have no intention of doing anything anti-gun, then I might vote for them. I’m wary of wolves in sheep’s clothing, but if they’re otherwise the best candidate I might assume a little risk that they won’t stand in the gap with me when the alternative is voting for someone who I know is pro-gun but would be an inept, corrupt, or harmful leader. But as a rule I don’t vote for anyone who publicly promotes anti-gun ideas and legislation.
Nonsense. I go shooting with several fairly often.
I believe support of the 2nd requires action not words. They may support their own right to bear arms but if they vote Dem. they do not support yours.
Are they the targets?
I get so sick and tired of people who are pro-2A trying to label me and drawing me into other agendas especially the ones that say that you can’t be a liberal and support the 2A. I’m all over the map on a lot of issues and of my own mind. Too many people want you to embrace their conservative, right wing Evangelical values, Gun rights are civil rights and transcend ideology and religious beliefs. Don’t shove your thoughts about abortion, gay rights and immigration down my throat. I’ll stand with you on the 2A but disagree on other issues.
Gun rights i.e. self-defense, are natural rights, not civil rights.
OK Mark…What is your #1 criteria when deciding whom to vote for? Gay rights? Abortion? Public assistance (welfare, food stamps, free medical, etc. for the poor and illegals)? Taxes? Military (more or less $), Immigration? Religion? …or is it Gun Rights? As POTG, there should be no question….A candidate’s view on Gun Rights are #1…everything after that is up to you. If you live in an area where the local Liberal Democrat is an A rated, pro-gunner, then by all means vote for him/her, but if they are all F-rated, like where I live, then there is no choice but to hold your nose, vote for the pro-gun candidate, or stay home on election day. I don’t want to lose my gun rights because of your feelings about the afore mentioned social issues.
Wow! If that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is. If anybody is pushing abortion, “gay” rights, and immigration down anybody’s throat, it’s the left!
The left might actually find time to do something constructive if they would take a little time off from killing babies, sodomizing men and hosting “welcome to the USA” parties for illegal aliens. In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, “What a Maroon”
Mark, could you be possibly confusing Liberal and Libertarian? Or some other definition? One of the issues that I have with the original post is the lack of definition of the terms. What is “Right Wing?” What is “Liberal?” The classic definition of a “liberal” is what is currently a Libertarian – individual freedom, individual responsibility, minimal State involvement and size and, to sum it up, everyone else, especially through the power of the State, keep out of my business. The current definition of a Liberal is 180 degrees opposite – regulate everyone and everything through the State because all knowledge and wisdom comes from the community, while individuals (except for the comrades on top) are incapable of making any decisions. As to the current position of the Liberals on abortion, gay, gender, etc., – those are temporary liberties granted by the State in order to get those people aboard; those liberties, as opposed to rights, will eventually be taken away by the State as all other socialist states have done in the past when they have solidified their power and no longer required the support of fringe groups. As to the “Right Wing,” does that term imply religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives (very much overlapping Libertarians), strict Constitutionalists (a great way for the progressives to discount the Constitution by labeling its supporters “right wing” and often “right wing terrorists) or some mix of the above?
It profoundly scares me that this question is even being asked, especially in response to the comment cited…
If you read the comment it becomes abundantly clear the commenter in no way supports gun rights. They may support the arming of the politically reliable and ideologically correct, but not RIGHTS!
On top of that they spoke of the mocking and stereotypes gun owners supposedly engage in while simultaneously calling us all violence prone uneducated hillbilly alcoholic racists!
So by default they are in fact guilty of every single they accuse “us” of. Here’s the thing though, the jokes and mockery you see on this and most other gun sites this side of stormfront is actively involved in pointing out the lies, total ignorance, and hypocrisy of the gun hating left.
Whereas our mr. Lefty cries a lot engaged in every single activity he accuses the TTAG crowd of in under 1 page of his writings…
Now the reason this whole evolution worries me is every damn time gun owners start worrying about being too…. (free? In your face? Offensive?) another round of bad legislation goes through!
So how about in the future just enact a TTAG standard form letter that goes something like this…
My delicate little flower of a concerned reader,
The manure you fertilize your mental garden with is stinking up our blog anyway. So dry your tears put your manpon in, pull your pink frilly panties up, open up that women’s bathroom door and march out of here to find yourself greener pastures with your pretty lil head held high! Alas you’re better than us, and we apologize for being so regressive but I’m sure huffpo would love to hear all about your mistreatment here.. (do us a favor though and quit giving us credit for the taking of your behymen… We both know that was bought and sold years ago)
You can be pro gun AND liberal. The idea that all voter issues are split perfectly in half with only two groups is a false concept.
The only way to change our path for the better is to educate and perauade those who oppose gun rights.
Schoolyard name calling only alienates moderates and our allies.
And, no, I’m not a republican, or a democrat. I’m a libertarian and my marriage (straight) and those of my LGBT friends and our gun safes are none of the government’s concern.
If you add garlic to an oil and water emulsion it adheres better.
Are you in CO by chance? A lot of my close knit group use that phrase religiously. Just cool to see another random person using it if not.
I’ve heard the form directed at a man, “Bye, Felipe”. It’s a fairly widespread meme.
That’s from Friday, the movie, not the day.
just when you thought robert’s douchbaggery was at its peak….you never fail to disappoint me, I think you and firearms concierge should combine your articles.
And what is bad about this particular topic? He’s asking for opinions on whether or not people feel the site itself is showing a political bias. The COMMENTS definitely show a bias, which is to be understood because the general party line of Democrats and many liberal-minded people is to take guns away. The website itself, TTAG is pretty impartial in my own personal opinion. It’s comments like yours that may be the problem.
Kinda strange that the complaint effectively says, “I support the second amendment, but I think you shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns because I disagree with you!”
See, THIS is why the site seems so scary and racist to “pro gun liberals” … it’s chock full of people who refuse to stay in their little boxes separated by race, religion, etc. So when they refuse to stay in the boxes assigned to them by their betters, they’re “racists.” when they refuse to surrender this kind of gun or that kind of gun and limit themselves to firearms of “sporting purpose” (look up who invented THAT term if you want the screaming heebie-jeebies) they’re “dangerous rednecks.” And when they refuse to blindly accept the reasons their betters provide, no matter how inane and self serving they are, they’re “morons,” “idiots,” or some other slur against their intelligence. How DARE we entertain such Badthink!
Very good summary. The basic right of every human being to defend themselves, by any means necessary, is not subject to what anyone “thinks” or wants or is uncomfortable seeing. Self defense is not legitimately subject to any “vote.”
Couldn’t agree more.
The comments section is overrun with people with nothing to contribute, who just want to demonize democrats and liberals and anyone or anything they think is ‘the problem’.
No desire to reach out to people, to try and win hearts and minds, or to even have rational discussions. It’s sad.
Sam Adams said something that fits you and your ilk and that is “Leave from us in peace for you are not our countrymen.” The majority of gun owners understand that the anti’s have declared war upon gun owners. Many of us are done with the little battles and are standing our ground as the constitution intended and gun sales prove.
Why are free men supposed to cater towards the very people who would mean to restrict our freedoms.
Right on! I have found that most gun owners are middle-of-the-road politically. Have been known to vote for The Republicans and the Democrats. But will not compromise when it comes to the rights in the Constitution.
Most gun owners I know just want to be left the hell alone. One party promises to leave them the hell alone and, for the most part, does. The other says the same thing, but acts much differently.
“The other two parties say the same thing, but act much differently.”
Fixed it for for ya. 😉
Sure, as long as you’re a straight Christian and enjoy a large police force ready to beat the living frak out of you if you don’t agree on which plants are legal to grow, when you can drink certain beverages, if you should be able to decide if you want to have kids or not, who you want to marry, etc.
That is true. However if you can’t protect yourself from gay-bashers and such it doesn’t matter anymore.
You left out racist and sexist in your little rant, buddy.
Eh, everyone repub I know thinks the drinking age is absurd, probably because all my friends and I were legal to drink when we were 18.
I wasn’t referring to drinking age, but to WHEN (as in day of the week / time of day) people are allowed to drink because of religious idiocy. Plenty of states ban the sale of alcohol on Sunday to placate the religious wackos.
I think we have a religious bigot in our midst.
When I was in Afghanistan, Democrats were trying to lower my pay while Republicans perpetuated the fact we weren’t allowed to have any porn… while being away from the ‘States for 6 months to 1.5 years and NOT ALLOWED TO BE ALONE WITH FEMALES.
Fuck em’ both. Both parties can DIAF for all I care.
Are you posting from another country?
“One party promises to leave them the hell alone and, for the most part, does.”
Agreed. In California, at least, Republicans are almost as guilty as Democrats when it comes to enacting anti-gun legislation. Two California Republicans in particular are Ronnie Reagan, who signed the bill banning loaded open carry, and Arnie, who signed the bill banning the .50 BMG rifle (“because it could be used by terrorists to shoot down aircraft”), as well has a bill (later held to be unconstitutionally vague) requiring extensive identification and recordation of the purchases of “handgun ammunition.” [Governor Brown vetoed a re-enactment of the bill and quietly killed a bill to regulate all ammo purchases in the last legislative session.] Arnie also signed the vilified microstamping law that has resulted in the total absence of new model handguns in California since May 2013. Nixon hated guns. The last Republican presidential candidate was decidedly wishy-washy on gun rights. Nor are Republicans in Connecticut, Massachusetts or New Jersey any more praiseworthy. It has gotten to the point where I believe that there are very few differences between the two parties, their major dispute being who gets to be in charge.
Yeah Republicans just want to take different freedoms than the Democrats do. Politicians (at least current ones) are the in business of control.
Anyone who pretends Republicans are blameless… I point them to the Patriot Act and the fact that the Republican Party tried to make Sarah Palin the second most powerful person in the country.
Yeah… that happened.
As I have put it before: the ideals that republicans fail to uphold are better than the ideals that democrats fail to uphold.
Modern republicans are a far cry away from those in Lincoln’s day, and they still weren’t perfect.
@TheBear I rather take Palin as the second most powerful person in the world over the current second most powerful person in the world.
@Yellow Devil – I can’t bring myself to think in the either/or way.
They all suck.
The moment that you voted D, you already compromised. I’m sorry you don’t realize that.
Democratic congressman who ran against the govenor in my state has an A+ NRA rating, vs her A rating (and recent veto of a pro-gun bill).
Consonants don’t mean shit. Actions do.
Agreed. I’m really surprised it wasn’t closer, Joe had some real potential.
Mattress Mary had the R next to her name, so the ol’ blue hairs kept her in. One of the lowest turnouts in history, just how the Rs like it.
If any of them actually bothered to do some research, they’d see that Joe had a more true conservative tendency than Mary ever did. Of course, Mary just swayed to wherever the political winds and money shifted to.
Yep. Like I said, I worked for a Dem Congressman who had an A rating from the NRA and was fully Pro 2A. Lumping us all in with our extreme left colleagues is like lumping you R’s in with the super-whacky right.
Both parties have their… lunatics.
Yes, but for the most part any D in national office today can be counted on to vote for more gun control. The bills are started by a certain party. They are pushed by that party. its in the party platform. That is not to say there aren’t Ds (in politics they are few and far between) that believe in the 2A. But really…
If you are Pro-gun control and that is one of say… your top 3 things you vote on, which party do you think you vote for?
The D’s of JFK are gone. The the current D party is one for Gun control and reversal of the Heller decision.
It’s in their platform! You vote D you get guncontrol.
Just the first thing I googeled up.
Here here friend. Here here.
Agreed. I think the generalizations marginalize. I additionally don’t like the random off-hand jabs at irrelevant political subjects, like organized labor. My Garand was built by unionized workers over 60 years ago. Still works great, as does the ’52 surplus (also union made) it’s sending downrange.
That having been said, I usually just ignore the right wing slant. A lot of folks on both sides of the aisle are just so completely indoctrinated into a left-right, all or nothing world view, that they can’t actually separate policy from politics.
H-Dizzle, I remember when Kirsten Gillibrand was a leader of the Blue Dog coalition and was NRA “A” rated. Then she was anointed by Chuck Schumer and is now a good, solid Democrat NRA “F.”
IIRC, Democrat Gabrielle Giffords was also rated A, but then she realized that Bloomberg and the Joyce Foundation pay big bucks to brain damaged anti-gun idiots.
Your A-rated Congressman will turn on you, too, if he aspires to higher office, because that’s the way Democrats roll. George Soros and that ilk play the tune, and Democrats dance to it if they know what’s good for them.
Why did you have to say it like that man? Giffords may not be playing for our team, but I don’t think ad hominem attacks about injuries sustained while serving her country are particularly helpful. I am thinking you missed the point of the post.
You mean she’s not brain damaged? Or that she’s not an idiot? Or that she’s not on the Joyce/Soros/Bloomberg payroll? ‘Cause I’m pretty sure she’s all three.
ReadMore: ad hominem doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
Heitkamp, Begich, Pryor, and Baucus all voted against gun control at a point where pressure to pass it was at it’s zenith. McCain, Toomey, Collins, and Kirk all voted for it. Any politician, from either party, will turn on you in a skinny minute if they think it’s in their best interest to do so. With the veritable ocean of money required to run a campaign, the idea that anyone in Washington is guided by principal is a crock of horse …..
That isn’t to say there are no well meaning politicians. I’ve worked for a couple of them (and I’ve also worked for ones that would sell their own mother down the river if it got them elected). But it’s not easy to turn down $500K from Michael Bloomberg when your opponent just got a fat check from the Kochs, and the NRA won’t commit to endorsing your re-elect even if you vote with them.
Moderates of all stripes are dead, because whatever party we run with will inevitably charge us a heretic and leave us tied to a bonfire, the other party will douse it with gasoline and toss the match, and it’ll all be brought live to you with commentary from Bill O’Reilly or Rachel Maddow (who, NOT incidentally, have identical business models).
OR — you might say that all the Democrats except four voted in favor of gun control and all but four of the Republicans voted against it.
Isn’t that really what happened?
I read an article via Yahoo this very AM about a newly-formed “non-partisan” group of state-level legislators dedicated to “preventing gun violence” (i.e. gun control). As I read the article, out of 200 members there was 1 (one) Republican. Doesn’t that tell you anything?
Reid had an A rating from the NRA. Giffords had an A rating. Now look at them.
They ALL voted the party line on ACA, etc.
I’m pretty old, but I can still learn. I’ve learned that congressthings can be threatened or bribed into voting the party line on almost any issue. The Dem party platform is gun control.
Moreover, majorities matter. I don’t want a Dem majority, so I don’t vote for Dems. Ever. And never will for the rest of my life. And I was raised a Texas Democrat.
I mean your rep is probably a great guy, perhaps an excellent rep.
I don’t care. A vote for him was a vote for Pelosi.
Were you raised Texas Democrat back in the day when Texas always voted for Democrats?
Because if so, it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Yes, the whole family were Democrats when TX was a one party Dem state. We’re all Republicans since about the late 90s, but my parents’ journey started in 1968, when they were delegates to the Dem convention, and one of the hippies told my sweet mother he hoped she’d break a leg going down the hotel stairs they were blocking.
IMO you do venture to the RIght Side a bit too much sometimes, but I don’t think TTAG has ever gone full Glen Beck. It’s hard to do a moderate, bipartisan take on gun control and firearms. If you try to balance things out with both sides, as Mr. Miyagi says “sooner or later, you get squished just like grape.”
There’s two Ns in Glenn Beck.
And coincidentally he’s more middle of the road.
If Glenn Beck is the “middle of the road”, I’m curious who you think is “fringe” on both parties. Glenn Beck likes to pretend to be a libertarian, but boy does he want to use the police to make sure everyone follows the Bible.
Source: I used to be a Glenn Beck supporter before I grew up.
Publius, it’s too bad you started smoking so much dope when you grew up. You seem to not have a clue what you’re talking about.
Typical statist, instead of trying to use facts to support your view, you resort to childish insults.
Um… you’re the one that provided no facts to support your claim that Glenn Beck wants the police to make you follow the Bible.
@Publius I don’t listen to Glenn Beck often, so take it for what’s it worth, but I never heard him say he wanted or advocated the police to force people to follow the Bible. That’s just, well stupid. It also reinforces the false and vapid (left-wing) notion that anyone that follows a particular religion must be willing to use the state to force others to follow it.
First, I agree that sometimes they hit the right a bit hard, but then again, I’ve seen some articles that have leaned back away from that stance. Individual articles may appear slanted to the right, but some are just as slanted the other way. There’s a great tendency to a selection bias when it comes to which articles we choose to read, and a big conformation bias that the publisher has to post articles it thinks will attract readers.
Second, I’m not concerned that they adhere to the right OR to the left. I’m FAR more concerned that they do two things: state the FACTS, and take due diligence to speak from a position of intelligence and reason, not emotion. There is no right or left to what actually happened in an event — there IS a right or left to what someone wants you to FEEL about an event. If we stay away from emotionality and sensationalism for the sake of ginning up peoples’ feelings, it’ll be harder to get into the trap of telling people what to think or feel. If you’re going to report, report — be PROPER journalists, with the who, what, when, where, why, and how. Follow the journalist’s code and do it consistently. Don’t confuse readers with emotion in an article that should just be “this happened at this place at this time, these people were involved, this is what they did, and evidence would indicate they did it for this reason”, and if you want to editorialize, MARK the story as an editorial, so we know it’s not news, that it’s your opinion. So long as you do that, you are beyond reproach from anyone.
Third, I think a lot of people give Glenn Beck a hard time that he doesn’t deserve. He’s said things I don’t like, but I listen to him often and don’t remember hearing him espouse hate towards anyone. He’s disagreed with people a lot, but you can disagree with a person or their position without hating them, and I truly believe that describes him. He’s a showman, an opportunist, and sometimes a demogogue — but heck, the man was once a DJ, and all DJs are essential carnival barkers with a voice that carries further. He just happened to get a tiger by the tail and can’t let go or it’ll eat him.
If telling the TRUTH the whole truth is not right wing. Unless lying and slanting things far left is “middle road”. 🙂
You may have lost a TTAG supporter, but by his own statements, he is/was not a 2nd Amendment supporter.
“I am an avid 2nd Amendment supporter, EXCEPT FOR/BUT____________________.”
(This statement ALWAYS weeds them out, but they just can’t help themselves.)
Whats that old say “My father always said, nothing a person says before the word ‘but’ really means anything”
Yeah, a statement like ” I don’t even know if fearful, racist, bigots even deserve to have full gun rights with minimal background checks,” sort of totally negates the claim that he “supports full second amendment rights”.
Too Right Wing? Hmm. Hard for me to pass judgement.
I *WILL* say this: Most of my life I am what would be called a “classical” liberal. The old sense, not the new totalitarian sense. It seems that a lot of TTAG readers are quick to slap down ANYONE that isn’t heavily right of center. I AM THE GUY you want next to you at a 2A demonstration, in a trench, or firefight. Really.
Try to be nice to me, as I and MANY “liberals” have your back. POTG need everyone.
Sometimes we forget that classical liberalism favored personal responsibility and the removal of barriers to personal success. It seems that you are a Jack Kennedy type liberal and not a modern “Progressive.” if that’s true, then yes, I want you on the firing line with me, but what’s more, you need me on the firing line with you. Because there aren’t many real, old-fashioned liberals left.
+10000 Well said, Ralph. I was thinking of a response to make until I found that you’d succinctly expressed the exact sentiments I feel about this site. Thank you.
” . . . I am pretty sure that it is the negative, racist, and stereotypically far right, neo con, bigotry and ignorance that will make you lose the fight against gun grabbers . . .”
When someone makes criticisms like this it usually means that they, themselves, really have very little to say. Since they lack the ability to make cogent comments about points of view with which they disagree, they try to hide their weakness by declaring their moral superiority . . . as they leave. We’ve seen this before.
I have seen posts from certain regular contributors (one in particular, not RF) that come off as too right wing and do, in fact, alienate the non-conservatives. Most articles, however, are on point and generally not biased. This comes from a somewhat liberal leaning libertarian, so YMMV.
Guns and gear reviews are neutral, as they should be. Editorial content can be mixed and tends to vary depending the writer.
That was probably me. I hate communists and liberals.
Real liberals- y’know, the ones who give a damn about Liberty- are fine. But they’re rare.
‘Progressives’ (actually re-branded leftists) started calling themselves ‘Liberals’ a few decades back. This was a strategic move to discredit and destroy the opposition to the Progs, and it worked. The old FDR/Kennedy/Jackson/Blue Dog strain of Democrats is nearly extinct.
As far as the politics of the site is concerned… the articles are fine. No more slanted than one would expect when gun control is a plank in the platform of a major political party. The comments section… well, that’s not RF’s fault. 🙂
Not you (at least, I don’t think so, unless you post under a different name).
I take it you mean liberal in the classical sense which is essentially a libertarian. Since the modern definition of liberal is someone who wants the government to do more and a libertarian is someone who wants the government to do less. In the modern sense a liberal leaning libertarian makes no sense.
Firearms liberties are, generally speaking, identified with conservative parties. So not really too right-wing, as long as you’re nonpartisan in highlighting truly pro-2A politicians wherever they can be found. If both parties get airtime proportional to the amount they show support for our Constitution, then I’m happy.
I suppose when someone uses main stream national media as the bar to measure how right of center the articles here at TTAG seem to be, they could think that.
I mean 110% of Americans do support back ground checks right and amnesty right?
I call B.S. on this. It’s pretty astonishing how quickly this “2nd Amendment supporter” jumped to the idea of stripping rights from those he/she deems “fearful ” or “bigots”. A true 2nd Amendment supporter wouldn’t use the word “deserve” when talking about rights.
Agreed, sounds like a Bloomberg flunky like Shannon Watts.
TTAG is become less truth and less guns. You’re becoming more opinion and loosely related news. This had been a site that I visited a few times a day, now I really don’t miss it if I don’t look at it for a few days.
If you’re going to decry ‘dem liberals and dummocrats that votes for Obummer.’ as horrible, unacceptable, right-wingery, maybe ‘negative, racist, and stereotypically far right, neo con, bigotry and ignorance’ isn’t the best way to call for more politically inclusive content.
Yep…sometimes…sure…absolutely. I often struggle with some of the tin-foil-hat wearing, anti-cop, anti-government, police-state-fear-mongering, “you must have an AK on the ready every time you take a dump” banter that goes on around here.
I’m a pretty much a middle of the road to conservative person overall (and a HUGE 2A supporter) but at times feel the content (and audience responses) makes the impression that TTAG is filled by “right wing, racist, paranoid, gun-toting, nut-jobs”. If 2A supporters like me can sometimes feel this way, think of how TTAG appears to non supporters! My .02. Flame on.
Where’s the racism? I rarely see any racism on TTAG. Or are you simply throwing that word around because “right wing gun toting but jobs” are all just plain racist bigots! Am I getting close? Again, please to point to the racism on this site.
What the heck are “but jobs”? Contemplating the meaning of that comment made me think dirty thoughts.
Oh my god Im laughing so hard I’m crying right now, total typo, I meant to say “nut jobs”…. but jobs…. oh that sure sounds dirty….
See, the IMPRESSION you made with a single letter change??? 😉
@AllAmerican, we do see racists, anti-Semites and homophobes pop up from time to time in the comments, and RF does his best to delete their comments or ban them completely from the site. What you will never find is racism, homophobia or similar mental illness on the part of the editorial or writing staff. We don’t believe in that kind of stuff and find it insulting and repulsive.
Agreed with Ralph and that’s what I was eluding to…
I didn’t say the site is promoting racism…I specifically said that some of the topics and the way they are construed/debated by some TTAG members, it creates the IMPRESSION that TTAG is filled by “right wing, racist, paranoid, gun-toting, nut-jobs”.
It’s a fine line and slippery slope, especially for those waiting/looking for it.
Actually, it seems YOU are trying to push that impression, and to implicate by your choice of terms.
Uhh, huh, wait…what? I think you may need to read what I wrote again. Feeling cornered/caught or something Paul G?
+1. As someone who cannot identify with either side, some of the extreme right shines through pretty clearly, especially in the comments, which is expected, the same as if you’d ventured onto a page with left leaning readership spouting extreme left comments.
Not at all. Frankly, a pro-gun Democrat is like a pro-choice Republican. If you vote D, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, you are voting for gun control. Are there a very small handful of genuine pro-gun Democrats? Probably. But a D vote is a vote for gun control, plain and simple. So, in a sense, a pro-gun Democrat is pretty much useless to us. There’s nothing to alienate because they already vote for gun control.
To answer the more broad question, no, TTaG isn’t too right wing (full disclosure: I’m a hardline conservative libertarian). While it certainly has its problems, the political right, is, well, right. Even though elements of it have been corrupted (such as the “fuck you for being poor”! attitude, and no, I’m not referring to the resistance to handouts), the fundamentals are, for the most part, pretty good, and their image of what America should be is correct. The modern day political left is all about subservience to the state; everything else is an offshoot of that. As such, they are completely wrong, and, seeing as this is a website about guns, incompatible. Firearm ownership doesn’t fit with the goal of the Democratic party.
The historical definition of “Liberal/Democrat” has died at the hands of their own left wing party narrative. The JFK Democrats have been replaced with a radical Saul Alinsky, Cloward and Piven, extreme shift to socialist progressives that would make Woodrow Wilson seem lame. TTAG, is still a pro 2nd Amendment news and review site. It exposes the ridiculous bloody shirt waiving of MDA groups, etc, et al, that have a far more radical agenda regarding a Constitutional Amendment, ie banning, than engage in a debate of substance and fact.
We can’t detoxify the Left, or have an intervention with clarity regarding guns if it’s their way or the highway.
My guns killed no one today or in the entire lifetime I grew up with them. I have those “evil” black rifles, family heirlooms with Walnut, military classics, and downright SD, SHTF ones too. You can’t have them, I won’t register them, I have the stamps, fingerprints, fees, photos, NICS, taxes, licensing, and training to have them all. As George Carlin would say,
Go F Yourself.
Sorry, rant off
The JFK Democrats have been replaced with a radical Saul Alinsky, Cloward and Piven, extreme shift to socialist progressives that would make Woodrow Wilson seem lame.
You are correct. I am not sure that JFK was quite the liberal that the current radical Democrats think he was.
JFK was a tax cutter and a Cold Warrior. Probably the 4th most conservative president of the 20th century.
And a member of the NRA.
I did not know that. Maybe he was 3rd most conservative president of the 20th century.
By today’s standards, JFK, would be considered “right wing”. Lower income taxes, reduce small business regulations, reduce gov’t. it’s all available in his own words via YouTube/history Channel.
Versus, Joe the Plumber, spread the wealth around. And than CT, NY, MD, where hundreds of thousands of legal gun owners, are now deemed “felons” for failure to register their guns and even magazines. Really? I’ll quote George Carlin one more time.
“Go F Yourself”. Not one more inch.
Not one more damn inch.
” I don’t even know if fearful, racist, bigots even deserve to have full gun rights with minimal background checks. Some of you, and judging by the content of your website, probably shouldn’t even be near one, for fear of your own, misguided paranoia”…..is that a paraphrasing of “I support the second amendment, BUT….”, or what?
That sounds an awful lot like a concern troll.
Yes, it is.
Neocon is definitely not a correct word to use in context of this blog. There is never a call from any writer on TTAG to forcefully inject their ideals into peoples lives. Sure, they strongly suggest that people attempt to bring people into the fold if they are on the fence, but neocon does not fit.
Bigoted, yeah, ok, we all really freaking hate the ultra-progressives that spout bullshit, but they hate us in the same way, probably in a worse way as they are the ones who lie, call gun owners names, and are completely hypocritical in their actions.
Racist? I’ve seen articles on this blog supporting and condemning people of all races for their actions. They must also miss whenever it is pointed out that most GUN-CONTROL historically had roots in racism.
Right-winged? This is a blog about guns, I’ve never seen articles about any other political agenda. Sure, gun rights are STEREOTYPICALLY valued by republicans and right leaning people, but calling out mostly “dem liberals and dummocrats that votes for Obummer” is because they attack gun-rights.
I think we just lost a “I support the 2A but…”
Either that or just a pure troll.
“Former TTAG supporter” calls us negative, racist, stereotypically far right, neo con, bigoted and ignorant, and says that we “probably shouldn’t even be near [a gun], for fear of your own, misguided paranoia.”
Wanna know the truth? He’s a fvcking tr0ll. He’s never handled a gun in his life and he hates people who do. He’s probably an Occupy douchebag who’s sorry that he missed out on some of the better shopping days in Ferguson.
Liberals can and do support the Constitution. Leftists don’t. That clown was a hard left, MDA kissing, Bloomberg loving jagoff.
Harsh words to follow.
Classic liberals of the 18th century might support the Constitution; modern 20th century statist liberals would not.
Wow. I read your comment, then read the original post again, and actually noticed the “shouldn’t be allowed to handle a gun”, and now you’ve got me convinced. Even if he actually supported the 2A, I don’t feel like he’ll be missed.
As a liberal that supports full second amendment right. Well, either you believe in the rights of the individual trumping the collective power of the State, or you believe in the supremacy of the State and the might makes right for the individual to be at the disposal of the State and the Collective. Having a statist collective government will not allow for individuals to have weapons as for the all powerful government must maintain itself in a position of absolute power to preserve its dominant position by force over the individual.
The issue is that Dem ideology is one of expanding the State and trying to “protect” us from ourselves.
If this is not true, maybe the Dems may want to chip in to explain.
As such they are anti-freedom in general. Any person in good faith will have a hard time conciliating that with 2A. Talking about a huge knowledge dissonance.
So, Dems on this site, just do some soul searching. and as other before me said, the promise of a Dem is not worth the paper is written on. And there are plenty of example of that.
On the other hand, Reps are not liberty champions either. Is just that they are on our side this time. so we use them and they use us.
I’m a single issue voter. 2A is the canary that shows if the State treats us as serfs or masters.
Exactly. The statists won’t trust us with a gun, but we’re supposed to trust them with an army. NFW.
The problem is Rs are nearly as anti-freedom, it’s just that they wrap themselves in the flag and trumpet how much they are totally for freedom. But actions paint a completely different picture.
I don’t necessary disagree with you. However, as concerned to 2A in recent time their actions are for us. Do they use us to gain seats against dems? Sure. Do I care? No. Should they change their stance, I will revisit my allegiance but never for a dem.
As an immigrant coming from a former communist country I saw first hand the promise of big government and what the lack of 2A can do to your rights.
So I swear: never again.
People don’t realize how sick this ideology is and what can do to a country. It is easy to make mental gymnastics about all the promise of this utopian society with no experience on what it leads too.
Never again, not one inch.
I agree with you, but fascism is just as terrible as communism.
@Grindstone, no disagreement there too. No dictatorial regime may come to power or survive if the people are armed. So I fear less the people that help me keep my guns.
TTAG itself may not be too far-right, but its readers sure can be.
Guilty as charged.
I’m right there with ya, bro.
Looks like I’m in good company.
When 70% of Democrats vote for more gun control, a vote for a Democrat is indeed a vote for gun control.
With some exceptions, there are few pro gun Democrat politicians, and the ones that are usually listen to their constituents anti gun views to have a chance at re-election.
I’m not saying you have to be Republican to be pro gun, but anyone who identifies as Democrat doesn’t value their gun rights enough. Take the middle ground and go Libertarian if you hate the “negative, racist, and stereotypically far right, neo con, bigotry and ignorance”.
technically if 70% of democrats vote for gun control then a vote for a democrat only a vote for gun control 70% of the time.
That’s still too many votes for gun control.
agree. but let’s take the 30% too.
With the Second Amendment in place, it shouldn’t even be an issue to vote upon.
Shall not be infringed
Exactly, shockingly in this pro-gun forum no-one seems to understand this.
Not too right wing, for my part.
Statism and gun rights don’t mix well. If by “liberal” you mean “statist,” then, yeah, liberals are probably going to have a bad time on pro-RKBA sites like TTAG.
Do not alter the content to win them back.
If vitriol against illogical, lying, deceptive anti-2A gun grabbers and their overwhelmingly left wing enablers in the legacy media, the entertainment industry, and very left leaning educational system is right wing extremist enough to hurt that self identified Democrat leaning commenters sensibilities then I question his sincerity and claim to being a committed pro gun rights proponent.
What do your advertisers think? That’s what is truly important. On a related note, I can lose all my belly fat by following this one weird trick!
You can also enlarge your pecker.
Yes, I find myself coming to the site less and less each week.
Well, seeing as how “liberalism” is not in keeping with liberty, and given firearm freedom’s close association and dependence on liberty, I’d say a “liberal” who supports gun rights is a contradiction. A house divided cannot stand. Or it can stand, but look stupid.
Actually we should welcome all variety of gun owner/users willing to take up the cause of and support gun rights, protections and freedom. They in turn must recognize that gun owners tend to be self reliant, independent rather conservative thinking cusses who don’t suffer predominantly liberal Democrats efforts to restrict their rights and freedoms very well.
I’m sure too that liberal minded readers who come here because of an interest in guns and preserving their own gun rights recognize the resentment mostly conservative “right wing” gun owners hold toward predominantly left wing extremist gun grabbers as a legitimate beef to vent about and that attacks on the liberal mindset in general will no doubt get thrown into the mix.
You lost me at racist.
If being pro Constitution and personal freedom is right wing, then yes we are.
One of the major strengths of the NRA is that they are non-partisan. TTAG and much of its comment section on anything vaguely intersectional with, let’s just pick this at random, gay rights and it becomes a very toxic website. That toxicity gives all the credence to super left wing opponents of gun rights to keep swinging the “dumb hicks” stick to beat our mutual interest and freedoms to death with.
NRA has been non-partisan in name only for a long time now. I signed up with them based on that promise, but the amount of vitriol directed at abstract “liberals” in the mail that I’ve been getting from them was such that I quickly dropped them. And did you see the list of invited talkers at their last few events? It’s the cream of the crop of the Republican fringe politics, and the things that they said were consistent with that.
Hence why I mostly stick to SAF these days, which takes my money and doesn’t insult me back.
Yeah, you just like being insulted by the people that vote to take away your rights. Got it.
Remember back in the good old days, when TTAG was a blog about guns?
You mean like all the gun related stories that I’ve been seeing every day?
…”about guns”…which if the grabbers get their way we will be less and less able to possess and own?
Are those the “guns”, Rex, to which you refer?
I remember it well, Rex. We had six readers.
“As a liberal that supports full second amendment right, I am pretty sure that it is the negative, racist, and stereotypically far right, neo con, bigotry and ignorance that will make you lose the fight against gun grabbers…because you will alienate us…the liberals that support The 2nd amendment. I don’t even know if fearful, racist, bigots even deserve to have full gun rights with minimal background checks.”
First, I’m guessing he has no idea what a “neo con (sic)” is.
Second, I’m not sure how he can qualify himself as a 2A supporter and say that he doesn’t “even know if fearful, racist, bigots even deserve to have full gun rights with minimal background checks.”
Lastly, if he didn’t have his head completely up his ass, he’d know that the entire assault on the 2A comes solely from ‘dem liberals and dummocrats that votes for Obummer’.
The interesting thing about progressive liberals is that they continue to move the line in the sand and then criticize the right for not stepping backwards or for defending the “old line”. I give you; gay rights, race, religion, military defense, energy, income “inequality” and so on…..
In this case; as the right takes a daily barrage of anti 2A shots over the bow, the left calls us “fanatical” just because we fight to defend our rights and not give up ground.
So is TTAG too far right? Perhaps, but only to equalize the push from the anti-gun left.
As my grand father used to say…”Don’t start no $#!+, won’t be no $#!+”! Or better yet “Don’t be surprise when the bull kicks you for grabbing his [email protected]!!$
Good observation. I’d recommend reading “rules for radicals; defeated”.
What you describe are Alinsky tactics. i.e. the ends justify the means. All the polarizing, name calling, etc are all part of the strategies that Alinsky taught. Keep up the pressure points, and move onto the next attack to keep the pressure up.
I support all those things: “gay rights, race, religion, military defense, energy, income ‘inequality.’” In fact, I went to law school so I could enjoy some of that income inequality, and it worked.
Modern day liberals or progressives or the authoritarian left or whatever you want to call them are the most damaging force to the heart, head and soul of the Republic.
I know of what I speak, I live in commie central, what used to be known as the Golden State. If you are in a free state, keep them out, keep your eyes open and keep your powder dry.
YES. YES. YES.
I’ve got mostly liberal views. I live in San Francisco. I love my guns. I will never give them up.
But I can’t show this website to my friends because every, fucking, story, finds a way to place blame squarely on “muh liberals”, and “muh democrats”.
If we want gun culture to take hold with the next generation we’ve gotta cut this shit out. Gun ownership needs to stop being a left or right thing. It’s everyone’s constitutional right to have a gun, and that is what we should be celebrating.
This is a good point, by the way, and I recognize the problem. Quite often, there is, in fact, an article here that I’d love to share with friends – but I can’t, because the way it’s worded is practically guaranteed to offend them and put them in a hostile frame of mind from the get go, and they will not be receptive to the actual underlying message of it. And I can’t blame them for it – you won’t have people’s careful attention by prefacing whatever you have to say with “hey, retard”.
So in practice, this ends up being just an echo chamber, when it could be so much more than that.
“If we want gun culture to take hold with the next generation we’ve gotta cut this shit out.”
I agree, stop electing D and we may have a chance.
I’m curious how many times you and other gun owners from SF called on their Congress representatives, their state reps and or city officials to cut this anti 2A crap.
“Some of you, and judging by the content of your website, probably shouldn’t even be near one, for fear of your own, misguided paranoia”
Sounds like I just read something that an avid poster on CSGV or MDA would say.
The sad thing about politics is that they’re package deals. Just as being right-wing apparently means being hawkish and bible-thumping, mainstream leftists aren’t allowed to call themselves liberals or progressive unless they’re also anti-gun.
Just call it as you see it, no matter whose camp the BS is coming from. If you go out of your way to “balance” things out so you don’t look like one thing or another, you’re still acting with a bias –this time being dishonest to yourself in addition to the readers.
An Alinsky trap. Call people names and make them waste their time questioning themselves. Typical statist; bully, ad hominem attack, run off in a snit. Everything that we do that opposes statists will be called racist, bigoted, and paranoid. The Alinsky way. Throw in some specific death threats and cancer desires and that will about sum up their agenda for argument. Calling any politician out for statist bs is not far right. If they all happen to be liberal democrats…
He wouldn’t feel that way if he could hold his own in a discussion with righ wingers.
Sounds like that guy is the bigot. Seems to me like right wingers here argue down the racists as much as the liberals.
Oh, and If he doesn’t think people he perceives as racists and bigots should own guns, then he’s advocating the right be granted or not granted by government and therefore does not support the second amendment, regardless of if he imagines he does. The support of the second amendment logically excludes restrictions.
I’m tired of being called a racist by people more racist than I because I chose to look at the available facts when forming my opinion about an incident like Ferguson, when those same accusers not only ignore my opinion about the NYC stairwell shooting, but ignore the NYC stairwell shooting on the whole.
“I don’t even know if fearful, racist, bigots even deserve to have full gun rights with minimal background checks. Some of you, and judging by the content of your website, probably shouldn’t even be near one, for fear of your own, misguided paranoia”
This guy (or girl) is obviously no friend of the Second Amendment. First of all, where’s the racism? I see very little racism if any on this site whatsoever. This is the same liberal ad hominem attack I see from them anytime they lose an argument. About anything. They just start screaming racism and sexism. Again, I say, where’s the racism? Same with the Republican party, can one of you liberals please point to ONE piece of legislation the GOP is currently pushing for that is based on race? One? Go ahead. You know what party has plenty of race based agendas? The democrats. Whoever this is, is just as anti gun as Bloomberg or Feinstein, they think that only themselves and others like themself should have guns. “Plenty for me, none for thee; if you disagree with me politically, then you should not be allowed to own firearms.” The pure anger, hatred and statism written within these words shows through pretty clearly. You might like guns, but you do not believe in the Right to Keep and Bear arms. Deep down inside, you want gun control, you want the Government to take guns away from the “right wing gun nuts”. Regardless of what your personal beliefs on government are, at the end of the day, a vote for a democrat is a vote for gun control, an ultimately total 100% gun confiscation. Make no mistake, the democratic party wants it. It doesn’t matter what (insert random pro gun democrat) said one time. At the end of the day they will tow the party line.
It’s not the articles, it’s the comments… There’s a lot of “freedom for me but not for thee” round these parts…
The South will rise again!….Too soon?
For the win! 🙂
Trolling, trolling, trolling, round ’em up, pack ’em in, raaaaaawwwwwhiiiiiide!
OK, I found the word that I know marks a troll: “neo con.”
Most liberals throwing that appellation around have no clue what it means. For those “liberals” who like to toss around that term like a manhole cover, allow me to fill you in on who were/are the original neocons.
Jews. Left-wing Jews, to be specific. Jews who were Democrats in the 60’s… and then one day they woke up and figured out two things:
1. That commies were bad. Stalin had killed lots of people, more than a few of them Jews, and then Mao made Stalin look like an amateur.
2. that the DNC was no longer reliably pro-Israel and contained more than a few howling anti-semites in their midst. Scoop Jackson Democrats were a thing of the past; the DNC was now a showdown between the lunatic fringe of Ted Kennedy and his ilk and the somewhat more pro-business wing of Carter, Clinton, etc. Either way, Israel was going to be out in the cold.
So these Jews (some of them bona fide red-diaper Trotskyites, they were so left wing) decided to break bread with the Republicans and protestant religious conservatives to try to gain some allies in the US for the protection of Israel and Jewish people outside the US, as well as contain communism, which these formerly Trotsky-brand commies figured out was never going to be anything other than another political death machine.
Domestically, the neo-cons were anything but conservative, oblivious to excess spending (ie, they were no fiscal conservatives) and most of them were, at best, lukewarm to the right to keep and bear arms and other social wedge issues in US politics.
I’ve yet to see anyone who could be mistaken for a neo-con to pop up on TTAG.
Its more right wing than I would like. But as libertarian that isn’t saying much. I think both parties are equally bad.
You can not be serious about the Second Amendment and vote Democrat. Sorry.
Do all Republicans support your 2A rights? Absolutely not. Has the Democratic party become the party of anti-freedom? Yep.
(D) Brandon Phelps worked hard for 30 years to pass concealed carry in Illinois. When push came to shove he knuckled under to the Democratic machine resulting in the crappy law we are currently stuck with. While I appreciate his efforts, his party is rife with rabid anti’s. Why would I want to vote to keep that party in power by voting for him? The same is true on the national level. Want to keep Pelosi, Reid, Biden and company in a position of power? Just keep voting for those Democrats.
I want to end the stupid “War on Drugs”. I want everything legalized even though I am not even a casual user. Will I sell out my 2A rights to vote for some candidate who supports that? Not a chance. But some will do so for gay marriage, or to up the minimum wage, or whatever your pet cause. You fail completely to realize the seriousness of the struggle.
If our Second Amendment rights are not secure, neither are any of the others.
“You can not be serious about the Second Amendment and vote Democrat. Sorry.”
Even when that Democrat has an A+ NRA rating and a solid pro-gun voting history? Especially in comparison to a Republican with an A rating and a recent history of vetoing pro-gun bills?
Sorry, but speaking in absolutes is just ignoring reality.
See Bradon Phelps (NRA A+). You’re supporting the PARTY of gun control.
Your problem is assuming I support either party.
Like I said, actions speak louder than words, and my state had a clearly pro-gun Dem beat by a clearly anti-gun Repub.
Supporting EITHER party is supporting more government control.
@grind, nicely said.
Dems push to revive failed gun control legislation 12/9/14
This isn’t that hard. Liberals want my guns so I am a conservative. If they wanted me to consider their ridiculous social justice agenda for one damned second they should have left my rights alone and asked nicely. The way it is, I’m inclined to oppose ANYTHING they want, up to and including helping old ladies cross the street. Baaaah humbug!
Just an observation; There are, or at least used to be moderate liberals. But the core philosophy of (modern American) liberalism is the antithesis of the 2nd Amendment. To believe in the 2nd Amendment is to believe in self sufficiency. We don’t believe in cowering in a closet waiting for someone else to come and protect us when we’re perfectly capable of protecting ourselves. Granted, many liberals really believe in the limitless benevolence of the government, and there is a role for government in the protection of those who can’t protect themselves. But liberals seek to keep everyone, or at least as many people as possible dependent on the government. IMHO those liberals who do support the 2nd Amendment have kind of a NIMBY attitude. Taking away other people’s rights and freedoms is fine, but hey, I own firearms. You’re not taking MY freedoms. This commenter says, ‘I don’t even know if fearful, racist, bigots even deserve to have full gun rights…’ Rights for me and none for thee?
It is kinda silly when TTAG tries to shoehorn guns into political issues.
Pictures or it didn’t happen.
There is a tendency to always assume that a “liberal” is anti-gun. Being pro-gun doesn’t automatically make you a conservative or a republican. “Statist” is a better term for gun grabbers than “liberal” or “progressive” since those terms are very broad.
While there are some Reps that are Statists, I have yet to see a Dem, progressive or liberal not being one.
Are talking about the TTAG articles or comments? I do think that the articles can lean too far right, in that they make generalizations about the political Left that are oversimplified. I’d leave the articles are mostly a-political, minus some areas that can relate to arms, for example the Supreme Court case of Citizens United the gun rights community applauded, because otherwise, if speech of corporations could be curtailed, then the speech of entities like the NRA could be curtailed as the NRA is a form of a corporation.
But otherwise, jabs at the Left I wouldn’t do.
If “we” lose to the gun-grabbers, it won’t be because we “lost” the “liberals who support full 2A rights” . The people who truly fit that description are rarer than hen’s teeth, and swing about as much political clout in the Dem party as the so-called “pro-life Democrats”. Which is to say, none. (Again, the usual disclaimer–this applies to politics at the national level). Just my 2-cents.
Articles and posts, no.
If you can’t separate the two, you have issues.
The thing that makes the comments great is that they are an open forum. Yeah, people may catch a ration of sh!t about something they write, but so what? It’s the Internet. People need to have a thick skin. But it’s still the freest game in town.
I AM A DIEHARD LIBERAL WHO LOVES GUNS.
Thanks, I got a good laugh! 🙂
Well, HE might love guns. I’m waiting for the “liberal” (in the modern sense…ie, Statist Progressive) that doesn’t love guns but stands by those that do in defending the Second Amendment.
That’s the disconnect I think a lot of progressive ‘gun owners’ don’t see. It does not mean much if they are defending what THEY like…it’s defending what the other guy likes that you don’t that really counts.
Not at all. It’s pretty solidly moderate-libertarian. Like most people in the country whether they identify it or not. That’s why people bitch and moan that it’s “too right wing” while others bitch and moan that it’s “too left wing”.
Yeah, you guys come off as very heavily right wing. At least to this commie-pinko liberal. But it comes with the territory. I disagree with the writers of this site on a number of things outside of firearms. But I come for the guns and being exposed to opinions different than my own is healthy.
Not necessarily related to this but, could we get more Bruce Krafft stats articles?
Bruce is a busy man, but we run as much Bruce Krafft as we can get.
Is Chris Dunn still MIA?
I think your definition of “liberal” is double plus un-good.
Words have meanings.
pro-gay, pro-female, pro-minority…. Aside from guns it seems ttag supports many liberal views but more realistically. Also you guys aren’t afraid to call the left out on idiocy.
“pro-female”…what does that even mean? Is there an anti-female agenda? Hilarious.
Yes. TTAG could use some minority, female (not merely eye candy), and other viewpoints.
We have minority and female posters, but you may not know who they are. We’d love more.
… because they are not into self-identifying to gain brownie points for the “inclusive” crowd.
On the one hand, it’s probably good if there are and I cannot remember them. It should not matter.
On the other hand, I am a strong proponent of open carry to desensitize people. Most social surveys report a minority of minorities own guns. Either that’s because they have ceded their natural civil constitutional rights to police and drug dealers, or because they are afraid to report it. Both are bad, probably true to some extent, and leave the police in minority neighborhoods unchecked.
Thankfully part of my economist training leaves me a third hand to shoot.
Blaming a website for random people’s comments is like blaming the NRA for random people committing armed robbery. Maybe they should go hit up Shannon Watts for a lifetime MDA membership.
BTW: Love the Nugent pic!
There was a time when I considered myself a liberal gun-owner. That was when I was in college, paid no payroll taxes on my $150 per week part-time job income and was being pumped full of all kinds of ancient political theories. It was also the period between 2005-2009 when gun control was not being seriously pressed for nationally. After I got a real job and saw 30% of my hard-earned money disappear weekly that all changed pretty quickly.
As to this website, I have not noticed any conservative editorial bent beyond 2A support being a traditionally conservative principle. I think what the rather ineloquent letter writer was trying to say was that people who comment on stories are often conservatives, and rather than engage in a spirited debate, he’s going to send a whiny email and reupholster his fainting couch. Get over yourself.
reupholster his fainting couch
I am soooo stealing that.
neo con, bigot, ignorance, racist. All left wing propaganda crap. I don’t even believe this idiot is even for real.
The Democratic Party and the left are attempting to attack gun ownership on all sides. Obamacare, the nomination of an incompetent surgeon general, and the rise of government are fundamentally incompatible with individual liberties. This POTUS would love to ban guns. So would the AG. Feinstein would have us turn them all in. Doctors would question patients about guns. Our healthcare regarding veterans is only good enough to label them with PTSD and deny their gun ownership. The mainstream media and much of the left accepts these “truths” without question.
But if you actually speak the truth, or question the liberal progressive narrative, then you have already been labeled.
Got a story about a 12 year old defending herself against a mountain lion? Rightwing.
Got a story about a white man who shoots a black man, and you are more concerned about the facts of the incident than the race of the parties? Rightwing.
Do you think a healthcare law that exempts the elites while fining the masses is a bad idea? Rightwing.
Question the liberal progressive media? Rightwing.
Don’t think taxpayer money should fund abortion? Rightwing.
Don’t think gun violence is a public health issue? Rightwing.
Do you believe in the 4th Amendment? Rightwing.
Don’t believe in global warming? Rightwing.
Think people should work for a living? Rightwing.
Think this nation actually has a border? Rightwing.
Upset about a school suspension for a gun shaped pop tart? Rightwing.
Don’t believe in gun free zones? Rightwing.
Concealed carry? Rightwing.
Open carry? Even more rightwing.
Make an argument based upon facts? Rightwing.
Worried about an $18,000,000,000,000.00 plus national debt? Rightwing.
I just don’t see any arguments made by the liberal progressive left that hold up under any sort of intelligent scrutiny. I don’t see how the expansion of government benefits the taxpayer.
Now, we have Republicans, Democrats, and Independents that are dirty. We’ve got dirty lawyers, dirty cops, and thieves in between them. Of course a Republican or Independent vote does not automatically support gun rights, lower taxes, liberty, etc. And there are at least 6 or 7 Democrats in this nation who really do care about gun rights.
What heartens me is that we have individuals who can tell the truth. Many of those people are here on TTAG. Say something factually incorrect and you are likely to get called on it. I’ve certainly made mistakes. So we have our bumps and warts, but TTAG does pretty honest reviews on guns. TTAG and its writers certainly have their takes on certain topics, but they actually do allow legitimate and intelligent discussion. Such things are rare in this world. Disagree with any Bloomberg-funded MDA Facebook page, or a host of other anti-gun avenues, and your comments will quickly be “lost” in cyberspace. TTAG is a rare thing, and its good. Really good.
So given all that, I’m extremely rightwing, and I won’t apologize for it.
Wow, that was actually inspirational. Very excellent and educated post. I may have to save this for a future bickering with a liberal. Thank you.
Say something factually incorrect and you are likely to get called on it.
That happened to me, and you did the calling out, I posted the wrong power ratings for a cartridge and you corrected it. I loved it, because it showed that someone actually read the article!
I appreciate your contributions, and I envy you that you have the time to write gun reviews. Ditto for the rest of the guys, and KJW’s awesome articles.
Then maybe Ill just suffice to say Proudly Rightwing, good shit Aaron.
Democrats that are pro-gun, you mean like Joe Manchin?
Look taking away our gun rights is a plank of the Democratic party. That is a fact. it may not have always been , but from where the sun now stands it is now. If you vote to put Democrat into office you are by the very nature of the numbers game that is our nations politics voting against your own rights. You can cry, bitch and moan about it all you want. It will not change that fact.
Too right-wing… sometimes, yeah. An article steps its toe over the line here and there. The comment threads do all the time. I’m afraid the red hat has turned the rest of the political laundry in here bright pink, like Homer Simpson’s shirt.
Given the nature of the subject, I’d be shocked if the site didn’t at least “dangle” to the Right. Maybe we should wonder why, as an avowedly centrist, non-partisan, truth-based forum, we NEVER see anything that swings Left. There are countless jabs at Blue America in here, but not one single example that I’ve seen directed against Red America. In that sense, there is no balance at all (…and now, someone here will call me a kommie pinko and declare that all libruls are a bunch of fkin retards).
Sigh. It would be nice to just talk about guns. Guns are cool. Gun laws suck and it’s good to see them get struck down, so that’s great to read about, too. I’d like to publically thank Robert for weeding out some of the more egregious ad hominem vitriol directed at Shannon Watts’s personal life, because this site was being dragged into the gutter. We were loading up the opposition with all kinds of examples of uncivil behavior on our part.
Goodbye from a former TTAG supporter.
So the liberal 2A supporters are feeling alienated on TTAG because they don’t feel that they fit-in politically with us conservative 2A supporters? They don’t even fit in with their own party! 2A supporters don’t fall in line with the Rs based on party rhetoric; the 2A represents personal freedom in the most distinct way.
The 2A IS the proverbial line in the stand and there is no straddling. If you find yourself on both sides of the line you’re either confused or haven’t been paying attention to politics for the last two decades. Show me a liberal 2A supporter and I’ll show you a confused libertarian or a liar.
Anyone who knows my name knows that I’m a very vocal critic of both Republicans and Democrats. However, I’ve yet to meet a “liberal that supports the 2nd amendment” who actually VOTES for pro-gun candidates. They all screech online about how “pro-gun” they are, but when it comes time to vote, they vote for every single anti-gun candidate on the ballot. Yes, gun owners need to distance themselves from the religious wackos, but liberal gun owners (I’m not even going to go into how liberal big-government polices inherently require a disarmed populace) need to VOTE for pro-gun Democrats and vocally criticize Democrats who campaign as being pro-gun and then vote against gun rights.
Well said. At the end of the day they may “like” or have an interest in guns, but they are not a true Right to Keep and Bear Arms supporter. The fundamentals of a belief in the liberal (modern day statist liberal) form of government just doesn’t allow it. A “gun toting liberal” wont vote for a pro gun anything; because ultimately the 2A takes a back seat to more important things like “social justice” and the “welfare of the collective.”
George Herbert Walker woulda been a moderate Dem.
You know we get stuck if we adopt the labels. It’s funny the thing that attracted me here and to “the movement” is I’ve never heard the left lie before. If they said, “Nestle’s baby formula causes diarrhea in babies in third world countries it was true. These gun, lies, myths and distortions by some left leaning anti gun groups are disturbing. If the truth can’t stand up to scrutiny then what have we?
G41 was the prototype of an Establishment Republican.
Because headlines like “never trust a liberal on gun control. Ever.” is TOTALLY inclusive.
TTAG plays a bit too much to a good portion of its audience…far right wingers. 98% of the posts are a-political but 2% definitely play to one side: white republican males.
actually, the REAL scale of political ideology relevance to inquire, is NOT L vs R, who are two wings of the same statist bird, but:
Are you an individualist or a collectivist?
Are you pro rah rah State & its actors? Or, are you natively more Pro-private actors?
Are you a Statist, or a Freedom-ist?
Do you believe in the supremacy of the state?, or the supremacy of the individual?
State shouldn’t have a damn thing to say about what you do or believe so long as you aren’t up in other people’s business. And if you make up BS for why me minding my own business is some kind of abstract threat to you, then you are just weakly attempting to justify getting involved in my business, and you are a problem. I’m looking at you anti-gunners, and anti-separation-of-church-and-staters, etc. There aren’t many Rs or Ds that aren’t statists. You don’t get to play in the political establishment if you aren’t a statist.
“There aren’t many Rs or Ds that aren’t statists. You don’t get to play in the political establishment if you aren’t a statist.”
On a quick note, I highly doubt the former reader was much of a 2A supporter. The bigoted racist paranoid background check rhetoric used usually come out of outfits like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Slate or Salon.
Objectively, on a national level, there were 4 Ds that voted against the UBC bill out of 55 (Reid’s vote no was procedural to preserve the ability to reintroduce). 4 Rs voted for the bill out of 45. Neither party is perfect, especially the R, but the dominant trend is clear. The current incarnation of the Democratic party is for gun control. Name the national party leader that is not pro gun control, Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, Jerry Brown, Cuomo? State level is going to vary. In Wisconsin, our state legislators of the D are pretty much all pro gun control, save maybe a few rural assembly persons. Texas, Missouri, Florida, Illinois, and New Hampshire all will vary, but a general trend would be a greater percentage of Ds will be in favor of gun control with a mirror image on the Rs in opposition of gun control.
This is just the current reality. Now many here do paint with a broad brush, myself included. It’s not personal for me. I feel for liberals who value 2A because it has to be a difficult decision when voting. It must also be difficult because there has to be a level of ostracism among their liberal peers because of they’re support for gun rights.
On the positive side, they can be the greatest ambassadors for gun rights among their fellow liberals and potentially move the D party in favor of gun rights and less rabidly gun control. It is a long uphill journey, but one I support and welcome. Liberal 2A supporters and non liberals need to understand this when the broad brush is used. It’s generally not personal, just the present reality. If you find it a bitter taste to swallow, I truly am sorry.
1. Is it possible to be a neo con when Cody Wilson is your homeboy? If you have been paying attention he is no fan of the establishment.
2. If I had a dime for every time I have seen RF bash “Bush the Elder” for The Gun Free School Zone Safety Act I could retire.
3. The racism comment is totally ludicrous. This blog focuses constantly on the inequities foisted on minorities, the disproportionately negative effects of gun control on urban African Americans, the impacts of gun control on the Mexican populace, I could go on ad infinitum.
4. The liberals, and indeed all persons, who voted for Obama deserve whatever scorn they receive. That charlatan did his damndest to deprive me of my natural right to keep and bear arms. I would feel the same way regardless of the political party with which the man associates. That man swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and he broke it with impunity. He is an absolute embarrassment and should draw no support from this blog.
5. That is the most epic picture I have seen on a TTAG blog post this year 🙂
This is tragic!
One of the two liberal readers of TTAG has left us.
ok, the humor aside…….the Second Amendment support is fundamentally intertwined with a host of other issues…..immigration, public health, Consititutional violations, and many, many others.
The “for instance” is this. The President violated the Constitution by ursurping the powers of Congress to create law allowing for amnesty for illegal aliens. The Republican leadership rubber stamped that decision, AUTHORIZING Obama’s amnesty, by making last minute modifications to a bill intended to prohibit the amnesty. Now……..this is a Constitutional issue. President violates. Congress approves.
What if the President takes the same approach to enforce the U.N. Weapons treaty on December 24th?
It seems to me that “getting away” with violating the Constitution once will embolden the President to “do it again”.
How are these two events unrelated to the Second Amendment?
First of all kudos to Ralph and Accur81. Good riddance to an obvious troll. Nope I don’t think think TTAG is right wing. Just generally RIGHT. It is way more complicated than left or right. I myself am an OFWG married to a wonderful black woman-with 2 grown sons. Whatever guys…don’t change a thing.
have i mentioned lately that my wife thinks that she’s jewish?
Not that I recall.
You know something, Robert? I think you start getting complaints like this because you are seen as becoming too successful and too influential. When this happens it always seems that there are people who appear who think you need to be cut down to size . . . reminded of where your place is. The gist of this guy’s comments is that he wants TTAG to be a more reasonable, more accommodating place for liberal gun rights supporters. Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that in the middle of a historic fight over the preservation of 2nd amendment, a time when we’ve seen some of the most authoritarian attempts from liberals and the left to control and confiscate guns, that a self-identified liberal asks you to tone it down a little? Shannon and the Mom’s are in favor of the 2nd amendment, too. They just want you to be more reasonable. Why don’t you get it?
My opinion: I consider myself a political centrist. I read this blog and another gun blog frequently. I would never recommend this website to any new gun owner who didn’t strongly self-identify as right wing.
Given the fact that you seldom hear moderates or centrists saying anything meaningful about the value of 2nd amendment rights or anything even remotely critical of government efforts to control gun ownership, this may be a good idea.
I always wondered, what the hell is a political centrist? Is that a man willing to compromise his principles? Is that a man who stands unabated for Freedom? Does he concedes that we need to lose some freedom so we can be safe?
This the false dichotomy that we are conditioned to use. If you are not lefty, then you are righty. Being centrist does it mean that someone can be righty and lefty in the same time?
If you refer to libertarians, a lot of people talk about being one, but they rarely vote with them.
As it is most commonly used centrist to me means, lukewarm, indifferent, opinion-less, apathetic, etc etc. Not a whole lot different than those who dont vote because they dont think a candidate “represents” them.
If you dont stand for something… you stand for nothing.
By political centrist I mean that sometimes I agree with the left, sometimes I agree with the right.
Sometimes its hard being a gun-owning atheist that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I like mandatory vaccines but not excessive regulation. I believe man can influence the climate, but I’m not ready to kill the economy over it. I think some social welfare is ok but hard work is the way to succeed. Hillary scares the crap out of me and so does Ted Cruz.
Political centrist –
The candidate who has no problem with you keeping your pot in your gun safe…
…I I respect your honesty.
@Goeff PR – have you seen one of those politicians in the wild? Yeah, I would love that. But this just a pipe dream 🙂
Mandatory vaccines? What research if any have you accumulated on the subject? Mandatory anything, especially invasive medical procedures, does not describe a free country. Thanks for playing.
Yes, at times TTAG is blatantly too right-wing. At other times it’s just downright silly, to the extent that I just feel bad for the people whose job it is to find stories. Just in the last week or two we’ve seen a post titled “Never Trust a Liberal On Guns. Ever.” We’ve seen articles feature lines like “Liberals…progressives…no matter what you call them, no matter how they sugarcoat their “common sense” fascist fantasies, these are the sworn enemies of liberty.” We’ve seen videos titled “The Dumbest Anti-Gun Politicians of All Time.”
We’ve seen TTAG staff following in the footsteps of North Korea in how seriously they take fake videos; between that and the use of Wikipedia as a reference, it seems that the writing staff has developed tunnel vision, and is far too focused on snatching up every scrap of support for their cause that they can’t be bothered to confirm their information, much less use credible sources. We see so many overtly anti-cop posts that, every once in a while, a positive story about cops is shared with a brief description stating that it serves as proof that TTAG doesn’t hate cops. If you have to say it…
Between the vitriol directed at police officers, people who don’t ascribe to certain interpretations of the 2nd amendment, and non-conservatives… at times I’m inclined to think of this blog not as ‘The Truth About Guns’, but instead ‘My Truth About People I Disagree With’. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I come here for the reviews and gun-related content; if I wanted to endure someone’s inane, wikipedia-sourced diatribes… I’d go elsewhere.
There are some really excellent articles to be found on TTAG, but there are also some really shoddy ones. Some of this may be explained away by saying that it’s “opinion” and “commentary,” but there seems to be a considerable dearth of insightful commentary from people who don’t skew to the far right. As such, TTAG is preaching to a diverse, pro-gun audience, but from a pulpit which only a few agree with. Speaking for myself I’m a political independent (although I could probably be accurately described as a left-leaning libertarian) who has multiple firearms and NFA items, and I often find myself rolling my eyes and scrolling past when I come across TTAG content. Not because I disagree with it (even if, sometimes, I do), but rather because of the hysterical and unlettered way that certain opinions are shared.
I suppose I can’t complain too much as I’m not a contributor… but it would be nice to see a bit more reason and a bit less fear-mongering. It’d be nice to see some pro-gun articles which avail themselves of a more diverse range of viewpoints than the Obama-hating, ad hominem-spewing, from-my-cold-dead-hands bravado we’ve come to expect.
Enjoy your firearms and those NFA items while you can. Continue to vote for D and you will kiss them bye-bye. And if not you, for sure your children and grandchildren.
Like I said, I’m a political independent. I don’t vote along party lines, but rather I vote for each candidate based on the issues. If and when I do vote for a Democrat I’m not necessarily voting against gun rights; I live in Idaho, and our Democrats aren’t like the ones they have in California, New York, and elsewhere. I suppose that’s one of the reasons that I’m familiar with pro-gun arguments from a perspective other than that of far-right conservatives. That, and I’m keenly interested (and well-read, if I dare say so myself) in political philosophy.
Supporters of gun rights are far more diverse than most people realize, and the only thing that partisan hysteria will accomplish is alienating some of those supporters while feeding into the negative stereotypes that people already have of the firearms culture. We need to convince people instead of vilifying them; we need reasoned argument, not impassioned tantrums.
I think this person has “Liberal” and Libertarian confused? But if not understand this WE are here because the gun grabbers who say they support the 2nd Amendment usually include the word but after they state they support it. Not an OFWG. Old is a matter of perspective!
Didn’t read past “racist”. Anyone who calls me that is either stupid or a liar, or both. Not worth my time to figure out which.
I identify most closely to the libertarian philosophy. This is the one website I go to and feel completely at home. I don’t feel that way about right wing websites, Fwiw.
I like to think that if it were, generally speaking, the other party that held more support and respect for gun rights, that the perceived bias would be reversed. So no, I don’t think it is “too right wing” I think that in general the “left wing” holds far less support and much more animosity toward gun rights. That’s not actually bias, as I understand the definition of the word.
“As a liberal that supports full second amendment rights…”
“…I don’t even know if fearful, racist, bigots even deserve to have full gun rights with minimal background checks.”
Damn. That didn’t take long.
I don’t even know if fearful, racist, bigots even deserve to have full gun rights with minimal background checks.
Speaking for myself only… Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I don’t want support from the likes of you. Neocons and modern progressives alike make my stomach churn so this isn’t from a ‘right winger’.
So long. Buh-bye. GTFO.
TTAG, you are doing great lately, IMHO.
+1000. This clown is a waste of oxygen.
Is it even possible for a liberal to say something without sounding like a whiney b#tch?
That’s why you rarely see a liberal doing political radio-TV.
It’s simply agonizing to try to listen to.
“As a liberal that supports full second amendment right…”
First, for the 1 billionth time, the second amendment isnt a a right… it is a constitutional PROTECTION of a right that the founding father saw as so sacred that they specifically enumerated its protection in the bill of rights along with a select few others that are equally important.
Second I do not care about political creed of POTG and I am definitely not a single issue voter but if you say you support 2A (dubious given that you dont even understand the very crucial difference of granting a right vs protecting a right), but this whole moderate lukewarm bullshit of “Im a ____________ but ___________ ….”(insert whatever stereotype defying cliche you see fit there) is a load of nonsense.
The number of liberal politicians who are not actively trying to subvert our rights protected by the constitution is already small… the number who arent merely indifferent and actually support them is even fewer. Just like you cannot say, “I am a Liberal but I support the sanctity of life from conception…” and yet vote for politicians who are at best indifferent about abortion. I agree Republican and Democrat are just different tracks on the same album. and Im not saying it is impossible to be a pro 2A Democrat, I know several, but if you voted for the assholes currently in office you are part of the problem.
The real problem, and I don’t get it, but there is this almost fad with being “moderate” recently, like vaping, or wearing flannel and skinny jeans and nasty facial hair. In reality though it all just sounds like being indifferent or opinion-less. Passionately standing for something gets labeled as “extremism” or “douchebaggery” by those who are afraid of being “uncool”. “Moderate” in its current iteration is just a symptom of the slow circle of the drain. Not being willing to stand for something isnt a political creed any more than the guy who says “f it” and doesnt even vote.
I too have noticed the ever-growing trend that you described. It’s seems like trying to stand up to anything that isn’t Pot Legalization gets you labeled as “Extremist”. Same way questioning literally anything about an official story gets you labeled as a “Conspiracy theorist”. Saying 9/11 was an inside job makes you a conspiracy theorist. Saying that dirty politics were used to pass ObamaCare ,on the other hand, also gets you lumped together with the tinfoil hat crowd nowadays.
If you’re asking this question seriously, then I think the answer will depend on who it is you really want to reach.
If you’re mainly trying to reach out to Libertarians, Republicans, Conservatives and/or Constitutionalists who have similar views on firearms, then no. You’re doing a great job, but in a lot of ways, you’re probably just preaching to the choir.
That particular comment seemed more like trollbait than a legitimate criticism, but the fact that the tone of the blog might put off some who consider themselves Liberals is probably valid…they are after all, a very sensitive group. But all kidding aside, the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be a partisan issue and we should be careful never to treat it like one.
“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.… A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
–George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
The problem with defining people as liberal/conservative, republican/democrat is that it’s shifting ground. The southern democrat of 1968 wouldn’t recognize the party today.
In 1968 I was employed to sell beer at a stand on the 9th hole of the local country club (I was 15 years old). Rich drunk snobs paraded by my stand sneering at all and sundry. Those were Republicans.
In 1992 we got Ruby Ridge. Then Waco in 1993. The AWB in 1994. In that year I had been a registered Democrat for 24 years, and I’d had more than enough! I stomped down the the registrar of voters and changed my party allegiance to Republican. If that pissed off just one Dem party op then I’m satisfied.
I was raised a Southern Democrat, and I was and always will be a classical liberal (a hand up, not a hand out). These days that makes me a Republican.
>> The southern democrat of 1968 wouldn’t recognize the party today.
The Southern Democrat of 1968 would recognize the party just fine, it just got a different label these days. But if you look at the geographical spread of votes, the same exact districts that were “Solid South” back then are “Solid South” again now.
In response to the title of this piece. No
I don’t like left wingers or right wingers, the politics I mean. I’m sort of a moderate conservative. And not a one-issue voter. But this is a gun site, so…
I would say though that the blind faith some put into the GOP makes me uneasy. I think they are just a bunch of snakes who would sell us out in an instant. It may not seem that way now but IMO that is the greatest threat to gun rights.
Kinda odd, I was thinking TTAG was too left wing but I wasn’t going to b!tch about it cause I come for the gun talk, not the politics.
Yet another “liberal” here who is pro-gun. It is disappointing that this site is 90% hardcore right wing. I still visit for the reviews, the warnings against 2A infringement, the advice on home protection, the takedown of BS on stuff like Ferguson (I actually agree with the GJ on this and Garner).
It is a HUGE turnoff to read all the hatred of the current administration. Trust me, you can’t hate the current guy more than many of us hated GW or Reagan. The name calling that is rampant here just dumbs down the entire conversation and makes you look stupid. The moderators do incite the rants with your language of hate aimed at Shannon/Bloomberg/Feinstein…I don’t like them either but you really take it to a lower level.
Stick to the truth about guns. Taking the high ground will win you more friends, read votes, in the long run.
According to John Lott Obama told him “I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
The content tends to be more libertarian than right-wing, but the commenters tend to be far right-wing.
Democrats want to take my guns and my money and my freedom
Republicans want to take my money and my freedom but occasionally pass some half-ass pro-gun measure when they’re not busy vetoing real pro-gun bills
Fvck the both of them.
That “logical” Democrat was full ad hominem fallacies and not much else. So I don’t think he gets to bash TTAG and claim superiority.
I’m quite liberal socially and even have a Keynesian bend economically and I don’t mind the political climate here. Anyone that thinks the R or the D represents their beliefs is . . . er, gullible.
Wayne, either party will give you their undying support, if you can afford it!
Sure, as long as you can outbid/outspend AIPAC. Nope.
The following is not necessarily a reflection of the opinions of the management . . .
As soon as a Progressive Liberal says they “support the Second Amendment, but…” then goes on to call us racists and suggest we are too dangerous to even be near a gun, that individual has and alienated me completely and I cannot muster any interest or trust for anything else they have to say.
Ralph was correct when he referred to the old-fashioned Liberals, like JFK, and said “classical liberalism favored personal responsibility and the removal of barriers to personal success”. My parents were Classical Liberals who lived those ideals.
The discussion comments on TTAG can be a rough sandbox to play in, and I’ll readily plead guilty to being far to the Right, picking fights with people, being recalcitrant about backing down and taking jabs at Progressive Liberals whenever I can. It’s the Internet and if you can’t stand getting your nose bloodied or your feelings hurt on TTAG, there are plenty of safer, warm and fuzzy places to play. They’re dull and boring, you won’t learn anything, or have to think about what you’ve actually said, or challenge your beliefs, but don’t let that stop you from running away with your tail between your legs.
No, TTAG isn’t too far to the Right. It’s an articulate, educated, varied, challenging, mostly civil and thoroughly worthwhile forum that provides intellectual, moral and political stimulation you cannot find anywhere else.
One day we will find a way to get you to repent of your wrong-mindedness and bring you into the Light. You will Thank us for it.
In regard to the original topic….I feel bad for that person if (s)he was unable to convey a message without resorting to name calling. You lost me at racist, bigoted, yadda yadda yadda. Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. Never let your enemy define you, your beliefs, or actions. This is what a Progressive does. Rather than argue a topic, they argue the definitions. Example: “common sense” gun laws are anything but.
Guns themselves are not political. But if crappy politicians want to make a name for themselves by fighting against guns, then we/POTG fight back. Kind of like Newton’s 3rd law.
If you actually are a consistent reader, then you’ll realize how often bad “Republicans” are pointed out, and how much hope and wonder are bestowed upon a “Democrat” that actually respects the Constitution.
I enjoly reading and commenting on TTAG. You’re like my group of buddies that I turn to for normalcy when all the other news/opinion outlets fall in line with the gov’t controlled media.
TTAG lost a conflicted reader — not the awareness of the lack of exclusivity when discussing constitutional rights.
Left vs. Right
Conservative vs. Liberal
Democrat vs. Republican vs. Libertarian
All I see and hear is the Bloods vs. Crips.
Identifying yourself or others with these groups is just joining and wearing colors for one street gang over another. It is just tribalism plain and simple. No group has infinite or perfect wisdom on every policy question, and none of those groups wants anything but more power for themselves. The question really should be why do we so often support a gang instead of our issues?
I see no partisan slant in the content on TTAG. The comments get very colorful from time to time, but I’m also a 1A supporter so I don’t see the problem. It’s all about maintaining our natural right to keep and bear arms, that should be the position of anyone of any political persuasion who understands and supports the bill of rights. If political figures of either party advocate infringing the people’s rights they should be called out. Every person on this planet deserves the right to defend themselves and I think TTAG has been a very inclusive advocate of that.
Gun rights and freedom are not partisan.
For the love of God and all that is holy, yes.
Gun rights has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Gun rights are part of a much bigger issue. Liberty and freedom versus tyranny. As far as I’m concerned the democratic and Republican Party are failing on this. Republicans are just as bad as democrats just in a different way. They are a two headed coin. Not much difference between the two of them.
But no TTAG is not biased. It’s not there fault it’s mostly democrats saying anti-gun statements.
Heads, government wins. Tails, the People lose.
Eh. Some of the writers tend that way. But most are not even close.
Someone being hypersensitive methinks.
Yes, of course it is firmly right-wing. I mean, when you post articles with titles like “Never Trust a Liberal On Guns, Ever”, or “Question of the Day: Are Liberals the Enemy of The People of the Gun?”, is there seriously any doubt about that? The repeated use of “liberal” or “progressive” in many articles as some kind of slur goes to prove it further.
The comments, more of the same. A lot more.
I don’t find this surprising at all. Most gun communities are right wing. The few that are apolitical or left-wing, are deliberately set up that way. TTAG is more fringe right than many popular online gun forums and such, but at some point on the scale it really ceases to matter. You grow thick skin, or you go elsewhere.
Whenever I see “I support the Second Amendment, but…” — it always goes down hill from there.
If you are die hard democrat and support guns, great! BUT, it is your party more than not that leads the charge to disarm us. Even in CT, where there was a chance to unseat Malloy, I heard plenty of democrat friends (those are mostly what I have, I am in a blue state) that said they would support our gun right and vote Malloy out, and then they admitted, they voted for Malloy — why? Which is it? You support gun right or you don’t?
The answer I always get “its complicated” — Does not seem all that complicated to me? I shoot back at them that they are so far left that they could not go to a party with other democrats and admit that they voted for a Republican — that they would loose sleep at night — it is brain washed — many of my friends are conflicted because they fear being rejected from the herd.
And that is why some gun owners rile against democrats. If you give gun owners a chance, you will see we hate Republicans too — but for different reasons other than guns — although there are Republican gun banners as well as democrats.
Fine leave — good look finding another site where people do not rile against democrats.
I actually find it interesting that their political affiliation is so important to them that they act out like this ex-reader did. I for one, could not give a crap because the political party I vote for does not define who I am. And, maybe there is the problem right there/
As long as you support the 2nd Amendment, I don’t care what race, gender, sexual orientation, or political party you support. Nor do I care if you read TTAG.
Will the next person waiting to access this site please come forward?
I didn’t read all the comments because this seems to have blown up. My .02 is that the site isn’t overtly biased against dems. The readers comments are another story but that’s fine. If you can’t handle the internet then take some meds or stay out of the comments section and flush out your genital cavity. I can say that the “offended” post starting this all reeks of a troll. Even if you take their rant at face value it is apparent that 1. They don’t have a clue what the associates they identify with really think or more importantly “feel” and 2. The Democrats have co opted the term Liberal. It actually is the antithesis of big government tyranny. A true liberal suspects all state action and believes in holding those in gov service accountable for their actions. Your site is fine. Some readers on either end of the ideological spectrum are suspect but that’s what happens during free discourse.
Was that a serious question? Does the College of Cardinals wear red yarmulkes? Of course TTAG is super, ultra right wing. You’re leaning so far over to the right you’re almost coming back around to the left. Looking for fair and balanced? Look elsewhere. But, TTAG is often informative (love the gear reviews), often entertaining, so I’ll ignore the silly political rhetoric, the conspiracy theory loony comments (some of which are also quite entertaining) and keep reading and commenting. Just one thing RF, you really do need to brush up on your yiddishisms, some of them are laughably off base. I recommend The Joys of Yiddish by Leo Rosten.
TTAG frequently goes way too far to the right.
The NRA had the success it has had because of it’s bipartisan tactics. The unions and teachers have been pummeled as much as they have because of their embrace of the democratic party, despite natural attraction to the right. (Teachers on the whole work hard, and have conservative values- as do many union members. Reagan Democrats anyone?)
TTAG needs to be less partisan, and more pure-gun rights focused.
That was an obvious sockpuppet. Anyone who has read here at any length knows there’s a diversity of race, sex and poltical opinion here.
Classical liberals have open minds and can engage in debate, without taking personal offense, over simlifications and generalizations that any adult understands is shorthand for laying out a postition withiut making it black and white apply to each individual.
This is some progtard with a stick up his butt over the elections.
My two cents:
I’m new round these parts, having recently discovered The Gun Feed, and consequently, tons of gun blogs, incl. TTAG.
I’m a Bible-believing, pro-gun conservo-libertarian. I was involved in the “militia movement” in Phoenix in the mid-nineties. Oh, and I’m a USAF vet (Jet Engine Mech, 1980-83, Honorably Discharged) who became highly skeptical of US military intervention between 9/11/01 and 3/20/03. Skeptical enough to counsel my sons not to enlist (when less than ten years prior, I expected to encourage them to enlist in the Army or Marines). I’m no pacifist, just anti-intervention.
All of which is to say: I have noticed that several of the gun blogs proffered by TGF also offer “right-wing” commentary on a variety of non-gun related topics, such as the GWOT.
So, I guess I’m too new at this to know where I stand on that yet. I come for the gun news. I can get neocon Bravo Sierra at a dozen other places, which is why I don’t go to those places. OTOH, these blogs belong to the bloggers. First amendment, free exchange of ideas and all that. I’m a big boy. I can roll my eyes and mutter an expletive under my breath when I encounter pro-war BS on a gun blog. (Not to be confused with stories about applicable — gun- or tactics-related — military exploits that have occurred in wars with which I disagree.) If I ever start feeling like I’m getting too much Fox/Salem Radio interventionist crap, I’ll quit coming.
And I haven’t been HERE enough yet to determine which way you swing. So, I’ll be back.
But I can certainly imagine there is a very real chance of alienating readers of vastly different political persuasions when pro-gun blogs weigh in as heavily conservative on non-gun topics.
That is all. Peace.
Once gun owners actually go to the effort to educate themselves, they tend towards becoming single-issue voters. This is because they understand what is at stake. They understand how serious it is and how evil the opposition is. While educating yourself includes realizing that no one party is perfect, you always gain the knowledge that voting democrat is voting against the one right that guarantees the others. We live in a land where we don’t fully understand what it is to have the rights we do because we don’t know what it is like to live without those rights. Knowing people who have lived in those situations (no rights) is very helpful to ones education (although not a guarantee of enlightenment). Now, whenever somebody talks about being a democrat or liberal who supports the 2nd amendment, I realize immediately that the person has just lied or is fooled by philosophy and feelings rather than truth and real experience. While it is possible to believe that philosophy, there is no way in America to vote for that (democrat and gun rights at the same time).
Yes, way too right wing. It’s sad how many people think you have to be a card-carrying Republican to own guns, or that single-issue voting is the most intelligent choice in existence.
This may come as a shock to some of TTAG’s audience but not all of us share your very right-wing political views, nor do we come to the conclusion that supporting the Republican party is a continual necessity because otherwise ‘they’ll just take our guns’. Or believe that the NRA does a good job of representing all US gun owners or determining if a politician would actually harm your right to bear arms.
It’s often like talking to a brick wall or swimming against the tide, the level of intelligent discourse is close to zero, especially when the other person believes that they have a perfect understanding of all things and a divine mandate on the truth of any situation in particular.
For example, “No such thing as a “liberal that believes in the 2nd amendment.” Oil and water.” Why even bother coming to a site where people express opinions that are that lacking in thoughtfulness and insight?
A small group of like-minded individuals that shares a very narrow set of ideas and won’t accept outside input without ridiculing it? Who does that remind you of?
How can you keep a straight face while claiming you are a liberal who supports the 2A?
Your own fellows would disown you in a heartbeat over the issue, if you don’t accept that yet you will eventually come to do so when push comes to shove. I live in a blue state and was fired from a government contracting job when it was discovered I was a gun owners and not a (D), so pardon me while I scoff. It is not just something people say because they like the way it sounds, it is based on experience.
You should bear in mind that just because someone ostensibly supports the GOP doesn’t mean they are in love with it. We would be better off without either party and most gun owners DO know that, but when it comes down to it the only way to hold back the tide in recent history and for the foreseeable future is to vote Republican. I believe this is called realpolitik?
But I don’t know, maybe you could single handedly convince your fellow lefties to drop the gun control thing so we can all really talk about the real issues. Good luck!
“You should bear in mind that just because someone ostensibly supports the GOP doesn’t mean they are in love with it. We would be better off without either party and most gun owners DO know that, but when it comes down to it the only way to hold back the tide in recent history and for the foreseeable future is to vote Republican. I believe this is called realpolitik?”
You speak as if there are only two political votes to be cast – either straight ballot Democrat or straight ballot Republican. Can you imagine a world where you just vote for the politician – Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or other, simply based on whether they’re the best candidate for the position or not?
Sit down and read about the candidates and how they voted previously. There’s a lot of great sites that track politicians voting records, and for smaller local positions, it’s usually pretty clear what the stated platform and actual platform are.
If a candidate is all over gun control and has actually worked to push gun control legislation through, I have no desire to vote for them. If they’re under the Democratic party and are more likely to improve the situation than the other candidates and don’t have a history of being actively for gun control? I’d vote for them.
This is how the political process should work. But people – and clearly a very large percentage of TTAG’s audience, if not all of them – get tunnel vision and start talking like they’ve lost a few IQ points whenever politics comes up. Talk of politics and religion seem to drive out rational thought in equal measure in any culture, time or place. The emotions surge and reason flies out the window. It’s very similar to talking to a two year old that has a notion in mind and nothing will sway their single-minded insistence on ‘That’s how it is!’.
So normally, on most subjects that aren’t “Does that object weigh 2 lbs or 5 lbs?” cut and dry, people tend to debate back and forth as to what the most accurate representation of the situation is. “Are Wendy’s fries as good as McDonald’s fries?” You might say “Ah, well these fries are crispier” and the other person might say “But the other fries are better because they are more salty.” In other words, it’s subjective to one degree or another what the most accurate answer is.
Yet somehow people think politics is completely objective and it’s barely that at all. You believe that to have guns, you can’t have a good national healthcare system. Or if you invest in nuclear energy, you have to invest in coal as well. Or that you can’t promote good industry and plant a few trees.
Politicians are what we make them. They will do whatever will get them votes. They are no more the enemy than your fellow man is. Politicians demonize things like guns, alcohol, big industry, the poor, higher taxes, bigger government, smaller government, the wealthy because that’s what gets a rise out of us to the point where we’ll vote for them.
Everyone here votes with their emotions, no one votes with their head.
I do believe that you like guns. But I don’t think that any democrat, social-democrat, socialist, left wing or progressive can actually be at his/her core for more individual rights. Think for a moment about what is at the core of the dems ideology: the state has a big role in people’s life.
I don’t doubt for a moment your good intentions. The issue is, as Milton Friedman said, the results matter. It doesn’t matter how nice and fuzzy the objective is (e.g. to help people), the result is undeniable, out of control growth of the state. And when state grows the freedom withers.
I’m sure that you are a nice person, however the persons that you vote for are adamantly pursuing gun control. It is in their platform.
So, if you understand what freedom means it’s illogical to favor D.
As others said here. Reps are no angels and will sell us in a minute too. However, for now they are the only ones standing between gov and your firearms. You just have to look in the states where the Dems have a comfortable majority: CA, NY, NJ, WA, CT, MA, etc. If this doesn’t tell you what you need to know about the Dem party then indeed all is lost for you. Do you think that all the gun measures from the spring of 2013 would not have been passed if more Dems were in Congress?
In the end, we need gridlock, gridlock is good. The less laws DC passes, the better is for freedom.
You completely ignore anti-statist left wing ideologies, such as anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian socialism.
So does everyone else, for good reasons.
Gun control laws
Democrats favor more gun control laws e.g. oppose the right to carry concealed weapons in public places. Republicans oppose gun control laws and are strong supporters of the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) as well as the right to carry concealed weapons.
I’m not going to say it’s impossible, but it seems to me it would be very difficult for a democrat… who votes democratically, to support the 2nd amendment.
It all depends on what you consider right wing. My definition of right wing is common sense conservatism, pragmatic, fair, a believer in ALL of the Constitution, and adherent to the rule of law. The problem with at least a few of the radical idiots who identify as far right and are drawn to the TTAG site is that their obsessive anti authority outlaw sympathetic personalities share far more traits with the radical idiots on the far left than they would ever allow themselves to admit.
Honestly, I’m tired of the constant politics this site has come to throw down. I find myself going to other places to look for more guns news and reviews. I still come by here pretty regularly, but it’s not as frequently as it used to be. You should break this site into at least two pages: One for the politics and another for the firearms stuff.
I doubt that will happen.
People commenting may lean right, but that is a no brainer when it comes to guns. The comment posted is from someone who is either trolling or very thin skinned. Farago wears his left wing past on his sleeve so I don’t think you guys are too right wing. He even admitted he used to work for CNN and thems fightin words.
I must say I am offended by the image, because that Yankee chickenshit is wearing the flag of my ancestor. Go sell some more Oly Arms crap, Ted and keep on teetoodlin’. We catch you up the holler wearing that, we’ll send you home with more to complain about than cat scratch fever…
It has been a long time since I’ve posted on here, and my comment is so far down that nobody probably cares, but I’ll say it anyways. Yes, TTAG has gone too right wingged. I stopped coming to this site because of it. I just came on tonight for the first time in months and ironically saw this. Blasting politicians should be equal, not make a democrat look like a clown and a republican a pastor who accidentally sinned. Point being, this site was built on the principle of being honest and trying to give an unbiased opinion. I know I’ve missed out on a lot of good articles on here, but that’s because I’ve chose to keep myself away from the sites constant negative remarks about democrats.
If the shoe fits….. Maybe you can convince the MSM to drop it’s bias firsf?
I have drawn my conclusions that TTAG is more on the libertarian side of the political spectrum. As I have gotten older I find myself having more of a libertarian point of view though I have not embraced the LP point of view 100%. I think its not “right wing” to live and let live long as no one is being deprived of life liberty or property through force or fraud. Its just common sense.
I think that as long as future articles avoid “liberals” in the article title or body of text, we should be fine.
The fact is that “liberal” means different things to different people and we don’t want to alienate people who otherwise will stand with us.
No you’re not too right wing. If you vote D, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, you’re voting for gun control. Are there a very small handful of genuine pro-gun Democrats? Probably. But a D vote is a vote for gun control, plain and simple. So a pro-gun Democrat is pretty much useless to us. There’s nothing to alienate because they already vote for gun control.
The writing, not really. The comments, probably. The writing takes pot shots at democrats for what they do: Trying to restrict the 2A. The commenting carries that a bit further to ad hominems on liberal politicals.
A gun blog advancing the cause of the second amendment is bound to cast aspersions on it’s detractors, who by and large are liberal democrats. Liberals who fully support the second amendment is almost like a unicorn, and I really don’t think that they’re going to sway the gun debate either way.
Anyone who still thinks in terms of left or right is either a child or suffering from massive head trauma.
When Gruber said the voters are stupid and lack of transparency is governments greatest tool he wasnt being mean or cruel or partisan. He was being honest. This is the way it has always been. Parties don’t matter. There is government and then there’s the rest of us.
It gets old having to say this over and over because dough-eyed idiots are either just turning that magically pointless age of caring about politics or are just being duped by some current pseudo-libertarian star that gives them hope.
Abandon all hope. There will never be change. Government has and will always hate you and your liberty. Party affiliation is an artificial construct that you want so badly to believe matters you willingly accept each and every time your particular team blasts you in the ass.
Yes and no. Agree that anyone who still really believes in 2 separate parties is suffering severe cognitive dissonance, at same time, it is people who control the government, not the government itself that calls the shots. Significant distinction. And yes, there is always hope, don’t be ridiculous.
Nicely said, Shire-Man. Brings to mind the old saying “The Truth hurts only when it ought to.” So, in deference to your astute summation of what we all know but don’t really want to think about, “OUCH!”
I might not be as ultimately despairing as you, but I have yet to see a clear path to return some control to The People. I suspect there is none.
“I am pretty sure that it is the negative, racist, and stereotypically far right, neo con, bigotry and ignorance”
Way too many catch phrases there; troll, 100%
Only classical liberals support the second amendment as the stated individual right that it is. Today these are more often referred to as libertarian.
Modern liberals oppose anything that allows people to be independent from government. It is not possible to be a liberal democrat and be a supporter of the second amendment. They are diametrically opposed positions and cannot co-exist.
All of the states that restrict gun rights to the point of virtually disarming the people, to the benefit of organized and disorganized crime, are controlled by liberal democrats. NJ may have liberal republican Christie. But the NJ state legislature will never send up a bill making the state Shall Issue.
MA Just elected a Republican governor, but the veto proof democrats legislature will never undo the ban on all the guns I can buy in NC buy my family in MA cannot.
When liberals even make a nod toward 2A, they only talk about hunters and sportsmen. They absolutely refuse to even acknowledge a right to armed self defense. In some states they don’t even allow unarmed self defense.
So I suspect the the author of the comment leans more to the libertarian camp than liberal.
So I suspect the the author of the comment leans more to the libertarian camp than liberal.
Oh, really? Perhaps you missed this part of the commenter’s statement:
I don’t even know if fearful, racist, bigots even deserve to have full gun rights with minimal background checks.
That’s not the statement of a libertarian. No way.
Yep. And the comments on this post are the main reason that I read TTAG once a month now instead of once a day like I used to. “Ain’t no such thing as a lib that believes in freedom.” Are you all actually retarded? The belief that the other side is some “other” that is incapable of thought or reason is the cause of the disgusting state of affairs that we find our government in today.
I dont thing TTAG is too right wing, but reading some of the comments make me think we have a few goofy soverign citizen types here.
They were born into a system filled with rules and regulations that they themselves never agreed to, nor ever got to vote upon. They don’t want to be US citizens, and they don’t have anywhere to go to achieve what they want. I don’t exactly see it as goofy.
Goofy right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7U5eJN3hLI
Can’t we all just be Libertarians and get along?
Doubt anyone will read this but regardless here are my two cents:
Conservatives who go to a whole foods and complain about the left wing hippie vibe are obnoxious. The people who made that store a commercial success are generally at least left leaning. Yes, plenty of conservative leaning people want their products- but that culture didn’t create a mainstream organic store. The other side did. It’s ridiculous to expect a whole foods NOT to lean left.
Similarly, the culture that protects gun rights leans right. Yes, plenty of liberals enjoy firearms, but it is the right leaning people that are the ones (generally) who protect gun rights. I’m honestly tired of hearing liberal gun owners whine that they don’t fit in.
We all owe a debt to the crazies that make what we enjoy possible. You like to read? Some depressing amount of the publishing industry is subsidized by the devotees of trashy romance novels. You enjoy quality TV? subsidized by marathon reality TV watchers.
That said- my issue with TTAG is that it has become to poppy in the race for clicks. Instead of well thought out articles we generally get ones that look like they’ve been tapped out in 60 minutes from stock arguments. There are exceptions of course but if there’s something that alienates the type of thoughtful balanced people that TTAG wants- it’s the lack of quality content. Clicks come and go- thoughtful people will leave vapid content behind.
Please cite example?
I’m a little confused. How can one declare themselves one of the democratic party but at the same time state they support the 2nd amendment. I would really like know what you define as “supporting the 2nd amendment.” Gun “control” is favored by democrats:
So when you say you are a Democrat and support the 2nd amendment – my question is how? How do you support the second amendment when you keep voting people in office that are continually trying to restrict it?
Sounds like you “liberals” that support the 2nd amendment need to make yourselves another party with the issues better aligned to your ideals.
?? I thought you supported the 2nd amendment? That means everyone – with equal rights – no matter who they are. I would like to understand your definition of “bigot.” Everyone has differing opinions and they have a right to them. They can believe and feel whatever they want. Some people have principles and they aren’t up for discussion. Some people have strong opinions and that’s fine too. Some people can come off a bit too strong but again – everyone is entitled to their own ideas and opinions.
TTAG is pro-freedom. Pro-rights and typically has aims that focus on guns. We are sorry to see you leave, but again we are not all the same (nor should we be). Differing opinions and ideals from all different people from all different places. Just because some guy or several guys said some comment that was offensive it doesn’t mean everyone feels that way. I personally don’t like the republican or democratic party. Reagan passed gun control laws. Bush Sr. passed gun control laws. Bush Jr. passed the horrific “patriot act.” Every time a republican gets elected I’m always afraid if we are going to bomb some 3rd world country on the other side of that planet and how much of my tax dollars will be used to blow up these people. And with either party i’m always thinking about how much regulation we are going to enact. More laws. More regulation. More rules. Rules, services, and regulation that oftentimes I have to pay for that doesn’t even affect me.
Why not stay and discuss/debate your points. Keep in mind – us here at TTAG may critique them. If you feel you are right, back it up and you might change some minds.
Here is a key characteristic of hose calling themselves “Liberals” – they’ve corrupted the term from meaning “open minded and willing to consider the opinion of others”, to a statist, “We don’t trust the individual, and will control what you can think/say/do.” This line sums it up perfectly: “I don’t even know if fearful, racist, bigots even deserve to have full gun rights with minimal background checks.”
Seriously? He gets to decide who “deserves” their Constitutional rights, based upon his perception of their beliefs? There’s additional irony in his comment – apparently, HIS “fear” of these imaginary people trumps what he believes to be THEIR “fear” of whatever it is that he believes they’re fearful of.
If this isn’t the very definition of hypocrisy, I’m not sure what is.
Must be nice to be a single-issue voter. As a gay libertarian who opposes gun restriction, I’m having to give up something every single time I vote.
So yes, I voted for obama; I don’t feel great about it, but his ability to do anything about the 2nd amendment is non-existent because of widespread opposition to it everywhere but California and NYC even among the democrat base. And the amount of damage that mormon could have done to my other rights was extreme. Let’s not pretend that the republicans are anything less than statists, either. If you honestly believe that, then you’ve fallen for the propaganda pushed out by fox news and ALEC who are also, I might add, statists hiding behind the guise of “libertarian theory.” Look how much money the Koch brothers leech from state contracts and subsidies every year.
I’m sure I’ll be denigrated in the comments here, just as I usually am. The problem’s not with the site but with the vast majority of its glenn beck reject commenters. I would say you guys need to think beyond the narrow little boxes the oligarchs who control the media put people in, but that rarely seems to work.
“I would say you guys need to think beyond the narrow little boxes the oligarchs who control the media put people in, but that rarely seems to work.”
Nicely said, but true of anyone who still lives under the illusion of 2 separate parties. It is a false dialectic which serves to give a smaller and smaller number of people the illusion of choice and having a voice in our government and decision making.
You’re completely right. The system is entirely rigged.
The real trouble comes when both parties agree on something, because it always involves the people losing rights and the state aparatus increasing its power and control.
Both parties agree on most things. It’s generally the hot button social issues where the parties pretend to be different, but even that is changing. It seems the people pulling the strings feel less need to make the parties look different.
Voting for Obama, votes for Gun Control. It further empowers Democrats with the “extreme” agenda’s to move against the people. I also find it hilarious that every time a discussion like this comes up the first talking point is either Glenn Beck or the Koch brothers who by the way almost no Conservative ever heard of prior to Democrat talking points being hammered on MSNBC and CNN. There are no Liberal talk shows that are worth the air time since no one listens to them apparently but when that one chick was on air she always talked about the mysterious “Koch Brothers”.
Uh, that’s precisely the point. Like Soros, they are power brokers who work behind the scenes to manipulate the system.
Glenn Beck just scares the greyhairs into voting against their interests. What can you do? The real solution is to vote libertarian, but the GOP fear machine operates so well that they never have a chance. The only thing you can do at the polls is logjam the process: Democrat exec with a Republican congress. Cause enough strife that nothing gets done. So no, I don’t regret voting for Obama.
At least until people wise up to the fact that we have two parties of statists. I’d venture to guess you’re a lost cause, though.
I appreciate the follow up but here is my “cause”…Freedom, maintaining our reliance upon the guidance of our Constitution and lower taxes with less reliance upon a Government and more reliance upon each other. Freedom requires a moral people. A certain party aligns itself with moral corruption which allows more control of people, not less. It is easier to control an a-moral populace. We are there. That is my “cause”. Does that burn like sunlight on a vampire?
Does my being gay count as “moral corruption” to you?
Um, Obama’s first 2 years was a Dem exec with both houses also Dem, so your reasoning falls flat.
For whatever it’s worth, I voted Obama only once in the election against Romney. And that was mainly because I do not trust religious zealots to respect the separation of church and state.
It definitely resulted in continued logjam in Congress though, which works totally fine by me. And as expected, he hasn’t moved an inch on guns, despite all of his speechifying about it.
Research is your friend. Romney did not make Massachusetts or the Olympics into religious entities when he was in positions there, besides presidents are not supposed to legislate. I guess you were afraid Romney might start to act like Obama had already proven he was willing to act?
Obama has made one–one–executive order with sweeping scope in his tenure, and that was a second term act. Overall, he hasn’t done much of anything: extended bush era policies both domestically and abroad. This is a reason many of my leftist friends hate his guts.
I admit to being strongly biased against true believers. This includes mormons and southern baptists. Most other religions are more reasonable. Perhaps if you’d grown up a gay man in the bible belt, you might have a slightly different take on religious zealots as well.
But that background is exactly why I support the RKBA, for what it’s worth.
I think that you are in error and here is why.
The gun rights are under attack. An attack by people that have a large media representation. I believe that never before was the attack so widespread. Kids in our schools are indoctrinate against gun rights.
Compare that with the status of gay rights. I think that those rights are secure today as never before. A large portion of the population supports that. With no ” I support ___, but ___”. Comparing the two rights, which one do you think is more under danger of being restricted? So stop hiding behind this shallow explanation on why you voted D. I’m sure that if you dig deeper that are other reasons why you did that, reason that have nothing to do with gay rights, but more with “social justice” stupid concept.
The Democrat Party stands for an overthrow of this Constitution and Government and our Culture as a nation. The Democrat Party stands for Gun Control. If you vote “D” you are essentially in line with their poisonous agenda.
Yeah, that is profoundly stupid. Democrats are reliably awful on gun control at the national level, but lack the power to do much about it because of how unpopular it is nationwide. Republicans are reliably awful on things like the first, fourth and fifth amendments, or have you forgotten the amount of toxic crap bush the second did in the name of “the war on terror? They are both statists who seek to reaffirm their own power structures. You are deluding yourself otherwise.
Democrats voted for all of that Bush stuff. Democrats then controlled both houses of Congress. Did they stop it? Fix it? Change it? Nope Nope and Nope. Just sayin’…
Yes. As I’ve said repeatedly, we have two parties of statists. I’m not sure what the point you are trying to make is.
If I want to vote with a clean conscience, I’ll vote libertarian, knowing that my choice, if elected, will not damage any of the bill of rights. I will also know that this candidate will lose, because people keep buying into the spectator sport/kabuki theater that is the democrat/republican battle.
I also know that, despite most of the GOP voter base simply being fooled by the media, that a large percentage of it (though I truly believe it’s a minority) are bible-thumping theocrats who despise my very existence as a gay man, so yes, that tends to disincline me to vote for them. Even though they are better on the 2nd amendment.
@j_taylor, I understand what you are saying. And that is true, there is a vocal minority that cares what you do in your bedroom. I hate them too. However if you look around they really are a minority. There are no more “go to jail” for being gay. They may despise you but they can’t do anything about it. You won.
On the other hand you can still go to jail for an unregistered firearm, or the fact that your barrel is one inch shorter than 16. How can you even compare your situation with this?
This article is troll bait. Nicely done TTAG.
As an right-leaning independent – yes TTAG is pretty right wing. Focus on bad actions / bad actors instead of liberals say or what do you expect from a democrat…
There are plenty of those in the republican party who don’t stand for the RKBA to – and they should be called to the carpet as quickly as DiFi.
No. Not at all.
TTAG has asked readers to actually think, which is a bane to the left, so I can see where the confusion may come from.
“…to actually think, which is a bane to the left,”
Mmmhmm. I’ve found in almost every case that the people who say these sorts of things accept things completely uncritically as long as it comes from “their side.”
And you don’t realize the irony of what you’ve just posited then, do you?
There is none, because I’m not left by most people’s metrics. I have many friends who are honest-to-goodness socialist lefties (not the pathetic democrat version that passes for “left” in the mainstream media) and you are being entirely obtuse to write off “the other side” so uncritically.
I disagree with them on major points, but we find much common ground on others. You are accepting a talking point of “us vs them” propaganda warfare. Uncritically.
You missed the point…entirely…j_taylor. Instead you chose to take it as an assumption that I was referring to you as a liberal.
Read what you wrote in your first reply. You are making a broad generalization…about a broad generalization…using an anecdotal reference.
And I don’t have a ‘their party’, my friend. I am registered as non-partisan. Extreme views on either side are problematic to liberty as a whole. I have no issues sniping either side on given issues. Social Moderate, Fiscal Conservative. Which makes getting on with either ‘side’ problematic at most times.
@j_taylor, your being gay or not, that is your problem. When does it become OUR problem? When TV and movie execs along with the gay special interests try to flaunt it in my face and my childrens faces and act like we are supposed to be okay with an open attempt to force families to be bombarded from all media sources that gay is the way…well? It isn’t. It may be your way but it ain’t here bub and it ain’t in most of this country. The 1% terrorize the 99%. Wrong answer. Guess what though? I still support your right to participate in the 2nd amendment. If you step over the line and go from being a fellow citizen to terrorizing the populace in order to force your POV? Well then things change. Carry on.
And “flaunt it in my face” basically means openly saying that he’s gay, and behaving as one without trying to conceal it in public (like, say, kissing his partner)?
If liberals didn’t have such a boner for gun control, I’d consider voting D once in awhile. I have more liberal views on the big topics, but I am forced to vote R 90% of the time, in order to prevent losing my rights.
Woo hoo! Single issue voter right here!
I have to say as a 2A supporting Liberal, yes it will hurt you in the long run. If your supporters can’t grow up enough to realize that if you can agree on 2A issues, you should be able to agree to disagree on Party and President choice. Biggotted, racist, and insulting comments ultimately only hurt your cause. Open hostility makes people want to go away.
One thing that they don’t understand is that Republicans are steadily losing popular support. It’s very evident if you look at the charts for popular vote (rather than just counting the seats). This has not translated to proportional wins for Dems mainly because there are hacks in the electoral system, like gerrymandering, that can be and are being used to delay the inevitable, but this only buys them so much time. If you look at the election map from these past midterms, and apply it to 2016, it’s clear that the next president in the White House is going to be a Democrat, also (which almost certainly means Hillary… bleh!), and that will persist in the foreseeable future, until the next major upset to the two-party system (which, at that point, will have to be GOP reinventing themselves, since Dems won’t have any reason to). And “solid South” will break apart as migration streams lead to further urbanization, and provide new fresh liberal voters in droves. Again, this is somewhat concealed by gerrymandering right now (witness how Austin, TX does not have its own district, but is instead split between several districts, with each part attached to a section of the countryside just large enough to make sure that red drowns out the blue – so not a single representative for Austin is liberal), but this only goes so far.
What’s ironic here is that the longer Republicans postpone pressing the “Reset” button and switching the mainstream party line to mostly libertarian precepts, the harder it will be to do when they will finally be forced to do it or fall apart. And they keep strengthening the social conservative, fundamentalist religious block at the expense of everything else, even as that is the single thing that moves them further and further away from where they need to be to be competitive long-term.
So when Dems will solidify control over both the executive and the legislature, this politics of stark divide over issues like guns is going to backfire big time.
Too Right Wing? Reminds me of Too Country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMDvmsT1PyI
“negative, racist, and stereotypically far right, neo con, bigotry and ignorance … fearful, racist, bigots [don’t] even deserve to have full gun rights”
But *WE’RE* the ones who are alienating people. Right, I see how that works.
YES. It definitely makes me second guess my support of the site sometimes as TTAG comes off as crazy as anti-gunners sometimes.
I’ve thought about this from time to time. I do believe TTAG is generally too far right-wing and it certainly has pushed some “on the fence” sitters away (a friend of my i’ve linked a few of the articles to). Between the varying levels of sarcasm, to liberal bashing. It just isn’t for some people, which is unfortunate as the point of the articles are spot on.
With that said.. I absolutely love it here, the further right the better to me. I get a nice laugh, and even sometimes learn some things.
The comments on this board tend to be FoxNews Wing. The majority of opinions here mirror whatever Fox puts forth as news.
I consider myself somewhat of a moderate on several of the issues but, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment or anything within the bill of rights I plant my feet. I refuse to sacrifice my freedom for the transparent veil thin ideal (excuse) of security….. You know for the children! Encountering self proclaimed liberals that stand with me on the second amendment are rarer than a unicorn riding Bigfoot wearing a pink tutu and carry a slung HK M8 in neon green.
I welcome anyone wants to learn more about shooting and carrying a firearm for home protection / self defense. Seems to me most people today will not pay attention to the issues the candidates are discussing only the fact if they have a “D” or an “R” next to their name. IMHO grumpy cat could get elected to a political office in the people’s republic of California if he had a “D” next to his name.
The mainstream media does a great job to highlight those who stand on the fringes of society and not the moderate who make up the majority of the people (for ratings). Until those self-proclaimed liberals and progressives who claim to be 2nd Amendment friendly stand front and center and proclaim they aren’t like everyone else. It is my opinion that they will remain in the shadows of their freedom hating, over taxing, statists brethren.
zippy once said, “life is a blur of republicans and meat.”
too far right? it doesn’t even come close to mattering. here i learn about firearms and politics. and i now know that i previously knew far more about guns than government.
importantly, for me, is how i’ve gained focus towards single issue voting. gray areas make my grey matter spin.
you’re all contributors and i thank you for the insight.
and as one of you stated previously, i’ll repeat to our recently departed peruser, “… door… ass, etc.
i have commented on this scenario before. sometimes TTAG gets so caught up in the politics, contempt for the anti’s sometimes bleeds over and makes TTAG look like over zealous gun nuts. With every article TTAG writes/publishes, you should always critique each sentence with “could an anti use what i am saying as a ‘see gun nuts are crazy’ quote”. A lot of the times you have a story like “the smart gun” and you let the one ideal of a computer chip gun with a wireless capability cloud your thinking process of how good this could be for officers. Think about it, an officer with this pistol no longer needs to call for back up AFTER shots fired. its already on its way. but all TTAG focuses on is the events in ferguson and the like, ever totting the “its a conspiracy against cops!!!”. we can not spout beliefs that are not factually based or we will start to resemble the irrational anti gun side. We just need to stay calm and carry on with logical stand points and factual output. this will continue to show how irrational, unreasonable, and foolish the anti-gun peoples viewpoint is, just like we saw with Million moms AGAINST Gun Control. One thing yall could do is point out GOOD gun laws and if you say “there are no good gun laws” then that is exactly what i am talking about. Once you make statements like that, people will see you as a fringe radical. And we all know how the public views those with that label. we must make them realize its the antis who are the fringe and VERY radical.
Since you focused on smart guns, why would such a chip in a gun be good for officers? Wouldn’t it be better to make such a device a worn part of the uniform, whether on the wrist or in a pocket, and have it react to any shots fired? That way the officer would have help coming even if he was shot and didn’t return fire. Or were you trying to justify further infringement of rights? Never mind.
I’m really tired of this “moderate” view. I see a lot of it in my neck of woods. And is scary. There are no good gun laws. Period. what the hell “shall not be infringed” means then? Giving in did not do anything for the cause of 2A as written in the Constitution. I fail to see what it will do for us in the future.
And when people like me are considered “fringe” is because people like you that are considered “moderate”. Should we stand united in our unwavering support of 2A, there would be no division along the lines of which give-ins are ok and which one not. You are part of “I support 2A, but ___”.
When they stop going all out on a civilian disarmament platform we will stop criticizing them. Until then they can go back to whining on the huffington post about us evil rednecks
Not many things in life are as black and white as many folks seem to think they are. Usually more shades of grey. While the extremists on both sides make good points it is the folks in the middle that usually elect our representatives. I vote for the person, not the party. I would hate to see Social Security, Unemployment insurance, Medicare go away. But I also believe in the Free Market system and I know that the money that we use for our social programs would not be available without the Free Market. I also believe in the second amendment and gun rights. I am a registered Independent and will vote for whatever I damn well please that makes sense to me. I believe in gay rights because I don’t think a gay person is born that way and it does more harm than good to try to change them. Therefore, I think they deserve the same rights as the rest of us and if they are an upstanding citizen I really don’t care who they love or have sex with. It is none of my damn business. Just the same as it is none of the government’s business if I own a gun for protection or any other reason. Also none of the government’s business if I want to have a Pit Bull for a pet (I don’t but similar principal). I don’t let any political party or any splinter group think for me. There are Sheeple on both sides of the political spectrum. Anyone that believes everything that Fox News broadcasts is an idiot. My 2 cents.
Just so were clear when you post articles that imply the possibility of police misconduct your a pot smoking tree hugger and when you point out the biggest legislative threat to gun rights comes from liberal dems your right wing. Who exactly are these prominent dems supporting gun rights exactly? I’ll wait. And btw if stereotypical libs call you a con and neo cons call you a lib you’re doing something right.
Egads. I can’t even read most of this drivel. I guess it does show that those of us who are more progressive on other issues (gay rights, women’t right to choose, legalizing pot, etc) but are adamantly pro RKBA are few and far between on this site, and apparently not welcome by most.
It’s interesting, it is similar to the arguments I had on a NY gun forum prior to the big rallies in Albany. I begged people to go well dressed, make thoughtful signs, etc… and not show up looking like a bunch of goobers with ‘Cuomo is a Nazi’ signs. But they did.
It’s public opinion 101, here. You are never going to change the minds of your opponents, who are the people you are trying to upset with your signs and name calling…. but by behaving like that, you alienate the middle, the undecideds, and the potential converts… who might be leaning in our favor but are going to be turned off by a bunch of hateful comments, signs, people dressed like mall ninjas, etc.
Every time democrats get brought up, 10 people have to go off on how we are baby killers, pro homo, etc. Good work on that, fellas… keep pushing people with differing views on other NON RELATED AND NOT RELEVANT issues out of here and soon you will be the only ones left in the echo chamber… and wondering why the public opinion polls (the only thing that actually matter, by the way) are not breaking your way.
It is like if you are Coca-Cola… and someone says ‘I think I like cola, but I’ve been drinking ginger ale all my life so I want to learn more’ and your response is ‘go buy a fucking pepsi you homo.’ Might make you feel good, but eventually, Pepsi will be eating your lunch.
I agree about alienating people. We wrote very similar things.
You always have the chance to alienate people. I think we would be lying if we didn’t say that this site is a bit right wing. It is fine to be right wing, but It is kind of a “don’t be that guy analogy”, here goes…
Every cause has that guy. You never want to be someone who alienates people even when you’re right. Nobody wants to be wrong, so you have to be gentle when making a point. The harder you fight, the harder they fight. The times when I’ve made my points with the most passion are the times I’ve seen people grin and fight harder, even though they might know they are wrong. The times I’ve slow rolled my opinion are the times I’ve had more success changing people’s minds.
Well, I’m sorry to see you go. I wish you would be more specific, because if there’s something amiss, I’d like to try to fix that. As things are, I know you have expressed concern and left, but the problems are hard to address, your words being vague, general, and, yes, buzz-wordy.
I left an online commtariat once, myself. I hung out in the “community” of an obscure entertainment review site for years. The commenters made the place. They were funny, fiercely intelligent, entertaining and well-informed: attracted by the quality of the review writing. The place was the anti-TMZ.
Durning the latest round of rush-it-through gun legislation post NewTown, the “conversations” there got hijacked. Calumnies. Name calling. Ad homenim upon ad homenim. It was unpleasand and it wasn’t funny. These people were obnoxious *and* boring.
If you’ve been attacked like this, or seen others attacked like this I’d like to see the examples. I skim the comments. I don’t read every one. I may have missed something.
If you have seen “racism” and etc, likewise. I haven’t seen it, here.
If you simply disagree with some folks other POV on politics and government, well I’m less concerned. You could ask them why they think what they do.
Politically, that entertainment site place was very progressive / liberal even with a great number of advocates for and true believers in the current federal administration. Many of these were people taking the pledge to serve the then-new president in any way, just like in that video various entertainers made. But, you could have a conversation with them. “How will that work?” “Why does that help, and who?” And so on.
Then, with the gun control spasm we got invaded by the agenda mongers.
Eventually, I left , because one too many sliming attacks on people I grew up with finally tempted me to loose my cool. Understand, I was not one of the rural / hunting / outdoors-y natives there. I was an import, at most a very occasional varmet hunter. I don’t own a gun, and have not since departing the homestead.
I got tired of these people being called “bigoted”, “hate filled” and the rest. It just wasn’t so. (And they didn’t lile me much back in the day as kids.)
So, I get leaving if you feel insulted and misrepresented. If you don’t like being around people politely having different opinions, well, that seems a bit sensitive of you.
However, “Left / Right” isn’t terribly useful. It originated in who sat where in one of the iterations of the French legislative house. Hardly determinative, or even usefully descriptive. If you are leaving because of hate-filled rhetoric, I get that. People are too “right”, well, try to convince them.
Try the Pournelli Chart, the Nolan Chart or any of the other common coordinate systems for “placing” political & government preference:
So, here’s the thing. When we’re gonna slam through vaguely worded, but “comprehensive” federal legislation on the back of a massacre, that seems like populism, emotion vs. reason, authoritarianism vs. personal responsibility, and opportunism of the worst kind. Undertaken by a president who famously mocked citizens who bitterly cling to their guns (& religion), this will tend to dirty up that party a bit. Other policies and the world view behind them will be dirtied up a bit as well.
An axis I don’t see in the political charts is “responsibility.” It kind of reads in under economic freedom in some category schemes. Here’s the thing, for me: the fundamental perspective motivating positions on civilian gun ownership comes down to rsponsiblity. Who is responsible for, and capable of, taking care of you? I recall an article hereabouts quoting an educator saying he wouldn’t trust anybody he worked with, with the *responsibility* of carrying a firearm. Too much for the little darlings.
I think a position in favor of civilian gun ownership is inevitably goning to go along with thinking people are personally responsible for their lives. That’s going to put you at odds with whatever administration is in office, as they are all about doing things to – er, I mean “for” – you.
I don’t think you can escape the fundamental association between preferring civilian gun ownership and skepticism of government, both to protect and to serve. If you are tired of that “right wing” perspective, on a gun oriented site, I think you may be confused.
In all events, I would like to *have* a discussion with you about racism & etc. if instances show up here. That’s not OK with me, and I think contrary to the arguments for civilian gun ownership.
In any case, thank, you for speaking up,
Please pardon the length of this comment. I didn’t have time to make it shorter. (I have work things to do.)
I have not had time to read every post, so I apologize if this point has already been made. I think it is wrong to say that the articles in TTAG are right wing or left wing. They are scrupulously fair and balanced, even politically correct. It would be a calumny on this blog to call it racist—to the contrary, it stands up for the rights of all Americans to bear arms. Like every single publication I’ve ever read, the comments are generally more passionate and even extreme. So what? That’s what the first amendment is about. If I were going to get turned off by every comment I read in the New York Times or the The National Review, I would have to stop reading altogether. And I’d have to stop thinking altogether. I think TTAG has the balance right.
I am fairly conservative, and yet I believe that gun reviews, 2A issues, and self-defense issues should be kept seperate from broader political concerns. Politics at TTAG should be limited to gun-related issues. There ARE pro-2A liberals despite what several posters above claim, just like there are gay conservatives, athiest conservatives, and even some anti-2A conservatives (Krauthammer used to be one), and devout Christian liberals. When you bash liberals on this site, you are bashing a few pro-2A folks who don’t fit into your simple-minded box that ALL liberals are this or that.
Since you asked… Yes, sometimes.
When you’re using words like progressive or liberal in articles, especially in a derogatory fashion, you’re probably better off rephrasing it. Compelling and impartial debates don’t work when you say “Listen up, you worthless progressive.”
Be less political, I’d say. Stick to guns and truths about them.
I hate statists, and they come in both red and blue flavors. Thinking otherwise just shows your tribalism.
You can’t be liberal and pro second amendment. What you’re really saying is I would like to be pro second amendment but there are four or five issues that are way more important to me than gun rights. So the next thing out of your mouth is to identify some Republican who compromised on gun rights, so it isn’t all liberals’ fault. Liars.
You can’t be pro-gun and pro-abortion and be represented by our current political parties.
You really cant be pro gun and pro freedom under our current party system either.
That is true. What is unclear is why, given the choice, it is so much more important to vote for abortion rights than for gun rights.
Because the right to fully own and control one’s body is the most fundamental human right.
@int19h But if you don’t have the means to defend that right, it is null,void and it doesn’t value the paper is written on. The state owns you body.
And yet, even though we do have the purported means to defend those rights, now, today, how come no-one actually does use them for that purpose, despite our rights being routinely infringed by the state?
“…far right, neo con, bigotry…”
Hmmmm. Pot, Kettle?
You can be pro gun AND liberal. The idea that all voter issues are split perfectly in half with only two groups is a false concept.
The only way to change our path for the better is to educate and perauade those who oppose gun rights.
Schoolyard name calling only alienates moderates and our allies.
And, no, I’m not a republican, or a democrat. I’m a libertarian and my marriage (straight) and those of my LGBT friends and our gun safes are none of the government’s concern.
I’m not so sure that its the TTAG that is right wing. I think its more that the 2nd amendment has in recent memory been championed by the right. Therefore the people most of us 2nd amendment supporters get more than a little irritated at tend to come from the left. I think the main problem is the partisan politics that have forced politicians to choose sides. So whether consciously or not we who tend to lean towards the right might be more inclined to treat people who vote democrat as part of the problem. There is also the fact that the left has been after our guns in a bad way for the last 20+ years makes them an obvious source of irritation. So while we may not all disagree with some liberal policies they have been solidly anti gun for far too long for us to compromise anymore. That and its all to easy to fall in the trap of hating people just because they disagree with you.
tldr: Its easy to hate the left when they are the ones who want you disarmed.
The left has been after our guns as a political platform starting with the JFK assassination in 1963 but seriously after our guns since the RFK assassination in 1968. Yes, it’s mostly a liberal thing.
I’ve read the comments on this thread carefully. Those who say they’re liberal but defend gun rights probably aren’t all that liberal as it would have cost them liberal friends to take that position.
You’d be surprised. My wife is a hardcore liberal on pretty much everything; it took her some convincing on guns, but rational arguments won the day.
(Then again, I wasn’t arguing for the “any regulation at all is an infringement” position that’s popular hereabouts.)
Oh, and regarding party lines… gun control nor opposition to it was not really a staple of any particular party until late 70s or so. GCA was passed in 1968 by a vote that went all across party lines (House yea votes: D -124, R – 73; nay: D – 94, R – 72). Nixon, who was hardly a liberal, was notoriously anti-gun, and Reagan gave us FOPA (which, by the way, almost all Republicans in the House voted for, while Democrats were split in half).
The first gun control bill that I can think of that actually had a vote record that was clearly following the party lines was Brady Law.
Yes, I’d like it better without any gratuitous politics. I am pro liberty, but left the Libertarian movement as it has seemed more like a paid shill for the rich who don’t want any oversight of their activities.
I tend to see this as a wedge issue, like abortion, to drive a chunk of people into the arms of the monied class, and keep the people from acting in their own interested. I’d been hoping Obama would keep his mouth shut about guns, and just perhaps, the majority of the Demos would follow suit, and we could have one less hot button issue.
I’m not an NRA member, because they seem to be far too Republican, and too pro police.
So, if people do or say things that are about the second amendment, and individual ownership and use of firearms, by all means, call them out. But this site isn’t about politics broadly speaking.
I’ve been reading TTAG for some time. I don’t think you are either conservative or liberal. That is the wrong measuring stick. This site strikes me as something else: more libertarian. Freedom and the RTKBA are not the exclusive property of either conservatives or liberals. They are important because we are human.
With the far ground the Left is occupying today, might not everything to their immediate Right, appear Right-wing?
So no, TTAG is not too Right-wing, it’s that the liberal Left has become way too Left-wing.
Progressivism has been doing this for 400 years. That’s part of why older people tend to be more conservative.
(It works, too. Look at how Republicans defend Medicare!)
My grandparents (born ca. 100 years ago) were very liberal for their time. Both would have been baffled by the gay “marriage” movement, I think.
For the people that still think that democrats/liberals want to protect 2A, here’s a link to a recent poll. See what is the percent of Dems wanting to protect gun rights.
The editorial line on this site is very libertarian. Pro-gun, anti-cop, anti-drug war, anti-foreign intervention.
Libertarianism is actually just Progressivism that was caught in amber around the end of the 18th century.
So IMHO this site is too Progressive. It’s too enamored of the idea that The People should rule (how’s that vox populi, vox Dei thing working out for you?). It’s too individualist, anti-authority and anti-family for my own tastes. There are a couple of commenters here who seem to sniff some of the same glue that I do, which is nice.
The writing is good and the gun and gear reviews are top notch. Plus I was a libertarian for like 20 years, so I have a pretty high tolerance for late 18th century Progressivism, even if I do poke the bear sometimes.
And I can’t believe how many responses this article has drawn in response to a concern troll. Or that I added one.
I can understand how “anti-cop” translates to “anti-authority” (though IMO it oversimplifies the point being made), but where did you find any “anti-family” stuff here?
“We can argue about the morality of all this [radical transformation of the family] but why bother? The fact of the matter is that the blended family is ascendent. The nuclear family is not dead. It is, after all, a successful genetic strategy. But holding it up as the ultimate indeed best path for society is to ignore the fact – fact – that there are new, successful alternatives. And trumpeting it as “the way” alienates those who don’t fit the template.”
From the comments of: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/robert-farago/nras-nostalgia-is-what-it-used-to-be/
My contention is that if the family continues to disintegrate, we won’t enjoy many freedoms (including firearms freedoms) for much longer. If you’d like a case study of this, there’s probably a community within 100 miles of you where the family has been obliterated. You can go take a visit if you’d like a look at the future of the USA on our current track. I recommend visiting in daylight hours and tooled up.
It’s not a drum he beats often, but it’s part of TTAG’s (RF’s) editorial stance. We get lots of anti-cop articles and zero pro-family articles.
I wrote a response this morning that seems to have found its way to the memory hole. (Probably my fault.) I don’t want to re-write it, so check out this article and comment thread instead: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/robert-farago/nras-nostalgia-is-what-it-used-to-be/ You can search for my name to see my exchange with RF on the subject.
RF is anti-cop, so we get anti-cop articles. RF is not pro-family, so we get zero pro-family articles, except that many shooting activities are family-oriented, so some pro-family content on a gun blog is unavoidable. (That’s also part of why the Left hates the POTG.) That’s how editorial lines work: story choice, framing, etc.
And for the record, I’m not complaining; it’s RF’s blog. I’m just answering the question.
Re anti-family: Use the TTAG search to search for “nra’s nostalgia is what it used to be” and read the article of the same name. Then search for my comments and the exchange I had with RF on the topic. (I’d link to it, but I’ve had two responses get memory-holed and I think it might be because of the link.)
RF’s editorial stance is moderately anti-cop, so we get lots of anti-cop articles. He’s not pro-family, so we get zero pro-family articles. That’s how editorial biases work.
And to clarify, I’m not complaining: it’s his blog.
It’s an interesting exchange, but it pretty much just shows RF’s personal opinion on the matter, no? I’ve never seen actual anti-family rhetoric in the stories here (and indifference is not the same as anti).
@int19h: He doesn’t need anti-family rhetoric. He just doesn’t cover or run any stories having to do with restoring or strengthening traditional families, even though that’s critical for ensuring our freedoms for the next 100 years.
The Ministry of Truth (aka mainstream media) doesn’t have to publish anti-gun stories, they can just ignore pro-gun stories. It’s how all media adjust their coverage to fit their preferred narrative. If editors were interested in pushing a narrative of how lawful guns can be used for protection, then half of the stories in last month’s “Armed Citizen” in the American Rifleman would have been national news. Oh, but sorry, I forgot, those were just local crime stories of no general interest.
Yes. I really enjoy your technical reviews, the “facts about guns” section is a valuable short list to have on hand, and much of the gun/2A related editorial material is great, but I don’t come here to attend a Tea Party rally. I like being able to refer people to TTAG without a political disclaimer, and it’s a shame that I’m not able to do so wholeheartedly anymore. This is supposed to be The Truth About GUNS, not the gold standard, abortion, immigration, or what have you. Let’s argue glock vs 1911 or some silly thing like that; leave the non-gun hogwash for other sites. I think TTAG does a pretty good job in general, but every now and then there is an eyebrow-raiser out of left field.
Personally, I think a love and appreciation of firearms and the shooting sports is a great thing for anyone to have, and damn your politics. I’m a registered independent, identify as left-libertarian, and have voted libertarian, Republican, Democrat, and green-rainbow, sometimes all in the same election (well, 3/4). As gun owners, we’ll make a lot more progress by being inclusive and welcoming everyone who’ll join us to the table (or the range) so they can see for themselves that the hoplophobes are full of it. Guns aren’t just for OFWGs anymore, and that’s not a bad thing.
Left-libertarian (kinda geoist) here.
I’m Italian on blood and paper living in Brazil, and constitutional concealed and even open carry is much more than a dream or necessity in this hellhole.
I really think the focus should be on guns and people, and less in what parties any person is associated with.
The problem with most leftists is the same of the typical right winger, they expect government to provide solutions, to intervene even when there is no political consensus or the action will be only regulatory by lack of resources or practicality.
Oi Amarante, munito prazer! I am an American in Brasilia and living in the socialist utopian dream that is Brazil. This incident happened two days ago just a few blocks from my house in Lago Sul (the nicest and “safest” area in Brasilia) – translated – “Yesterday, there was a forced entry in QL 20 where the family was held while the house was robbed of electronics, jewelry and cash. The gang that conducted the robbery was four men and a woman all of whom were armed. The same group went on to rob a house in QI3 Lago Norte. Also, of note a military guard at the President’s country residence was held at gun point by three armed robbers and his shotgun was taken.”
So now I am forced to live behind a gated house with an array of locks, grilled windows, secruity doors and a house alarm serving as my best defense. If they come over teh wal, or through it whiel I am home, I have to hide behind a series of safehaven doors adn hope the panic alarm is responded to quickly. Which it isn’t because the average time in Brasila is somewhere around 15 mins. I know, I work in security down here.
That’s what voting liberal gets you – a paradise where only the criminals have guns. The courts are corrupt and the jails let out their felons for a few weeks every year for a furlough (no kidding, they actually let them out and expect them to return).
So think about that for a while when you self proclaimed 2A liberals go and vote for your lierl/democrat candidtates – this is the eventual result. The road to hell is almost always paved with good intentions. I can show you some favelas in Brazil that would truely be classified as “hell”. Ask those folks how gun control is working out for them.