Previous Post
Next Post

ABC News recently published an article that wasn’t inherently hostile to the Second Amendment, and most amazingly, to gun owners. And yes, that’s news. What’s the catch, you ask? The topic was liberal gun owners, and ABC took pains to point out that they are not members of the NRA. “Gun owner and Second Amendment advocate Marlene Hoeber isn’t your typical member of the National Rifle Association. In fact, she isn’t a member of the NRA at all.” . . .

The Oakland, Calif., laboratory equipment mechanic regularly visits firing ranges, where, along with other members of her gun club, she shoots a variety of weapons. ‘Guns are fun to play with,’ she says. She even makes her own ammunition.

She has no use, however, for the NRA’s conservative political agenda. By her own description, Hoeber is a feisty, liberal, transgender, tattooed, queer, activist feminist.

She belongs instead to another gun advocacy group entirely–The Liberal Gun Club–whose membership ranges, she says, ‘from socialists, to anarchists who can quote Marx, to Reagan Democrats.’

Its mission, she says, is to provide ‘a place for gun owners to talk to other owners about neat gun stuff, without having to hear how the president is a Muslim-usurper-socialist running a false-flag operation.

In truth, the NRA focuses entirely on Second Amendment-related issues. It supports politicians of both parties — and independents, too — who are faithful to the Second Amendment, regardless of their political positions on other issues. Got that, Marlene? The NRA does not take political positions on other issues. It never has. ABC News knows this, but continues to mislead:

Whereas the NRA has some 3 million members, according to Guidestar, and a budget of some $250 million, The Liberal Gun Club has 1,200 members nationally and a budget of $10,000, according to its head, Ed Gardner.

Although liberal gun owners are presumed not to exist, Gardner says they most certainly do.

By the most recent estimates, he says, about 40 percent of registered Democrats are gun owners (versus 60 percent of Republicans). He thinks 40 percent grossly understates the number of liberal owners. Reason: when some strange pollster calls an owner and asks, ‘Do you own a gun?’ many say no to protect their privacy, according to Gardner.

Where to begin? The NRA’s membership is now closer to 5 million and increasing daily. It has added more than a million members since President Obama was elected in 2008.

Who, precisely, presumes that liberal gun owners don’t exist? Certainly not the NRA and not most gun owners. In fact, conservatives — gun owners or not — often point to the hypocrisy of liberal/progressive politicians and others who labor ceaselessly to disarm the law-abiding while they are themselves surrounded by armed security or in possession of nearly impossible-to-get concealed carry licenses in places like New York City, Chicago or Los Angeles.

It’s also well known and well reported that gun owners — the majority of whom lean conservative/Republican — tend not to reveal their gun ownership to pollsters. Liberals might reasonably have an additional reason not to self-identify as gun owners: fellow liberals might disapprove.

Other gun owners, particularly conservatives, find gun ownership almost entirely reasonable and unremarkable, but ABC tries to suggest otherwise:

The Liberal Gun Club is not alone in catering to left-leaning gun advocates. Kindred institutions include the Blue Steel Democrat, Gun Loving Liberal, Pink Pistols and the online publication American Gun Culture Report.

On its website, Pink Pistols (slogan: ‘Pick On Someone Your Own Caliber’) urges ‘gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or polyamorous persons’ to take up arms legally.

‘We teach queers to shoot,’ says the site. ‘Then we teach others that we have done so. Armed queers don’t get bashed. We change the public perception of the sexual minorities, such that those who have in the past perceived them as safe targets for violence and hateful acts will realize that now [they are] armed and effective with those arms.

To this, the overwhelming majority of gun owners would likely say, “Uh, OK.” ABC’s representation of these particular gun owners seems to suggest that they believe that everyone else must fully accept all of their political/sexual leanings. If so, this is inherently irrational. No one likes everybody. No one has to like everybody or fully accept everything they do or believe. People often choose to associate based on common interests — such as gun ownership — but may never invite many of the people who share those interests to their homes. This too is entirely reasonable and unremarkable, though ABC labors to portray it otherwise.

The article lists a variety of apparently leftist gun-favoring groups, including anarchists(?), and asks:

“To what extent does the gun industry support any of these groups?

Hoeber of The Liberal Gun Club tells ABC News, ‘We haven’t heard a peep. We’d certainly be interested in support from the industry, if the industry was interested in being seen as supporting us. Whether we would take their money would be up to the membership. We’re not likely to turn anybody away.”

Says Ed Gardner about the gun industry, “It would be great to be recognized by them. We’re not your typical gun owners.” But, he says, apart from some outreach from makers of gun accessories, the industry hasn’t offered any support.

Again, most gun owners and organizations would reply, “Uh, OK.”  The gun industry doesn’t “support” individual gun owners or groups, generally not in print, and certainly not financially.  Manufacturers and trade groups focus their attention on legislation and legislators, understanding that in so doing, they are supporting the free market and the Second Amendment for everyone regardless of political leaning or sexual orientation.

“Hoeber says her own romance with guns began in childhood.

Growing up in Philadelphia, she says, she was 6 in 1976, during the Bicentennial. ‘The whole city was crawling with geeks in tri-corner hats and short pants explaining to small children how a flintlock worked. I was hooked.’

Living in San Francisco in her early 20s, she walked into a S.F. gun store and saw a reproduction of an old, black powder rifle. ‘I could buy that and take that home,’ she says she said to herself—and she did. ‘I’m a technical and mechanical person. Tinkering is a major element in my personal involvement with firearms.”

Again, so-called “conservative” gun owners would almost certainly reply, “good for her,” and would see her thinking as similar to their own.

“We asked if there is any distinction to be made between the kinds of guns a liberal likes and the kinds a far-right conservative might prefer.

Within the gun community, she says, conservatives have a stereotype about the kind of guns liberals like. ‘Conservatives assume, when they hear of our existence, that we’re all into fancy double-barreled shotguns and rifles with wooden stocks.’ That’s not the case, she says. ‘Our position is that scary black guns are very much okay. We do have members who think a limit on magazine capacity might be worthwhile. I personally don’t believe that that kind of restriction makes the world a safer place.”

I suspect Hoeber, if ABC is quoting her accurately, is reflecting what some conservatives might think about limousine liberals, the idle rich who wish to enjoy what they would deny to others. Most gun owners, however, probably have no real preconceptions about such thing — if they think about them at all. ABC is apparently hoping to get Hoeber to reflect their prejudices. Another example:

“Positions advocated by the Northern California Chapter of The Liberal Gun Club include:

‘Additional regulations on lawful gun owners are over-prescribed political placebos that fail to cure the underlying systemic societal problems that are the root causes of violence. Instead of window-dressing ‘solutions’ like so-called ‘assault weapons’ bans and magazine capacity restrictions, we support root cause mitigation for violence prevention: stronger mental health care, addressing poverty, homelessness and unemployment.”

Conservative gun owners can easily support most of this, however some would surely take exception to the idea that poverty, homelessness and unemployment cause violence. This would not, however, keep them from embracing fellow gun owners, or their support of the Second Amendment.

ABC’s piece appears to be another attempt, though maybe not as egregious as most, by the legacy media to turn supporters of the Second Amendment against each other. Gun owners aren’t a monolithic block of people who think, act and vote in lockstep. On the range, people care about safety first and foremost, then having fun. The number of tattoos, piercings,  Obama-Biden and Sierra Club bumper stickers people sport mean little.

I would hope that progressive gun owners would come to understand that the Second Amendment is the guarantor of all other liberties. As I would hope they recognize those who want to destroy the Second Amendment and what that would inevitably mean for the rights not only of various minorities, but for every American. If and when they do, they might find it harder to reconcile support for their Second Amendment with support for lefty politicians.

However, no doubt to the chagrin of ABC and the rest of the legacy media, conservative gun folk tend to be far more accepting and tolerant of firearms fans of all stripes than the media are willing to publicize. It’s their own stereotypes and preconceived notions that keep them from recognizing it.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The only support I get from the “industry” as a (semi-)plain old gunowner is assistance in emptying my wallet in their pockets. Nothing you’d not expect from any company.

    • Gun makers do buy advertising in the NRA’s rags and as such do provide some financial support. I have no doubt that if these Lib gun owners published some sort of magazine, the gun makers would also buy ad space if they thought it would move some guns. The gun makers are essentially mercenary and self-interested – which is what a for-profit corporation should be. They have their own lobbying group, the NSSF to serve and promote their interests. Gun owners have the NRA, GOA, SAF and others – while the NRA’s promotion of the shooting sports and 2A defense work does result in benefits to the gun makers, that’s like claiming that Michelle Obama’s health-promotion initiatives mean she is beholden to Big Vegitable.

      • “Gun makers do buy advertising in the NRA’s rags and as such do provide some financial support. ”

        What they get is an exchange of services. A transaction. That is not financial support anymore than you buying a loaf of bread at your store is financial support.

        There have been some small number of campaigns where gun makers have underwritten initial NRA membership to purchases of their firearms. But that isn’t a donation either since the buyer of the gun is getting a benefit of NRA membership.

        Overall looking at the top 100 membership based advocacy and civil rights groups in the US, what is astoundingly clear is NRA is by far the largest, most organic and most legitimately grass roots of any of them. It clearly has the highest ratio of funding from member dues of any such membership group, and by far. Greenpeace seems to get over 90% of their funding from corporate and institutional donations from companies that benefit, ACLU funding is mostly criminal trial lawyers industry. Even the NEA shows a minority of funding from member dues.

        As far as the guidestar of “three million,” that refers to mailings of rifleman. When you see the people quoiting it they are looking at the free version of guidestar, and extrapolating from only third class physical mailings of American rifleman . The other NRA newsletters/mags are smaller, but they aggregate to another 1 million. MotherJones in their claim of counted older third class mailings of rifleman last year and got about 2.5 million. Ironically given an average of 40% of association members opting for digital magazine subscriptions, Mother jones proved NRA was about 4 million members paid last year and 5.1 million paid members 12 months later.

  2. I was bored to death. Until:
    ““To what extent does the gun industry support any of these groups?”

    Okay. You recognize the benefit of the 2A, and I’m cool with your scene, sister. But you want THEM to support YOU, when YOU’RE not supporting THEM?

    I haven’t been an NRA member in a long while, but continued to send money, when I had some extra, to NRA-ILA, even when I’d let me NRA membership expire.

    Should I be outraged because the NRA won’t support MY little group, Anarchists for the Second Amendment Who Hate Fiction Books?

    What is that, Alice in Wonderland?

    • It’s also completely in line with the expectation that others are there to help you out, the idea of self-reliance is just weird. Almost as if the value of an organisation is measured by the support it gets of other organisations.

      • Even if the NRA does support the gun industry, so what? I support the gun industry. I buy their stuff. And if they didn’t make guns, I wouldn’t be able to buy them.

        Not directing this at anyone in particular – I just don’t see how that argument matters at all.

        • I know… what kind of person is surprised to find that the gun industry makes guns?

          I’m pretty confident the sewer cover industry is making sewer covers.

  3. Not once have I ever assumed the things I’m supposed to have assumed as a conservative.

    It’s great that there are pro gun folks on the other side. Harder for some to refuse to listen to them.

      • I wonder when you guys will understand that there’s a large gap between Marx and Jefferson which is filled with all kinds of interesting ideas. You don’t have to be on one side or the other, and most people aren’t.

        Oh, and Jefferson himself is an interesting dude, too. Did you know that he didn’t consider the right to property to be natural?

        • I don’t know if you’re being ironic or not, but it’s impossible to explain Jefferson’s position on property in two sentences, it’s very nuanced. Like most of man’s opinions on most things, really… that’s what makes his writings so interesting, he’s not rehashing trivialities and truisms but is actually elaborating a very detailed picture with many nuances, and he’s a very eloquent writer, so it’s quite a pleasure to read, regardless of whether you agree or not.

  4. Love em or hate em the NRA is the only organization big enough, rich enough, organized enough and has enough clout to protect the 2A and Gun owners from congress and gun/ rights grabbing presidents.

    She is enjoying her 2A rights because of the NRA.. I don’t think she gets that.

    • Something else that liberal/lefty/Dem/prog gun owners don’t “get”, is that their choices for elective office actually oppose legal gun ownership in many ways. Then, they get angry/defensive when other gun owners point out that they can own guns not BECAUSE of their political choices, but IN SPITE of them.

      I don’t care HOW many guns you happen to own, if you vote for anti-gun, pro-gun-control, pro-gun-so-called-“safety”, or pro-universal-background-check candidates, you aren’t pro-gun in my eyes. You are NOT part of the world of responsible, knowledgeable gun ownership; you are part of the problem, and until you acknowledge that and work to change it, you won’t be welcome in my circle of gunny friends/acquaintances.

      Same for you Fudds. If you’re so short-sighted you can’t see that restrictions on one type of firearm (not often used for hunting) can and will carry-over to other types, screw you.

      /rant off

      • A lot of them “get it” more than you think they do, but things such as abortion and gay rights might rank higher on their priorities list than 2A rights. I say that’s a foolish outlook myself, but I understand the logic.

        Maybe if the republican party would actually stand for what it used to, and actually work to implement a liberty-minded limited government, this dilemma would not exist; the democrat party would die a natural death, burdened by the weight of only those who wish to use the party as a means to political power or handouts.

        Until that time, these people will likely place the 2A at a lower priority, so long as a threat exists that their sexual preferences and private lives may be extremely suppressed or even outlawed by the religious wing of the republican party.

        FWIW, I vote almost exclusively republican/libertarian, but I recognize that this is a very serious problem for the GOP, and why libertarians need to rise up and take over the party.

        • So, it’s the Republicans’ fault that these folks vote for anti-gun Democrats over and over again.

          Got it.



          My point still stands, simple as it is. If you don’t vote pro-gun-rights every time, you are an enemy of gun-rights. Period. Use whatever rationalization you need to get to sleep at night.

          And if it doesn’t bother you, then you never WERE pro-gun-rights, really. Just fooling yourself, trying to have it both ways.

        • I don’t see how they choose to believe abortion is not taking a human life. It’s not a fish. It’s not a giraffe. It’s not an Aardvark. Women don’t give birth to fish, giraffes or aardvarks, to the best of my knowledge.

          They give birth (or not) to human beings. You can’t claim it’s anything else. If you do, you’re lying to yourself – the worst person you could lie to, and the person most often lied to.

          As a Buddhist, I am taught that human life is a precious gift, and rarely attained, in the scheme of things.

          At the same time, I do not see it as my place to prevent others from sullying their karma. That’s there choice, but I assure you, there is a heavy karmic debt to be paid for wantonly and unthinkingly ended a human life, without due reason.

          Self-defense? My teacher is very clear that if one does not protect one’s own life, that is a wanton disrespect for human life.
          When he taught that, I took great interest in the looks of shock and bewilderment among some of the sangha.

          Being a peaceful person does not extend to letting some ahole take your life; you have disrespected yours if you do!

        • “Got it.



          No you don’t.

          There are many 2A-loving, light-core “liberals” out there that might vote for a repub if the GOP would drop the religious policies influencing their fights against abortion and gay marriage.

          Some people don’t believe the 2A is their core priority, perhaps because before they consider themselves gun owners, they consider themselves gay, bisexual, etc. first, above all else.

          You and I would agree that this is backwards logic, but it is what it is. Some people think like that.

          I vote almost exclusively on 2A support these days, and I’ll overlook a lot of things I disagree with in order to vote a pro-2A candidate. Other people won’t, even if they own guns and like the 2A.

          Sorry, that’s just the way things are right now with our two-party system.

        • “Sorry, that’s just the way things are right now with our two-party system.”

          Which is exactly the nature of the problem.

          You imagine you’ve been given an actual choice, when nothing could be further from the truth. Crest vs. Gleem. Tide vs Cheer. It’s an illusion, cleverly crafted to make you think you’ve voted for one ideal above another. It’s a sucker’s game, and the sooner you realize it, the better. Stop being duped by the mere illusion of “freedom”. You’re as much a slave as any of us.

        • @Jeff….The Republican party has already abandoned the idea of fiscal conservationism in case you haven’t noticed the national debt and obligations. So you’re brilliant plan to help matters is to give the heave ho to the party faithful who might care more about life than to material things? Maybe next you’ll tell us how great an idea it would be to legalize 10 million illegal aliens so they can fetch our paper targets from down range so we don’t have to walk for ourselves.

        • “@Jeff….The Republican party has already abandoned the idea of fiscal conservationism in case you haven’t noticed the national debt and obligations.”

          Oh of course I’ve noticed. Don’t even get me started.

          “So you’re brilliant plan to help matters is to give the heave ho to the party faithful who might care more about life than to material things?”

          I’m merely suggesting that the GOP stop alienating non-religious conservatives.

          I don’t exaclty know how the gay rights issue fits into “more about life than non-material things,” but I do know that by and large the GOP is hostile to gays, while the democrats embrace them – even if the democrats’ embrace is really just a political trick to buy votes.

          The GOP as it SHOULD be would be one that doesn’t care what you do with your genitals.

          “Maybe next you’ll tell us how great an idea it would be to legalize 10 million illegal aliens so they can fetch our paper targets from down range so we don’t have to walk for ourselves.”

          Nope I actually believe those crossing the border illegally should be shot on sight.. Try again.

        • “I’m merely suggesting that the GOP stop alienating non-religious conservatives.”

          Which they would do if they were smart. Let’s see, what does that make them?

      • I wonder how many expressing such sentiments voted for Richard Nixon, Ronald Regan or either Bush? They also did grave damage to the cause. Shame.

      • Here,among logical illiterates you find the stench of bigotry, and the absence of critical though.

        Welcome to the comments section at ttag

    • It wouldn’t be, if people gave the same amount to other RKBA organizations. You’re applying the “bigger is better” argument, akin to the “more folks do this, so it’s the right thing to do” argument.

  5. life member of NRA, and former liberal. until I got out of grad school and started working for a living. and paying taxes. lots of them. and getting tired of excuses for crime. low achievement among my people. handouts and the welfare state. and really tired of being labelled a killer for having a handgun to protect my family. frankly, it was the liberals who literally pushed me to being a nra life member. thanks!

    • Good stuff Dirk. You have the sound of someone who awakened to the natural fact that ultimately you were responsible for you, and decided to make good on it.

    • same here Dirk. I’m a younger guy – just turned 30 this year. I used to think I was a liberal, though I unknowingly identified with many libertarian attitudes and outlooks, which I thought were actually “liberal” attitudes. consequently, I was fooled into voting for Democrats in several elections, and rather embarassed to admit it.

      the 2A was like a canary in the mine for me. when I slowly started to pick up on the fact that the supposedly freedom-loving liberals didn’t so much care for my favorite hobby, and in fact were beginning to make mild suggestions that I might be some sort of domestic terrorist simply for owning guns, I began to re-examine my political affiliations and beliefs.

      I also feel that Obama’s election – whom I initially supported and voted for, against all better judgement, which I at the time categorized as “Fox News propaganda” – really accelerated this process, as it seems that the progressives just abandoned all pretense in the last several years, and have made every move that they can to accelerate the implementation of their various ideals.

      the passage of ACA/Obamacare and the SCOTUS decision enforcing its mandatory signups, was a serious WTF moment for me. I believe that sealed the deal. the ramrodding and corruption was as plain as day, there was no way to ignore it. I still can’t see how anybody can.

      by about 2010, I had moved solidly over to the conservative/libertarian camp. I still don’t agree with the GOP and others on some things – especially religion – but I recognize the progressive/liberal movement now for the monster that it is.

      thanks Obama & friends!

    • Liberal (well, left libertarian, rather, but I doubt most people on the right would know the difference, or care). Used to be a member of the NRA, but not anymore – not since they’ve turned it into the appendage of Tea Party, and especially not since LaPierre opened his filthy mouth and publicly called for restrictions on the freedom of speech (that whole “violent video games and media” rant) in an attempt to redirect the post-Newtown witch hunt. I don’t want to be associated with people like that. My money now instead go to SAF and CCRKBA, because they are actually single-issue, not just pretending to be – and they don’t use “liberal” as a swear word in their letters to me.

      • What you refer to as the “Tea Party” is not the original Tea Party, which was formed by Ron Paul, but one formed by a sector of the Republican Party as a faux substitue, expressly to steal it from Ron Paul and the libertarian wing of the GOP. You really need to understand this. What you called the “Tea Party” was a co-opting of something good, by something vicious, mean and downright evil.

        • I’m well aware of that fact. And I am, in fact, generally sympathetic of Ron Paul (I disagree with a hell of a lot of his politics, but if he were to be president the only thing I’d care is his states rights issue). However, realistically, Tea Party today is what it is – the people who hijacked the brand were very successful in it. So when I refer to them, I speak about how things are, not about how they could have been in a better world.

        • When talking about modern realities, only as a footnote if that. It’s kind of like Stallman’s never-ending campaign to make everyone say GNU/Linux rather than Linux to recognize the (considerable early on, largely irrelevant today and for many years now) role of his organization in the movement. That ship has sailed, vae victis etc. Time to move on.

        • Co-opted by something evil and mean? Really? Ok, that means you truly don’t understand the Tea Party as a whole. Should a Tea Party in Southern Arizona have the same exact priorities and outlook as a Tea Party chapter in Northern New York? No of course not, it’s a big country with different local issues. The only thing that the Tea Party should have IN COMMON ON A NATIONAL LEVEL is a Constitutional Federal Government. Just because every Tea Party group doesn’t conform exactly to Ron Paul’s “vision” does not mean something evil is taking it over. Give me a break.

  6. Liberal gun owners….why yes. AKA stupid gun owners. AKA gun owners that rank the priority of owning/operating guns somewhere south of clipping their toenails.

    • You missed the entire point. I am a liberal. I am also a Benefactor Member of the NRA, Life Member of the 2nd Amendment Foundation, Member of Gun Owners of America, Member of and, oh yeah… a member of the ACLU. Last year I was interviewed on TV five times in support of the expanding gun rights in Georgia. My political leanings have ZERO to do with the extent of my support for gun rights. You, sir, are the problem.

        • No apology has been tendered. Your divisiveness does nothing but hurt our cause. Try reaching out to those like Marlene Hoeber who are our natural allies. Try to get past your bigotry for long enough to not cut your own throat.

        • @Braenen, oh now I’m a “BIGOT” because I don’t agree with a leftist/statist?? Really? As Spock would say; “Fascinating.” But, thanks for your apology anyway.

      • Right on! I am also a liberal gun-owner. I hate gun-grabbing, but don’t align politically with most of the people at my ranges. I have to sit those conversations out.

        • Good for you. You refused to be divided by their tactics. They’ll keep trying, though. One is forced to question their real motivations. One might be correct to question their actual loyalties. I know I do.

      • I think the point that El Mac is trying to make is that we can be happy that we agree on gun rights and fight for them alongside you. However, if all your other political beliefs cause you to vote for those same politicians who believe that citizens’ firearm freedoms should be progressively infringed, to the point of non-existence as they are in some locales already, your pro-2A feelings are not really helping the cause, and frankly, don’t make much sense.

      • @ Braenen: I submit, sir, that despite your seeming bona fides, your decision to continue to support Liberal/Progressive causes and politicians is directly at odds with your support of the Second Amendment and many other of our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights.

        You cannot support Satan Monday through Saturday and then claim sainthood for going to church every Sunday.

        • Except this is not devils and angels, this is politics. Sorry, but your republican party (or whomever) is a poor substitute for the forces of good.

          A democratic voter who cares about gun issues can help push better candidates. They’re more useful than a voter that decides to abandon gun rights altogether because they can’t pass some internet ‘purity test’.

        • Hannibal, I agree.
          I am happy to see liberal gun owners come to TTAG, and welcome all colors and preferences for that matter, too. We start with what we can agree on, and respectfully disagree on the rest.

          There’s no “litmus test” to become one of the People of the Gun.
          Welcome to the club, Ms Hoebner!

        • “There’s no “litmus test” to become one of the People of the Gun.”

          In reality, there IS one.

      • @Braenen Out of curiosity, how do you vote when it’s a choice between a pro-gun conservative candidate and an anti-gun liberal candidate? Either way you vote is some kind of betrayal.

      • So please tell me, how can a person consistently vote to put gun grabbers like Feinstein, Obama, Biden, etc, etc, etc in office and still support the 2nd Amendment rights of ordinary folks. I really would like to hear an explanation.

        • I’m sorry, I was looking for an explanation as to how someone can consistently vote to put gun-grabbers in national office ( ie in a position to grab guns nation-wide) and still purport to be 2A supporters. Your statement really does nothing to explain that. And the extra periods do not make up for the deficiency.

        • I think I know the answer, but I’m not sure you really wanted one. But here goes anyway:

          Because he’s not a single-issue voter. Not approving or disapproving, no shading or coloring, just giving you the answer I think is the right one.

      • No matter. El Mac thinks of you as something worthy of flushing. I have to wonder about some people here. Are they what they claim to be?

        • @William Burke, oh now you are putting words in my mouth eh? Cool. So, to use your master’s words: “Let me be clear”…. I do not believe anyone is worth flushing except of course for murderers, rapists, pedophiles and the like. But I do believe a political ideology that is leftist/statist/authoritarian/godvernmentist is definitely worth flushing. Yep.

      • @William Burke, oh no need to wonder who stupid is…a stupid one is one who claims to be a gun owner but votes for liberal politicians who vote to take away Constitutional rights. That is a pretty clear definition of stupid.

        • So you’ve found my voting record, huh? Only someone who works for Obama would have access to that!

          You closeted, liberal rat!

        • @William Burke, oh…no, no I don’t have access to your voting record. Well, I didn’t that is, until you opened your pie hole.

  7. Liberty is being infringed upon both sides. Republicans and Democrats both work hard to dismantle our freedoms, in clear violation of the Constitution, often building upon each other but it’s the second amendment which provides the teeth and claws to anyone demanding the Constitution be upheld. I am always skeptical about self-professed “liberal” gun owners; when they start seeking out NFA weapons and understanding that a year long wait and ridiculous local laws superceding federal ones is unacceptable I’ll maybe give them more credence. Poverty does not spawn crime though, other liberal talking points, rhetoric, delusions and agendas bother me like crazy, more so than the obsession with courting religion on the right.

  8. “To what extent does the gun industry support any of these groups?

    Um, they make guns for you…

    Transgender queer? What the heck does that mean?
    Isn’t that a double negative?

    • Not really. Most homosexuals do still identify with their gender (i.e. gay men still feel like men rather than women). So, someone who felt like the opposite gender of what they were born as, but post-op was attracted to people of the same sex. A bit unusual, to be sure. But it does make sense.

      And if anyone is confused, I use the words “gender” and “sex” interchangeably. I strongly disagree with the idea that sex is biological plumbing and gender is how you identify. Given that gender is, by definition, your biological sex, it’s not accurate to say that your gender is something else (note that I said gender, not gender identity). It would be like me arbitrarily deciding to identify myself as a blond, despite my clearly red hair.

      • “I strongly disagree with the idea that sex is biological plumbing and gender is how you identify.”

        Sex is biological.

        Gender isn’t so much “how you identify,” as it is the set of behaviors, attitudes, and socially established schema for each of the sexes. For example, the traditional male gender schema can be described with words like “tough,” “independent,” “emotionless,” and “responsible,” and by defining roles such as breadwinner, head of household, mighty hunter, etc. The traditional female gender schema is “gentle,” “nurturing,” “submissive,” etc. You get the idea. Gender is a set of ideas that a culture generally attributes to the sexes.

        True, some people choose to identify with a gender that does not correspond to their sex, but it’s incorrect to say that a biological man’s gender is female. Gender isn’t a characteristic that people have, and it’s not even a clearly defined thing in our culture (as more men do housework and raise children and more women join the workforce, traditional gender schemas are becoming more and more homogeneous).

        When a biological man decides “I’m a woman on the inside,” in all likelihood they feel they have a stronger affinity for the female gender, but this is not what they mean. Being a gender is impossible. I might as well try to be the Declaration of Independence or be the Scout Law. What they mean is that they are sexually a woman — that in some mystical way that defies the reality between their legs they really are a woman — and that their sexuality (which is physical) transcends their biology (which is physical). Gotta love progressive logic, right?

        • I have had two male friends go through sex changes.

          They did because … (William Burke) their brains were female, and they knew they were female people. They just wanted their bodies to match their insides.

          Both went through actual brain scans to confirm before they started their process.

          Incidentally one of them had been born with both types of genitalia and the parents, not she had made the decision which to remove. Great reason why baby genitalia and knives should never meet. Ever.

        • “brains were female”

          Once again, you confuse mind and brain. Male and female brains are not structurally distinct from one another, nor can a scientist look at a brain and know whether the owner was liberal or conservative.

          And something seems left out of this sentence, because it doesn’t make sense:

          “Incidentally one of them had been born with both types of genitalia and the parents, not she had made the decision which to remove”

          I think it’s a comma after “not she”, because it makes sense with the comma, but not without.

    • Everyone has to be a special snowflake.

      As long as they’re pro-gun I don’t care for the purposes of this topic…

      • I don’t care for the purposes of any topic. The definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” are so wildly dispersed it cannot even be explained, when you say you are one or the other you should explain what you mean.

        I consider myself a conservative because I think government is too big and powerful by about a factor of 5. Departments, agencies, bureaus, need to be FIRED, every person, and their files not just deleted but burned. The NSA comes to mind. OTOH, there are people who call themselves conservatives who plan to use any influence they can steal in order to command women to remain subservient to any man or congressman who wishes to run her life. These people feel authorized by an invisible space alien they like to call “god”, and believe in all manner of superstitious nonsense, as well as believing they can command my children to believe such nonsense.

        We need to stick to actual truths, skip the superstition, and reduce the size and cost of government. That, I believe, effectively encompasses both “liberal” and “conservative” positions. Guns are a given, how stupid can you be, “shall not be infringed” says it all.

    • No. Not the same thing. Now I will be accused of being transgendered and queer. For explaining something. Oh well.

  9. OK, let me ask this:

    How many “liberal” politicians who respect the Second Amendment have they gotten elected?

    What’s that? None? Hmmm. Yea, see, there’s a problem right there.

    There’s why they don’t get much, if any, support from “the gun industry.” Money flows towards results. A “gun group” that takes pains to enumerate the number of each particular flavor of non-heterosexual behavior within their group… probably isn’t working all that hard towards electing pro-RKBA politicians.

    I’m know there are gay & lesbian members of the NRA. I’ve met them.

    When I’ve met these people at a range, or in a gun shop, or a NRA benefit dinner, the issue of sexual preference (theirs or mine) never comes up. Guns and gun rights are the first topics of conversation. Recently, the issues of ammo prices and availability seem to be the first point of discussion, but again, sexuality isn’t on the list of topics.

    There’s a difference between gay/lesbian/transgendered activists who happen to own guns and gun owners/RKBA activists who happen to be gay/lesbian/transgendered. That’s what many liberals are missing here.

    • Wait, now, it was my understanding that Hairy Reed had an “A” rating from NRA, had to keep it or be summarily fired by NV.

    • What about all the Senate Democrats who voted against Obama’s nomination for Surgeon General because they’d have to answer for it back home? Tell me that doesn’t demonstrate that liberal gun owners have some clout?

      • @Julian, that just tells me its the political silly season where the choads in charge are running scared of their constituents for pushing crap like Obummercare, etc….and now they are trying to camoflage themselves. And so it goes.

        • When was the vote held? Last I knew, it was delayed. There are reports of as many as 10 democrats from conservative states who would likely vote no, but that is only out of fear of losing their seats, as in the case of Mark Begich, and that fat bastard from Arkansas, Mark Pryor.

      • That’s about self-preservation in a political campaign cycle where everyone realizes that they voted for a turd sandwich called “Obamacare” that is now having the bread rot off of it and it’s turning out to be just a turd slathered in rancid mayo.

        If the Obamacare fiasco were not already dragging the Democrats down, they’d probably have voted for the SG nominee, even if the vote was scored, and gotten away with it. As it is, the NRA shrewdly calculated that they could use the timing and prevailing conditions to take on this issue by simply announcing “We’re going to score this vote.”

        And, BTW, announcing that they’re scoring the vote is a “back at ya, Harry” side-swipe to Reid.

      • It’s not the liberals–gun owners or not–they are afraid of. It is the conservatives who for some reason continue to believe that there really is such a thing as a conservative Democrat at the national level. It is nothing more than their usual practice of fooling the “rubes” at home and then stabbing them in the back in Washington, until something comes up that is high-profile enough that they have to put on their act again.

  10. Not sure if I would shoot anywhere near someone with an Obama/Biden sticker on their car.
    Someone that deluded, stupid, ignorant, confused and misinformed would probably not know how to safely use a firearm. You see, His royal highness Obama hasn’t decreed the “Liberal rules for gun use” and no liberal can do anything without direct instructions from their savior and his nanny state.

    • I can forgive someone for having an 08 sticker, but a 12 sticker just makes me shake my head. Although Romney wasn’t much to vote for either but probably wouldn’t have flipped out in the rose garden.

        • We all lost.

          The young ‘uns who voted for him in ’12 are certainly starting to feel THEY lost, as they get pressured to subsidize older folks in yet another way, or pay a penalty. (I allude, of course, to Obamacare and its requirement that they buy very expensive health insurance plans they oftentimes don’t think they need.)

    • I don’t completely disagree, but black-and-white, political rhetoric like this is exactly the divisive crap that pushes liberal gun enthusiasts away.

  11. Liberalism is a sham. So many believe that their liberal ideals make them a liberal when they are actually stating Libertarian politi-points.

    I hold no qualms about my standings. I’m pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-marijuana, and anti-religion. People can do what they think is right for them, and as long as they don’t tell me I’m evil for not taking their side or shove it down my throat, I’m cool with it. But I am in no way a liberal. I side with Libertarians.

    Liberty and freedom isn’t progressive and it’s not conservative. It’s liberty and freedom, which takes no sides.

    • I fall in the same boat.The problem is the Libertarian party is kinda nuts. And also have no political clout. So it’s a toss-up between Democrats and Republicans, and I dislike the GOP, so I guess I’m stuck with the Democratic party.

      *sigh* two party system…

      • I had the same problem too, that my ideals align with libertarians, but I know that supporting the libertarian cause is just throwing your votes down the drain.

        Two words: tea party. At first I doubted them, because the think I hate most about the republican party is that it has the same stance on social issues that my great grandpa did. And I was afraid that the tea party was equally biased against gays and pot. But, after a little research, I learned that the tea party actually takes no stance on social issues. It is solely focused on smaller government, smaller taxes, and more accountability.

        Sure, a lot of tea party people are strongly against gays and all that. But you have to be the change that you want to see in the world. If you want a tea party with members who are more tolerant about social issues, then join it, and work for change from the inside. That’s how I see it. And the tea party actually has some clout in Washington. It has done more in the last 10 years than the Libertarian party has done in Ron Paul’s whole lifetime.

      • Again, here’s my point: they’re not really liberals. They’re only calling themselves that. They despise liberty. They’re despots. They should not be allowed to call themselves that; it’s deception of the first order.

        Stop referring to them as liberals, and challenge their authenticity and honesty on that point alone. Call them “tyranny-worshippers”, “boot-lickers”, anything. Just don’t call them “liberals”. Because they are NOT.

        Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. THEY were liberals.

        EXPOSE THE FRAUD by exposing THEM!

    • I WUV yew! You nailed my feelings. If it doesn’t affect me, then FREEDOM takes precedence. Why would I care about all the other arguments, if you cannot show me, for example, how one man marrying another man could possibly affect ME, or you for that matter. “Mind yo own damn bidness”, words to live by.

  12. I think this person is very confused about most conservative gun owners. Why do they think we spend so much time talking to the leftist non-gun owners, and trying to make them understand OUR positions on guns. I would have less problems with leftists if they didn’t attack the second amendment in EVERY PLACE THEY GET IN POWER!

    Leftist gun owners are our friends, but they can’t vote for anti-gun leftists. We know there are leftist gun owners. We refer to their blogs(I think TTAG has even done so on a few occasions). We point to them and say “SEE THIS is why YOU need to arm yourself.” We WANT the GLBTQ community to understand that the gun is a great equalizer. We want people of ALL persuasions(political or otherwise) to understand the benefits of having firearms. They don’t like the NRA because the NRA doesn’t support their interests? Maybe because they don’t feel that the other stuff is necessary for the second amendment. And how are you going to affect change without taking part in the process?

    UGH these “THE NRA Doesn’t love ME” types tick me off. “They don’t bend to my will, even though I have never been a member, and never gave them money.”

  13. A lot of the comments reinforce exactly why a separate group for those of us on the left side of the aisle exists.

    • Liberal gun owners….why yes. AKA stupid gun owners. AKA gun owners that rank the priority of owning/operating guns somewhere south of clipping their toenails.

      • El Mac, there is really no reason to be a jerk about it. This is one of those times where you should bite your tongue and be happy that not all liberals are full-on anti freedom types. I think you’re making some drastic assumptions about others’ political leanings. They stopped at “liberal”. They didn’t say they are statist authoritarian Obama worshippers who don’t care about the constitution. That’s an assumption.

        Hold your beliefs as tight as you will, but please don’t belittle and further alienate another group of gun owners/2A supporters. It’s the last thing we should be doing.

        • Boy, do I ever agree with that.

          What is the GD purpose of alienating people who agree with the Second Amendment, but may differ from you on other issues? Do you think others should agree with you 100% on all issues? That whittles away at our own support.

          Unless dividing happens to be your purpose.

        • I hear ya, Marcus, but doesn’t this strike you as another example of “do as I say, not as I do”? Voting liberal seeks to destroy gun rights in America, as His Majesty says, “PERIOD!” Saying “Oh, but I own guns! And vote liberal!” stinks of secret agreements such as existed during Reconstruction, where gun control measures were passed but enforced only on blacks. These people expect that new gun control will be enforced only on conservatives.

        • @Marcus, belittle them? Pointing out the truth is now “belittling”??? Sorry bro, I don’t play PC games. I’ve been done with that game for a long time now. A liberal voter that votes for liberal politicians ain’t no friend of the 2A, gun owners, or even the US as a whole. That is just the way it is.

    • No.

      Here’s the thing – The basic intent of the Second Amendment and its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is for the people to be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government and to defend the Constitutional Republic they had just created. Hunting and defense of self, family and community, while important, are just side benefits.

      Liberals and Progressives have shown over the last 100+ years that tyranny is their preferred form of government and our Constitutional Republic is anathema to them. They view the right to keep and bear arms as entirely related to the ability to protect themselves against other citizens who may have moral objections to their lifestyles, not as a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to oppose tyrannical take-over of our country. And they are further delusional in the belief that should the Liberal/Progressive political agenda actually succeed in destroying our Constitution and the freedoms it embodies that they will somehow, magically, retain their RKBA. As someone so eloquently put it: Unicorn farts.

  14. Ha ha ha ha (tears in eyes), can’t stop laughing. One messed up individual. A walking contradiction.

    • I really don’t see how superficially belittling someone who, for all intents and purposes, is more or less on our side helps our cause or our position. Who cares what he/she/it is or was at one time? She has a voice and a vote, and we have common ground.

      • Unless division is your intent. How is this unclear?

        When you make allies the enemy, you divide us, and risk us being conquered. Is this your actual intent? Because that’s undeniably the result.

  15. The idea that liberals own guns isnt terribly surprising. Dont you think Che Guevara owned some guns? I bet Lenin and Marx liked guns too. Guns are tools and tools are universally useful to everybody, especially to violent psychopaths attempting to subjugate the population. Theyre also very useful for people like us, who oppose aforementioned violent psychopath.

    • @MordacP, don’t forget Hitler – The Ultimate leftist/socialist/statist, and his use of guns is well documented.

      • I think the term you’re looking for is “fascist” – neither liberal or conservative as we define them today (though some argue he is more aligned to the far right….FAR, FAR right). He was the opposite of Lenin.

        • @PGT, no…I got it quite right. A fascist yes, the ULTIMATE statist/godvernmentalist/leftist. And yes, that be Hitler……..and the Nazis…. National Socialist German Worker”s Party. Did you get that? SOCIALIST.

        • I strongly suggest you read “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg (Available from Amazon). He argues convincingly that modern liberalism is just “fascism with a smiley face.”

      • He also favored the Garand. From his book, Guerrilla Warfare: “The arms preferable for this type of warfare are long-range weapons requiring small expenditure of bullets, supported by a group of automatic or semi-automatic arms. Of the rifles and machine guns that exist in the markets of the United States, one of the best is the M-1 rifle, called the Garand.”

        • By that quote he’s only saying it’s one of the weapons of the type he is talking about; he highlights it because it happens (or happened) to be the most common in the United States. I suspect he’d have found an FAL or G3/HK-91 clone equally suitable albeit uncommon in the US.

          No way to know what he’d think of the M-16/M4/AR-15 (unless you have another quote from him) but I suspect he’d take a .308 over .223 any day.

    • Che, Marx and Lenin were about as far from being “liberals” as it gets, for cryin’ out loud. They were REVOLUTIONARIES. Some of us are revolutionaries as well, but the sort of revolution sought is diametrically opposed to theirs.

      You are engaging in two-dimensional thinking. Free your mind. A captive mind is already wasted.

      • I use the word liberal with the contemporary definition, which is confusing, i know.
        I suppose i should have used the word “statist” which represents anybody who doesnt believe in personal liberty, except their own of course.
        It is possible to have a statist on the left or right, but darned if they dont always seem to come from the left. Private property rights just dont jive with tyrants. If you believe in collectivization of you have the word “socialist” in your party name then you’re on the left.

        • So… the Nazis, who had “Socialist” in their name, were on the left? LaRouche has used the word “socialist”, but he’s clearly anything but.

        • @William Burke, yep…the Nazis were on the left. They were clearly socialists who placed the godvernment/state over everything else. That’s what leftists/socialists/Marxists/statists/totalitarians do.

        • @William Burke, I’ve explained, the Nazis/Communists are totalitarians. Kissing cousins.

        • @int19h, they were totalitarians/statists just like socialists. In that regard, they are identical.

        • Not exactly. I don’t know why I’m telling this to someone who won’t distinguish between political realities. But here goes:

          So-called liberal statists want the state to control corporations.
          Fascists want corporations to control the state. Mussolini’s own definition of fascism: “the union of corporations and the state”.

        • @William Burke, well…I wasn’t speaking about Il Duce. But if you want to interject, cool. So let me help you. It is about CONTROL. I don’t care if you want to couch it in godvernment control or corpornazi control, I really don’t care what label you put on it…use your favorite, that’s fine with me. The bottom line is, it is still CONTROL. And that is a totalitarian trait. In the spectrum of ideology, when you go full ‘tard to the left, you have total control over every facet of life. When you go full ‘tard to the right, you have complete anarchy and no control.

        • There is a very big difference between what Mussolini meant by “corporations”, and what we do today. His “corporations” were more like guilds, state-run representative bodies of various trades – not private companies.

        • Fascism under Mussolini, among historians, is virtually universally regard as extremely rightist, with a smattering of leftist views tossed in here and there.

          They opposed and despised traditional conservatism, communism, socialism, and liberal democratic ideals (the latter making them diametrically opposed to communists, who at least espoused democratic ideas… though that’s always been a deception.

          As for your “guilds” theory about industry, I hardly know how to respond. It seems your opinion that Mussolini’s Italy could do little more than make pencil leads and whittle grandfather clocks.

        • I’m not arguing with you that Mussolini’s fascism is a firmly right wing movement. I was simply correcting the extremely widespread myth that fascism had anything to do with corporations in our modern meaning of the word. And it’s not a theory, it’s spelled out in the Doctrine of Fascism and other writings on the subject. In particular, the word “corporazioni” in Italian had historically meant “guilds”. A quote from the doctrine:

          “It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!… I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism (sindacalismo).”

          Basically, back in that time period, the word “corporation” still largely retained its old meaning that is of the same root as “corporatism”, as in the Catholic Church doctrine. In early 20th century, it was often proposed as an alternative to socialism to resolve the obviously strained class tensions. Go and take a look at Wikipedia article on Corporatism, it lays it out quite nicely. Specifically:

          “Corporatism (or corporativism) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests”.

          I have no idea what made you conclude that I believe that “Mussolini’s Italy could do little more than make pencil leads and whittle grandfather clocks”. His notion of guilds/corporations had only the most basic idea in common with the medieval guilds of old, that of grouping by profession / economic sector. It does not necessarily imply inefficiency. It did not replace private enterprise, either, merely organized it for easier state control.

        • Generally, the definition of “guild” I’m finding regards this, (for instance, “association of artisans or merchants who control the practice of their craft in a particular town.”

          Which is an entirely separate thing from a corporation.

        • Well, the core idea of guilds was that they were organized by trade. But yes, medieval guilds were far more limited in geographic scope. What fascists proposed, at least on paper, is to organize by trade in the scale of the entire country. So kinda like trade unions even, except there’s only one per field, with no alternatives allowed. And not just by trade (though that was the most common factor), but generally by various aspects that would imply some special interests. For example, various churches, or ethnic minorities. The state would then serve as an arbiter where conflict of interest between those “corporations” arises, and orchestrate their interactions in the interest of the fascist state as a whole.

  16. Is there really a standing argument about whether or not poverty, homelessness, and unemployment are driving factors of crime?

    • You mean other than the fact that the homeless are not a significant crime factor? Show me some data that the homeless are prone to crime.

      Unless you believe homelessness IS a crime, I mean.

      • I would say homelessness is a symptom of a crumbling and “unjust” society. or you know petty theft, drug use, or the three murdered homeless people in my town last week.

        rather than scream about who’s right (or left) i’m just gonna back out of this thread and avoid reading (more) comments after comments about me sucking for my slightly esoteric and middle of the see saw voting pattern.

        (oops second part should have been a separate post)

        • You in ABQ? Stand your ground, man! These people “profess” to believe in that. huh.

  17. There’s something off about these so-called “liberal” gun owners. They claim to like guns but their hatred of the NRA is so skewed by their own liberal orthodoxy that they can’t see that the NRA is their ally.

    Hoeber says she’s queer, but ignores that fact that the Pink Pistols and the NRA collaborate effectively. The PP can’t become an NRA affiliate only because of the PP’s election procedures. In fact, some PP members think that the NRA isn’t radical enough.

    Then, the same liberals consistently vote for the very people who would disarm them, and they see no cognitive dissonance in that. Very strange people. I trust them less than I trust Fudds.

    • This, and I’d like to add that we’re arguing and arguing over nuances of the political spectrum, but if we continue the way we are, we won’t have this luxury forever. Politically, it’ll all boil down to Freedom vs. Subjection. Liberal/Democrat gun owners are voting for Subjection.

  18. Heh. Article trying to argue why this doesn’t need to be a thing… comments section full of proof that this needs to be a thing. You’re not going to start seeing real pro-gun Democrats in office until the Democrats in office start seeing how many of their supporters own guns.

    • Those pro gun dems are just more puppets to pretend to shoot a bolt action rifle and then vote on some gun control packages. Until the Democratic party comes out that it wants to completely dismantle the 2A entirely, you will see “pro gun” democrats. I think both parties are the problem and until we have some solidarity and say fuck it, Im a one issue voter, labels can FOAD.

    • Very interesting point. How do you make them see what they refuse to see? Talk about your “inconvenient truths”!

      We’re not at the “kicking and screaming” phase yet, but that would be a significant step forward.

      Keep poking the bear, and let’s see what might happen.

  19. I don’t have a problem with this lass. Hell, she even sticks up for black scary rifles. If anything, the reporter on the story made too much of it, but it’s an assignment from some pesky editor. You do whatchoo gotta do.

  20. She reminds of a job applicant that once answered an ad for a friendly, outgoing, customer support position. She listed her experience as a tow truck driver and guard at a high security federal prison. I have a hiring rule: Never hire a woman for a customer service position that knows how to incapacitate you with a choke hold.

  21. A few points I take umbrage with in this ‘rebuttal’:

    1) To those who say that one should vote based solely on gun rights because they protect the other rights of minorities — have you examined your cognitive dissonance lately? How welcoming has conservatism been to gay rights? How about to the rights of the transgender community? To immigrants (legal or otherwise)?

    Are you saying someone should vote AGAINST the very rights they would fight for, solely on the basis of politician’s stance on firearms? That sounds like a recipe for a self-sufficient prophecy of violent uprising.

    2) Don’t assume that the entire body of the LGC votes in a democratic block, or even that there aren’t members of the NRA. There are some who choose to support the NRA, some who vote differently – it’s a diverse crowd that resists being pigeonholed, just as your readers should not be pigeonholed.

    3) A large number of the members of the LGC are completely against the NFA and similar. Don’t presume the ideology is watered down. There are also those who think regulation can exist without becoming a slippery slope – we don’t run people out on rails – there’s room for debate.

    4) Don’t presume that the LGC is any happier or supportive of certain politicians that are the caricature of liberal politics – I can’t think of a single member who supports Diane Feinstein, and not just because of the gun issue. However, the only way that a democrat controlled state like CA is going to become more pro-gun is if more democrats become pro-gun. Sorry, but conservatives aren’t winning that one back.

    It just demonstrates how disingenuous a particular block of conservative gun owners are when they pretend they want people of all backgrounds to support gun rights, and then react with such vitriol to getting exactly that support.

    Isn’t it best for everyone if there is support from every part of the political spectrum? Isn’t that how we win?!

    Please – if you see any sense at all in building a community – support these efforts wherever you find them. And come by some time and say ‘Hi’ – We’d be happy to have a civil debate.

    • Gay Rights? What, they can’t vote? They can’t own property? Or do you mean they have to be treated as special and precious? Sorry, All Animals Are Equal. Stay in cloud cuckoo land where each little taxonomy tries to top one another in their contest of But Some Are More Equal Than Others.

    • Dick Cheney was for gay marriage before Barack Obama was.

      I know it’s totally H8Tr to hold the same view on gay marriage as Obama held (pretended to hold) 3 years ago.

      FWIW, I’m pretty meh on the topic – I don’t think it will have 1/10 the impact on marriage that No Fault Divorce did.

    • Sorry, Fiddler, you can stop right after your point #1. If they aren’t voting pro-gun-rights every time, they are, by definition, voting anti-gun-rights, and that makes them the enemy of pro-gun-rights folks everywhere. Democratic fence-sitters on this issue, with VERY few exceptions, will still toe the line when the Dem leadership commands them to.

      The only possible “compromise” for these supposed pro-gun-rights lefty/lib/Dem/progs would be to sit-out (not vote) any election where they couldn’t find a pro-gun-rights candidate that supported their other views as well. This isn’t all that big a deal; many folks do it quite regularly when they can’t find a politician that agrees with more than one or two of their non-gun-related attitudes, but if you ask them to do it based on gun rights, they act like you’re absolutely crazy.

      Until these folks support gun rights with their votes, EVERY TIME, they are the enemy of gun rights, and will be treated as such by those of us who understand what kind of damage they can, and have, caused to our rights and freedoms.

    • Mostly agree. Except “There are also those who think regulation can exist without becoming a slippery slope”.

      When has that slippery slope ever propelled anyone upwards, into less tyranny? Please cite an example.

      At least can we agree that tyranny is downwards, while freedom from irrational restriction is upwards?

      • It looks as if Fiddler doesn’t necessarily agree with the stated position. It’s being contrasted with those, also in that group, who think the NFA is a crock. Fiddler is simply trying to point out that there are various intensities of “pro gun” in this group.

  22. Actually, I think it would be pretty safe to say that most of us “conservative” gun owners agree that poverty and joblessness do help to contribute to the rate of violent crime.

    Not so sure about homelessness, though.

    • I’m pretty confident homelessness is not a significant crime vector. You will find a few who are violent, but by and large, they are a pretty meek lot.

      Unless you think stealing toilet paper is a real “crime” that needs to be addressed. Honestly, I’ve done it myself, because I needed to.

      Not recently, though.

  23. Liberals feel ostracized as gun owners, I can understand that, because they kind of are…

    However, the left does comprise the bulk of the poo pooing on the 2nd A. There are right learning folks doing some of the poo pooing, no doubt, but there is no arguing that the left holds the lion’s share.

    So, if liberal gun owners feel ostracized within the gun community and want to change things. They should not focus on right leaning gun owner holding a grudge, but on the left learning gun haters. They are the ones giving liberal gun owners a bad name.

    Just my 2 cents as an independent looking at both sides from the middle.

  24. Schizophrenia. Supporting those who wish to enslave you & deny your 2nd amendment rights. All the benefits-none of the responsibility. From an evil old white man married to a beautiful black woman. Who GETS IT.

  25. Sigh… the comments here demonstrate exactly why the LGC needs to exist. And why we left-of-center gun owners need to represent.

    • No, you need to call you local lefty politicians and tell them that if they don’t stop attacking the 2A you will stay home on election day and withhold all donations. And then get lots of your friends to do the same.

      Then the larger firearms community won’t lump you in with “Turkeys in favor of Thanksgiving”.

      • You mistakenly assume that politicians listen to their electorate as much as they listen to lobbyists bearing gifts. They do not; only voting them out of office does, and it happens all too infrequently.

        This system is corrupt and rotten to its very core, and voting only has not proved that it can change it.

        Most of them are blackmailed out the wazoo, and the system of voting has not proven to be up to the challenge of changing things.

        Things will have to get a LOT worse before it can possibly get better. I say that sadly. Most people are asleep until the water starts boiling.

        Do I believe it can change? I do. But mere voting has not proved to be able to change anything. To think it will is to believe we can do the same thing over and over again, and expect a different result.

        Einstein defined that mode of thought as insanity. Let’s stop being insane!

      • :::laughing::: Actually I live in a red state where the Democrats tend to be pro-2A. And where the Democrats are vastly outnumbered by Republicans. I can call my local Dem politicians all day, and they can agree with me all day, but I — and they — have absolutely no control over the Feinsteins and Malloys and Cuomos of the world.

        At least I can refuse to donate on ActBlue to anti-2A politicians, and I can direct my money toward pro-2A politicians.

        • Tagging any donations as pro-gun-rights is probably the best thing a person can do to get a pol’s attention on this issue, and I thank you for your support. I also send a “Sorry I can’t support you because…” note when I think they are on the wrong side of a gun issue.

          I also have a Democratic senator representing my red state, and she has (so far) done very well when gun-rights issues have come up for a vote. But I do worry that if there was ever a full-court press on something like an assault weapon ban re-authorization, she might find herself in an untenable position within the Dem party, and would fold if intense pressure was brought to bear. Hopefully I’ll never see her be tested in this way.

  26. That m1 carbine. Does it not have a bayonet lug and are the rear sight a peep with no protecting wings? Is it possible that’s an original as issued ww2 model before the post war mods?

    Or am I reading too much into it?

    • You, sir, are correct.

      As a side note, those of you who have surmised that this article seeks to play up the idea of animosity towards other gun owners, as a means to create controversy to generate page views are correct.

    • Yes, it appears to be a 1943 or earlier version with a short/long range flip rear sight, narrow hand guard band w/o bayonette lug, sporting a 15 round mag. You cannot be sure though until examining for key markings, serial number, inspectors cartouche and individual part consistencies to determine if it is a complete unaltered original or a remanufactured carbine using USGI new or used parts.

  27. Actually, as a left leaning gun supporter, I’m usually slightly annoyed at back-handed Obamacare/welfare/tax-what-have-you comments that just tend to crop up as tangents because of the political leanings of the gun crowd.

  28. My question to gun loving liberals: What are YOU doing to change your politicians’ minds about grabbing your (and therefore, my) guns?

    • Now THIS! THIS was an excellent question, which is sort of an extraordinary thing…

      How about it, so-called “liberals”?

    • This is one hell of a good question!

      It also makes another point – a conservative can howl at anti-gun politicians until he collapses from exhaustion with no effect. They know you weren’t going to vote for them anyhow, so by ignoring you, they lose nothing. Only liberal gun owners can impact the Democratic party from the inside.

      Myself, I’m relatively liberal but registered as an independent. It’s a tactical error though. I should register as a D just so I can influence their primaries and tell people who call me begging for my vote for some pro-control moron to go suck it.

      • Write to your representative whenever any gun control legislation comes up. Make sure to clearly position yourself as a liberal (or libertarian etc), while also expressing your dissatisfaction with that particular brand of legislation.

        Openly support liberal gun rights organizations, like the Liberal Gun Club. Make sure to note that when communicating with your representative.

        In the primaries, make this the single issue to the extent possible (i.e. when no other issues of importance to you personally are at stake). In states where Democrats have no real chance to get to power, make it your single issue in primaries regardless of anything else. The guy may not be elected there but he’ll get more clout inside the party.

        When communicating with NRA, GOA and other similar right-wing organizations, clearly indicate that you’re 1) pro-gun, and 2) liberal. If enough of us do that, they might start actually paying attention instead of pretending that pro-gun is strictly a conservative club.

        Use any public venue available to unobtrusively express your opinion so that “40% of Democrats are gun owners” stops being just a statistic on the paper that everyone glosses over. Buy a LGC sticker and put it on your car, for example.

        Most of all, engage in any gun control discussions, especially the “insider” ones (where anti-gun liberals are preaching to the choir), injecting some sanity and facts. You are in a unique position to actually being listened to if you can truthfully start with “I am a liberal, but …”. Use other left-wing issues as hooks, especially since many of them are actually relevant to the entire gun safety debate: explain that “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” are not the problem, but rampant crime and poverty is, and the former stems from the latter – so liberals should focus on economic issues because that’s the most efficient form of “gun control”.

        • Gun control has always been and will always be the deciding issue for me. When that’s on the table, I am a single issue voter.

          Hate to say it, but anymore I’m getting the attitude that a man’s got to look out for his own.

    • Agreed. “SHALL NOT be infringed”. I don’t know what the dictionary says about “shall not”, but the meaning is utterly devoid of ambiguity, or “what is is”.

  29. Blah. This ABC story is just weird. Liberal gun owners do exist; I am one. (But screw Karl Marx.)

    I’ve taught “queers” to shoot because I’ve taught *people* to shoot. Big surprise there. I’ve also taught people who like lobster to shoot. I personally can’t stand shellfish…

    I have never heard the NRA take an issue on gay rights or gender issues or medical coverage.

    Sounds like a sensationalist weirdo story to me, and doing more damage than good. More polarization, huzzah.

    • “I have never heard the NRA take an issue on gay rights or gender issues or medical coverage. ”

      Wonderful. Just superb. Beware of divide and conquer tactics. They’re meant to DIVIDE. And CONQUER.

      • Am I missing something, where the NRA and these things are somehow broadcast? I may just be blissfully unaware of the NRA’s non-gun conservative endorsements.

        I just don’t see where any of these issues come in with gun rights, except that there happens to be a correlation with those who believe one or the other. Of course that isn’t ironclad. The notion that there are “only two sides and its 100% or 0%” is absolutely ridiculous.

        The only problem I have with the NRA right now is that they sat on their hands during the Colorado legislation fight when it was being passed. Now even after 3 recalls, we’re probably not going to be able to undo them, and have to depend on RMGO, aka Give Dudley Money So He Can Ask More People For Money.

        • It seems we agree on this. I’m not sure if you thought to the contrary, but I didn’t.

  30. Hmmm, let us see; most conservatives don’t want to acknowledge gay marriage but most will support your right to carry a gun to protect yourself from a gay hater trying to hurt or kill you.

    Then you have a liberal that supports you in having gay marriage but denies you the right to carry a weapon that will protect you from a gay hater trying to hurt or kill you.

    So which one should you vote for?

    • Which one? What was the other option?

      Yet more proof voting is a fraud, because real options are never on the table.

      • unfortunately I think this is the real problem. It’s all politicians’ personal journeys for self enrichment dressed up in a thin veneer of issues that they think will garner the most support.

        Netflix “House of Cards” is not as fictive as people may think.

      • Yeah; I agree. I vote third party, the choice between Republicrat or Demopublican on the national level is no real choice. Locally; there can be a real choice; vote local.

        • Vote local and ACT LOCAL. More of these crap laws are happening at the state level right now anyways. It’s almost as if the antis have shifted their focus from federal to state. (wonder of wonders.)

        • I like that. I’ve compared it to having to choose between being burned at the stake, or drawn and quartered.

        • What is your favorite illness?

          (Personally I am fond of nymphomania, but your mileage may vary.)

  31. The most pro-gun politician in an election tends to be the R. So, if someone has a choice between gun rights and vaginal rights (or my rights to marry whom I want), which to choose? Politician A offers liberal penis rights, (so long as the adult is consenting) but wants to restrict my gun rights. Politician B says I am free with my guns but wants to restrict my penis. Who do I vote for, penis rights or gun rights? The NRA gets a reputation as a teahadist organization mainly because most of the strong gun rights supporters are R. Guilt by association. Does not help either that pro-gun Dems turn out to be hypocrites.

    A lot of the comments reinforce precisely why liberal gun groups exist: No, I do not “rank the priority of owning/operating guns somewhere south of clipping their toenails.” But if its a choice between reproductive rights and gun rights, many people chose Mickey Mouse. No, I am not voting for a rape-does -not-make-you-pregnant R.

    And no, when I go to the range I do not want to hear how they are letting the “gays marry.” Trouble is, the most aggressive loudmouth annoying people at the range are the teahadists. The only time I flinch is when they walk over to tell me if I’ve heard of Bengazi. I DONT CARE.

    • What was the last law passed that restricted “penis rights?”

      Don’t say gay marriage, because that’s a civil issue wrapped around benefits and social acceptance and normalization, etc. And even on that issue, what anti-gay marriage law renders those that break it felons?

      Really…what was the last law passed that criminalized what you could do with your penis with another consenting adult?

      It sure is not the problem that anti-gun legislation is, where people are fiat felons for not signing a piece of paper and mailing it in on the prescribed day.

      As such, I guess I’m struggling a little bit with the notion of having to choose my vote based on “penis rights” vs “gun rights.”

        • And I did not. I voted for someone else. Give me false choices, and I will find some out of that game.

        • Okay, fair enough. You’ve named one.

          Now, how many anti-gun bills are proposed nationwide each year?

          I’m sorry; I’m not trying to marginalize this sort of thing, but I think that if we are going to be fair in ANY discussion on this topic, we have to acknowledge that the attack on 2A rights is far more aggressive (with more immediate and long term consequences) than real legislation limiting “penis rights.”

          Another way to ask the question: If that VA law had passed, would it stand to create the problems that we are potentially looking at in CT, as an example?

          One other point, that I think has been made before…there are a LOT of rights that stem from the 2A. I think if we were forced to prioritize those, 2A related rights would have to be among the most important. Right?

          Could it be argued that if 2A were gone or severely crippled that gay rights or other expressions of personal freedom would have probably zero chance of existing at all?

          I’m asking honest questions here, not trying to provocative.

        • JR, most of the real legislative action comes at the state level. “Penis” rights is one example of reproductive rights in general, then there is voting rights, marriage rights, privacy rights, green rights, the right to work, and so on. Don’t marginalize peoples rights. Few people are single issue voters and people put different weights on different things. As encompassed by: “I support gun rights so gay married couples can defend their marijuana plants.” 99% of the time voters have to choose the lesser of two evils.

        • As I said, I’m definitely NOT trying to marginalize anything.

          But you hit the heart of the question: What *IS* the lesser of two evils?

          My point is that 2A is fundamental, and a lot of these other rights sit upon that foundation. If we look to cultures that have managed civilian disarmament, what’s the track record for gay rights and others?

          The idea that you can have any kind of personal, individual freedom without the capability to maintain freedom from tyranny is, I fear, a utopist pipe dream. But that’s my own point of view.

      • I hear what you are saying, but often voting for candidate C (or not voting) means candidate A wins. So, its not a real choice.

  32. If the mobile replies worked , I’d agree with bobby above.

    Not all of us who do have different opinions than you on sexual orientation, gender issues or medical care do vote automatically ” for the D. “. That’s a presumption and it’s incorrect.

    I certainly didn’t vote for Morse or Hudak or Giron out here in CO, but I sure did work to get them un-voted-for.

  33. Who gives a crap about someone’s personal views on abortion or climate change? Aren’t we talking about guns? And why is it assumed that all socially liberal gun owners voted for Obama? Maybe they didn’t vote and volunteered much of their free time in support of gun rights and shooting sports. Do you still have a problem with them? I wouldn’t cast that stone. I would just say thanks and glad to have you on our side.

    • ^^^ this. And yes, a lot of people probably do. (have a problem with them.) But then plenty on the liberal side probably have a problem with me simply because I’m a gun owner, and couldn’t fathom why I’d agree with them on most issues except daily hope that Dianne Feinstein vanishes in a puff of logic, so, it takes two, I guess. Sucks a plenty.

    • I thought Obama was a slightly better candidate than Romney. You at least knew what Obama was and that he’d go for more gun control the second the election was over… Romney changed his mind every twelve seconds. Who knows what that guy stands for? Except gun control – he stood for that while he was governor of Massachusetts. So like someone else once told me, you had the choice between voting for a candidate who wanted to pass strict gun control and one who already had.

      I didn’t vote for either of them.
      They were both horrendous threats to our Second Amendment rights, and to many other rights as well. I’m tired of playing the “lesser of two evils” game and I’m tired of having to choose one right over another, or my rights over someone else’s rights.
      I won’t be throwing my vote away ever again.

  34. The only liberal gun owners I know are the gun runners. They are on Fox news. I do know liberals many and guess what none and I mean none are gun owners, so how come? I really don’t care if they own our not, but beware of sheep clothing, as for me I just don’t trust what they say or do, what it is, is what it is! Be safe out there and watch your backside.

    • Maybe? But the side effect is better than nothing at all. Of course the NRA isn’t ideal. All political organizations have ulterior motives. But who else is there, NAGR?

  35. My impression–and I recall reading this same report many moons ago, or one that was identical to it–is that liberals treat gun ownership like they treat free speech: something for me (the intellectually and morally superior liberal) but not for thee (evil conservatives, or just plain folks who are not to be trusted with guns and whose speech is not worth listening to, much less protecting).

  36. After Newtown, I searched for a gun forum that wasn’t full of poorly educated dullards. I found the Liberal Gun Club and noticed a fellow veteran was a member. I joined up and had quite an experience. But after a few weeks, I decided to go back. Far too many posts starting with things like “As a life long communists”, it was too much. The best part was the LGC people that have been banned from Daily KOS for being pro-2A. It was an interesting time but I’m sure that will be lost on people that use “liberal” as a slur.

  37. It suprises me, after spending so much time reading articles and comments here, that no one has articulated what I think is the problem with left leaning 2a supporters. It’s not just the second amendment we who aren’t “progressives” support, it’s the “Bill of Rights”, the fundamental rights we have simply because we exist, that no government can legislate away. We believe that these are self evident and abhor any who endeavor to suppress them. The progressive agenda relies on convincing the people they should give up these rights for the false security provided by the ‘state’. Anyone who supports one inherent right but not all of these rights is not an ally. Can we enjoy our mutually enjoyed hobby together? Sure, why not. Keep your friends close…and your enemies closer.

        • “Because there’s fear in the way you write.”
          What does that mean?

          “Not so much the case. The Second was put there to protect the First, Third, Fourth and so on.”
          It seems we agree on the point of my first post. It’s not just about the right to keep and bear arms, it’s about all of our rights.

  38. “Hoeber is a feisty, liberal, transgender, tattooed, queer, activist feminist”

    Pleased to meet you. I’m an American (sorry, I’m out of adjectives).

    And I don’t care about your orientation, politics, body art or bigoted approach to social issues (Well, I’m not Ok with the bigotry, but since you are so proud of it I’m not going to change your mind). So if you want to talk guns, Ok…. But I have a feeling all of your other baggage is just going to get stirred into the mix.

    • Yeah, but there’s a lot of other “baggage” that other people bring in here too. I think both political and personal.

      I’ve noticed that some posters only seem to discuss controversial political stuff that’s related to guns where they can jump in on some nasty disagreement. But if we start talking about stuff like the pros and cons of Magpul Gen III Pmags versus Lancer L5AWM’s, or the price and availability of .22 ammo in our areas, or the beauty of an historic rifle, or anything actually gun related, those people don’t have much to say. It’s almost like they don’t have much interest in guns at all unless they can use it as an excuse to argue with someone.

      So I’m glad that at least one person on here actually wants to talk about guns for a change!

      • That’s because some of us aren’t so interested in nuts-and-bolts “gun talk”, and more interested in the political issues that affect our right to own said guns. Should I explain this further? Is there not plenty of room for both?

        Your point of view seems not too removed than the “guns are for hunting” argument, destroyed a million times over.

        • My point of view is that we spend a hell of a lot of time arguing with each other and figuring out new ways to be even more divided when we really should be figuring out more ways to be united. But scrolling through a few discussions here would give a casual observer a pretty good idea that that’s not too likely to happen.

          Maybe discussing something like a good practice load for a .38 Special snubby every once in awhile would be good for us.

        • That’s perfectly fine, but it bores me. And compare the posts on a political issue to the ones about, say, terminal velocities. It’s clear where the passion lies.

        • Makes me wonder though if some of the people who post here own a gun or have any interest at all. Or do they just come here to prey on our passions and gratify some twisted psychological need for conflict?

  39. The 1st amendment is the much more important than the 2nd. You can’t have a free society and free politics without the 1st. If you really believe the 2nd is what keeps you free then you’re living in an American Taliban fantasy land.

    • Not so much the case. The Second was put there to protect the First, Third, Fourth and so on.

      The other nine do NOT reenforce the Second in the same way that the Second reenforces the remaining nine. If you read them it’s obvious. If any is more valuable than the rest, it’s the Second.

      • It’s a commonly made argument, but there seems to be precious few real-world examples of 2A being used to protect other rights, even in US which is supposedly the hotbed of the movement.

        The problem, unfortunately, is that 2A does nothing to allow you to stand up against the state alone. In conjunction with other people, yes, but by the time they take away your 1A rights, you won’t even know there are other people there. So when they come to take your guns away, it will be a glorious but futile solo last stand. We need 1A just as much if not more, because it lets people know that there are other dissenting opinions, and organize. And, as history shows, when it’s really a time for rebellion, people will find ways to procure the tools (case in point: Ukraine – didn’t have anything like 2A, but when push came to shove people “acquired” what they needed from the local police stations and army bases, in quite a few cases with a *wink wink nudge nudge look the other way* cooperation from the latter).

  40. As much as I sometimes rail against the rightist leanings often found here, I have to agree that gun owners are more tolerant than antis.

    As proof, I haven’t been banned for here for speaking my mind about politics, but have been banned from Daily Kos for stating that data is not the plural of anecdote and that a weekly list of people killed by guns posted as evidence that the 2nd amendment needs to go is propaganda.

    • It’s no secret that freedom of speech is treated as more absolute by the right than it is by the left. “Hate speech” is not a right-wing invention, after all.

      So, yes. On most conservative forums, they’ll eventually tell you that you’re subhuman communist scum that murders babies, but they will still let you reply to that 🙂

  41. Jesus the comments. So politically charged. So irritating. I’m sorry, I thought this was a gun blog, not CSPAN. Feels like congress in this damn comment section. Point is that we all can agree on one thing, that guns are good and we are 100% down for them. Sure we have different views on every aspect of policies in this nation, but when it comes to the 2A, that is solid. Chill everyone.

    • Citation? Are you sure you’re not thinking of the 3/5 Compromise?

      The Bill of Rights was added as a compromise by the Federalists to get the Anti-Federalists (pretty original name, huh?) to go along with ratification.

  42. Mungo, it was not added to get slave states to sign on. And yes all the amendments are equally important, just as ou are excepts using the 1st in the comments. However, I do not live in a fantasy Taliban land, and frankly as somebody whose been to Afghanistan and bled in Afghanistan, I find your comment disrespectful. Remember this we became a separate nation with a shot fired by those who chose to stand against tyranny. With that shot a conflict began to ensure the first amendment and all others. So again the 2nd is more important than the first.

  43. “Its mission, she says, is to provide ‘a place for gun owners to talk to other owners about neat gun stuff, without having to hear how the president is a Muslim-usurper-socialist running a false-flag operation.”
    Just because you don’t want to hear it, doesn’t make it untrue.
    And just because he wants to believe that he’s a female, doesn’t make it true..

    • “And just because he wants to believe that he’s a female, doesn’t make it true..”

      And just because you believe you’re a kind and intelligent person, doesn’t make it true.

      • 1) Assumption/Internet rumor
        2) doesn’t fit the Definition of “usurper”; LBJ was a usurper
        3) No, he is an instrument of the international banking cartel

  44. Only support I need from a gun company is make a good quality guns at a resonable price, and good customer service

    So far Ruger fits the bill, I own five of their hanguns, of various favors, have never had to send one back to factory. Always goes bang when I pull the trigger. Has met my expections, need nothing more from them.

  45. I’m a Black liberal gun owner and defender of the 2nd Amendment (along with the rest of the constitution). I may be liberal but I’m definitely NOT a democrat. Voting for either democrats or republicans, based on their history, makes you a supporter of unconstitutional acts. With that said…the character in this article sounds like a moron.

    I don’t care what the NRA’s position on gay rights or healthcare is. The only thing I want gun manufacturers to do is make reliable and effective weapons. I also don’t care if the guy in the booth next to me at the range is a neo-con. If we’re both defending the 2nd amendment that’s good enough for me.

    When I consider a candidate I check to make sure they’re aren’t a right wing Jesus freak religious fanatic who put corporate interests and personal profit ahead of the constitution. I also check to make sure they’re aren’t a left wing idiot who believes the world is made of cotton candy and rainbows and want to restrict or take away our gun rights entirely but keep the government’s arsenal pointed at us.

    • What you are is a socialist (AKA liberal, progressive, comrade of Chris Matthews), who wants to rob the rich of their wealth to enable Springer freaks & guests of the Maury Povich show. Who you oppose are crony capitalists (USCoC, Romney, Jeb Bush) who want to flood the country with illegals & rob the American poor of remunerative labor. Not a cigarette paper’s difference between you & the latter.

      The best that can be said about you is that ideas of liberty & tyranny exist side by side in your mind. The worst is you carved out for yourself a self-defense exemption from the ‘dangerous fly over country peasants’. Should the party boss of your favorite left tendency crush ‘the peasants’ then tell you to disarm, you’ll likely do it with joy. And if you, a leftist, incoherently resist, you’ll end on your knees, confessing your error & grovelling for mercy, like Bukharin, Kamenev, & Zinoviev.

  46. “If and when they do, they might find it harder to reconcile support for their Second Amendment with support for lefty politicians.”

    My voting record:
    96- Clinton
    00- Gore
    04- Nader
    08- Obama
    12- Gary Johnson

    Wait, what?

    Well, between ’08 and ’12 I bought a gun. Then another. Then a few more.

    And I’m not a single-issue voter either (though 2A is top 3 in national elections and #1, by far, in state/local races).

    Rather, when I became a gun owner I realized the hypocrisy, and outright lies the left uses to promote citizen disarmament. And that was the opening I needed to start considering something other than what I’d been raised to believe.

    I honestly think the path from liberal to libertarian is a lot shorter than most people realize. And having some skin in the game makes it all that much clearer.

    • “Rather, when I became a gun owner I realized the hypocrisy, and outright lies the left uses to promote citizen disarmament. ” I second your emotion. This was my path as well.

  47. What is this? A mother jones convention? When you see people like this, know you are looking at the enemy of the Constitution and the Republic.

  48. Typical libtards. They want the benefits of the Bill of Rights for THEM, not for anyone else who opposes their ideology. Guns are OK IF you qualify based on this and that litmus test, and the firearm is approved by this and that govt agency, and you pay for this and that license yadda yadda yadda. These libtards would keep their guns and take yours in a heartbeat.

    They get no respect from me only loathing and spite.

    • Darn straight. Don’t trust Liberals who work actively against your position. Be doubly wary of Liberals who appear on the surface to support your position.

  49. “Liberals might reasonably have an additional reason not to self-identify as gun owners: fellow” secret gun-toting “liberals might disapprove.”

    Also, not being facetious here, but if someone identifies themselves as transgender, queer, and female, does that mean that she was born a man, but is now a woman who sleeps with other women?

  50. Liberal gun owners are just as cement headed as Conservative gun owners……when confronted by a legislator of their respective party who supports gun control…..all you ever here is crickets from gun owners of that party………….ever since Sandy Hook, where have these ‘Liberal’ gun owners been when fighting for 2A rights? Or when haters burp and fart about gun owners being supportive of mass murders, and wholesale slaughter or children? Crickets……..where are ‘Conservative’ gun owners when a Republican embraces gun control…….crickets.

    To a ‘liberal’ a Democrat who supports gun control will always be better than a Republican any day, for any reason.

    To a ‘conservative’ a Republican who supports gun control is a-ok as long as said Republican is ‘conservative’.

    Hell with all ya……….might as well be FUDD’s.

    Flame and hate away bitches!!!!

  51. Divide and conquer – that’s all this article is. An attempt to split the community into small, more irrelavant chuncks. This has been the progressive liberal playbook for sometime and you know what? It works. They trod out the biggest liberal freak they can possibly find, who likes guns, and throw her out there for the conservative, right wingers to have at her. They want to show that gun owners are nuts but showing how we attack our own. Gun owners are intolerant rubes who can’t find a consistant message. They’re irrational because they won’t accept someone different for who they are. Never mind that this woman or man, or whatever it is, has absolutely nothing in common with how I feel about the second amendment. She’s a gun owner, but she’s one of them, not us.

    I am glad she’s a gun owner, deep down I am. But she’s owning them for the wrong ideas. Self defense is only secondary to pushing her agenda.

    They’re all patting themselves on the back at ABC on this one.

  52. “In truth, the NRA focuses entirely on Second Amendment-related issues. It supports politicians of both parties — and independents, too — who are faithful to the Second Amendment, regardless of their political positions on other issues. Got that, Marlene? The NRA does not take political positions on other issues. It never has.”

    FALSE. Please revisit the whole DISCLOSE Act sellout the NRA (unsuccessfully) tried to maneuver. It was one of the biggest disgraces in the history of the organization.

    • @Cowboy T, no…support the very people that vote for the politicians that would deprive you and your family of their Constitutional rights? That is a non sequitur and a non starter.

      • Did you read the link?

        The author of that link doesn’t vote for those politicians, even though he describes himself as a liberal. So you are trashing people on the basis of false assumptions. No surprise coming from you.

        And it sounds very much like YOU are part of the problem described therein.

        • @SteveInCO, well…if the dude doesn’t vote liberal but calls himself a liberal, then who cares? But if he calls himself a liberal gun owner but continues to vote for liberal politicians that would strip him (and you and me) of his rights to arms, then he is an idiot – and a walking talking non sequitur. See how that works now?

    • unfortunately the chasm between the left and the right gets wider all of the time and in between there just aren’t enough “not completely leftist” folks like you to make accomodations worthwhile.

      sorry – but generalization is necessary and currently, the left is the enemy. we don’t have the time or resources right now to include separate handling for outliers.

      I have been on the wrong side of a generalization and I know it sucks to read about your “class” as though they are lower than pond scum. but I was interested in the material and just either skipped those parts or thought out loud to myself “we’re not all like that!!” and let it slide.

      so I guess you can either adjust to the reality that most of us see the left as the enemy
      ~ except for good folks like you, parenthetically ~ and keep reading and participating, or take your toys and go back to the echo chamber where no one says anything that offends you.

        • Well to be truthful … that isn’t at all what I said.

          I am often the only woman in a “room” full of men talking about all the ways that women suck. Long story but there it is.

          I am there because the topics in that “room” are of interest to me and the commenting body (generally) has the right attitude … and sadly, much of what they have to say about women, while offensive, is true.

          So when I read I just think to myself, no that doesn’t apply, yes that applies, that’s an interesting observation etc.

          The key is: I don’t take it personally and I don’t let it offend me. These guys have reasons they are so angry and bitter and it’s not really my place to tell them why they shouldn’t be nor are they necessarily interested in my opinion of their attitude.

          To me, if you are a Liberal and you’re into guns then you know most gun people aren’t going to be your best pals. They might even actively hate you. It’s going to be all over the scale. The best you can hope for is be respectful, make good comments, contribute and ignore the really offensive stuff that just doesn’t apply to you.

          If I can do it, anyone can do it.

        • >> To me, if you are a Liberal and you’re into guns then you know most gun people aren’t going to be your best pals. They might even actively hate you. It’s going to be all over the scale. The best you can hope for is be respectful, make good comments, contribute and ignore the really offensive stuff that just doesn’t apply to you.

          Why exactly should I try to be respectful to someone who doesn’t respect me in the slightest, and is open about it? Respect is a two-way thing. Respecting someone who despises you is not a virtue, and is morally disgusting on so many levels.

        • Wait, you should be respectful, but you don’t respect them? Doesn’t that fall under the category of “two-faced”?

        • it’s too long, it’s too involved and the whole thing has to be digested for the brain structure “big finish” and its relevance to fighting gun control can be understood.

          If I thought Robert would be interested, I’d suggest to create a multi-part essay to post on the blog. As a comment it would be completely impossible.

        • int19h: you give a great reason why people who are outliers (and easily offended) should not participate in places where the great majority of people will disregard them because they belong to the “other side”.

          When someone joins an online community, they earn the respect of their follow commenters by creating thoughtful posts that contribute something to the discussion.

          Anyone who joins an online community and expects to get respect from everyone around him/her for just being there is barking up the wrong tree.

          Everyone has a chance to earn respect. Everyone.
          My point is simply that if you’re coming in from the “other side” you’re starting a ways behind the starting line where everyone on “this side” started when they came in.

        • “Wait, you should be respectful, but you don’t respect them?”

          obviously I am saying something unclearly.

          If I want to go into an online community where I have a pretty good feeling that I am “from the other side” but I want to be there (for whatever reason; in my case I need the material for my personal research) I am Respectful of Their Community and whatever it is they have going on, their members, their content, etc

          I expect that over time, by contributing thoughtfully eventually I will earn their respect.


        • Except it doesn’t work that way in this case. The moment you let it slip that you’re a liberal, nothing else matters, and nothing is going to help you earn any respect. It’s like a Jew trying to be respectful to an SS guy in a concentration camp: it doesn’t matter in the slightest, he’s still a Jew.

        • “The moment you let it slip that you’re a liberal, nothing else matters, and nothing is going to help you earn any respect.” That is 100% typical, blanket statement defeatist Liberal talk.

          I’m sorry but it is. Unless you have been the subject of derision or can point to someone going out of their way to disrespect you, personally, as a human being because of your political affiliations any expectation that you will be “someday” by “someone” is a load of garbage. It’s projection is all that is.

          If you’re ~here~ we see you, we know you’re on our side with us. Make sense? Get that the generalization doesn’t apply to you. You’re HERE. Stop being so busy being offended and taking it personally and see it for what it is.

        • This very discussion in the comments here shows ample evidence that this is exactly how it works. Look at all the comments – including your own – which are explicitly targeting people because of their liberal affiliation. If you’re blind to it, it doesn’t mean that it’s not there.

        • int19h: when you stop looking at this discussion emotionally, which is 100% what you are doing, you will understand what Generalize means.

          A generalization (or generalisation) of a concept is an extension of the concept to less-specific criteria. It is a foundational element of logic and human reasoning. Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements. As such, they are the essential basis of all valid deductive inferences. The process of verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for any given situation.

          It’s not about YOU, unless You see “you” in the generalization.

          Gosh darn solipsism.

        • If we’re going to extrapolate “generalizations” maybe we could start by saying that most gun owners really don’t care that much about the Second Amendment.

          Out of 80 million or so gun owners in this country, how many belong to a pro-RKBA lobbying group? How many have fought anti-gun legislation with their own time or money? Anywhere near 50%? The NRA, the biggest lobbying group, can still only claim about 4.3 million members. How many can other smaller groups add? Even if they double the total number, that’s still only about 10%.

          When so few can be bothered to do much of anything to protect or further the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it’s even more foolish to chase anyone who actually is willing to join us in the fight away. The fewer resources you have, the more valuable each one of them becomes. That’s my generalization for the day.

        • For as much time as I spent analyzing and understanding the Liberal mind what I will never understand is the instantaneous offense and hurt feelings that you follks experience at the very tiniest whiff! of someone suggesting that because you’re an outlier you’ll need to learn how to adjust to the fact that not everyone in the room loves you simply because you showed up.

          God forbid anyone ask you to participate and contribute something before you earn respect! because gosh darn as the one woman who posts here, the very first thing I did three years ago when I got here was whine and complain about the sexism and the off-color jokes and the occassional scantily clad models.

          What’s that? I didn’t? Oh yeah that’s right! I did Exactly what I am recommending that you do.

          Thin-skinned, entitled and lazy. That’s how I mark you. Forget the Liberalism, these are true character flaws.

        • “Thin-skinned, entitled and lazy”

          Well now, let’s see. Lazy, you’re not. As for the rest, dig yourself, baby.

        • Summarizing: a veritable bunch of lefties arrived here today with the specific purpose to raise their hands, announce their presence, acknowledge the general lack of welcome and embracement of their special outlier selves, complain and whine that regular posters who regularly comment about the war with the left are commenting about the war with the left and ultimately request that everyone temper their discussions in order they not be alienated further?

          But it’s offensive of me to suggest that maybe they suck it up, quit whining, try to enjoy what’s here to enjoy, ignore what’s offensive and try working to earn some respect like everyone else had to do at some point?

          Sounds like the classic conflict of political correctness vs truth problem to me.

          How that can translate to me personally having a thin skin or being entitled I have no idea. I don’t recall going around asking people to temper their discussions to avoid offending my delicate female sensitivities or expecting anyone to treat me any different than anyone treats anyone else here, because as an outlier I was intent on earning respect rather than expecting it to be handed over to me simply because I was “special”.

          Surprised to see you so anxious to kneel, William. Really don’t get where this is coming from.

        • Mina, answer one simple question. You have stated in a comment earlier that “the left is the enemy”. Since I am a liberal, the only way I can interpret it is that you consider me, personally, an enemy? Is that correct? Yes or no?

          If yes, then why should I care about your respect or acceptance at all? What does it buy me, exactly?

        • “Thin-skinned, entitled and lazy.”

          I notice that you’re not a fan of the Oxford Comma. That saddens me just a little.
          The loss of the Oxford Comma means that the decline of Western Civilization is soon to follow.

        • The fact is what you think I feel isn’t really pertinent to the discussion. In fact that what I feel is confusion about what exactly is confusing to you about my position on this point.

          Generalizing is a necessary vehicle for describing the behavior of a large number (group) of people. Within any group there is a spectrum of behavior and then there are usually a very small number of outliers. Neither the spectrum nor the outliers belie the generalization of the group.

          How exactly would you propose to counter the negative, under-handed, conniving activities of the institutional left? By approaching them as a group as though they have honor, good character, and integrity? I am sure you’ll notice that’s been tried and hasn’t worked out really well.

          What’s the definition of insanity, again?

        • “What’s the definition of insanity, again?”

          Hmmm. Posting multiple replies to yourself? Not knowing when to let go of things?

        • Well I must really be confused then. I have no idea why I’d think we were having a conversation when there were still posts appearing.

          Interesting tactic – continuing to post to an open thread while carefully avoiding addressing the unresolved issues brought up for discussion. Slippery.

        • It is you belief that there are “unresolved” issues. Stop stating that as a fact.

          AND GROW UP.

        • Mr. Burke – now you see why sometimes I prefer to talk about mundane topics like guns and shooting stuff rather than engage in endless debates over politics that generally only create more divisions.

          Life’s short, shooting stuff is fun, and time at the reloading bench is often more productive than debates like this.

        • If we spent half as much time writing angry letters to congressmen and honing our marksmanship skills as we do bashing each other, the NFA would have been repealed by now and we’d all be on the friggin’ Olympic shooting team.

        • Suddenly and for no reason throwing your hands up in the middle of a discussion and bloviating on about someone else “feeling angry” when there is no evidence of that doesn’t really prove anything. And everyone knows what critiquing someone’s punctuation in a debate means.

          I appreciate the fact that you feel I went wrong somewhere here but I have to admit it is unclear where. If it’s some problem with the endlessly repeated definition of generalization, I notice that although even I got bored with restating the definition and need for it 17 different ways from Sunday, int19h was still asking after the 17th time what it meant.

          So maybe you got bored with the conversation and thought it was time for me to shut up meanwhile the question was still out there, still being asked and I was trying to answer it. I’m not sure who appointed you thread monitor who gets to decide when a conversation is over. Do you wear a 5 point silver badge, too, deputy?

          Overall your irrational outburst and followup red faced behavior would probably actually be productive if you took the time to explain what your problem was.

        • You tell everyone not to take your opinions personally, then you make a personal attack that people are just about certain to take personally. Are you trying to provoke a nasty response, then play the victim and point out how irrational and detestable liberals are? Whatever you’re doing, it’s not productive.

          There are better ways for everyone to spend their time. I’m entirely serious – there are several intelligent people mired down in this conversation. The gun rights movement would be better off if they’d take their determination and writing talents and start cranking out angry letters to congressmen pushing for restoration of rights instead of wasting those gifts arguing with each other.

          I’m a little bit ashamed I didn’t realize that sooner. I’ve been acting like part of the problem instead of acting like part of the solution. No more.

      • int19h: I’d like a chance to answer your question and the reason is because I have been on your side of things for a few years – being the “outsider” on a blog of people who state over and over and over (sometimes violently) that “my kind” are the enemy (there’s the generalization.)

        The reason I am there is because I like the content/articles and a lot of commenting body made good points. I just skip over what is offensive to me. And yes I have been personally attacked there many times and my response is to ignore it and focus on the things I like and appreciate.

        At the end of the day it was a great experience for me to participate somewhere where people truly didn’t want me and fight to earn their respect. Which I did. It took 2 years but I did it.

        My one-off, personal anecdotal story proves that an outlier with good intentions and something to contribute will always earn respect. There may still be offensive discussion that you don’t like, but it’s up to you to disregard it not up to you to demand that everyone change in order to avoid offending you.

  53. Mina’s slash and burn is just the thing the liberals love to read. If she wasn’t so busy playing keyboard commando she may actually be able to provide some sort of helpful commentary instead of simply venting her spleen.

    • Paul, jeez for someone who was all “lets play nice and be respectful” a couple of days ago you seem to be on a mission here to bad mouth Mina, among others, dropping little turds without any content other than stink.

      Not “white-knighting” here, as Mina certainly doesn’t need my help, its just more striking, and makes the trend more obvious.

      Everything ok? Did this whole LGBT-liberal thing get you going somehow?

  54. I think it would be awesome to see an editorial by Robert Farago extending a hand to The Liberal Gun Club. He seems like a smart man and as such, understands how beneficial (and smart) that would be for the gun community on the left and right sides of the aisle. The antis are irrelevant. Only we can choose to divide our community.

    • Yes, but much of the dividing seems to come from folks who just suddenly appeared here. ‘Nuff said, I think.

    • With certainty over 80% of the media is devoted to the Liberal viewpoint.

      I am not sure what can be accomplished by converting the other 20% other than complete, tyrannical control over all messaging about everything everywhere.

  55. Personally I don’t give a hoot about what someone does in their bedroom. Thats their business. I also don’t mind if someone disagrees with me, or speaks up about their beliefs- thats their freedom of speech and thought.

    I have a problem with the mindset that labels me as a bad person, or suggests I should be “hated” for something I prefer, think, or say. And from AGCR:

    “Do you like guns but hate ‘gun people’? Are you uncomfortable when political ‘progressives’ support every Amendment from the Bill of Rights but [not] the 2nd? Does it make you crazy when ‘conservatives’ swear to uphold the 2nd Amendment but look the opposite way when other rights are trampled on?” If so, it says, then AGCR is for you.

    Thats reminds me of the quote, sort of hackneyed, but revealing-

    “Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, Liberals think Conservatives are bad people.”

    Ms Hoebner seems like an interesting person- I’d like to shoot with her some day, and just talk guns and gun culture. I’m sure I’d learn something new from her. And my guess is she is not the type of person who appreciates anyone, or any group, claiming her as part of their “slave plantation”.

    Thats the problem with ABC and much of the StateRunMedia- as the propaganda arm of Progressive wing of the once proudly independent Democratic Party, they claim allegiance from many who simply don’t agree with their goals, objectives, and tactics, and enforce it like Fascists everywhere if you dare to disagree. Just read Dan Baum’s book “Gun Guy” for his own admission of that group think among his own liberal circle- and he seems like a pretty moderate and independent thinker.

    Doubt me? I could be wrong, so if someone would tell me what the biggest LGBT national org is, lets go see what their stated opinion is on 2A rights.

    • I will tell you that the way they are selling Progressivism is a “brand” – like making the Starbucks a “brand” or Abercrombie a “brand”.

      The feminists say “if you want to be a feminist then you have to be a Progressive. You cannot be a feminist without being Progressive, period.”

      So what it seems like they are trying to do is create one, unified branding and get everyone to support the entire platform end to end. I am not sure how it’s working with the older folks but I know with the college age kids they are indoctrinating them very hard.

  56. As I can see from the comments section. I am finding it even harder to support the NRA. I am just going to throw my weight behind the Liberal Gun Club. They deserve the support. I am not dividing the community, your vitriol is what is doing it.

    You guys preach freedom yet react so disgustingly against people who are different from you. Drop the “Freedom” part because you will not let people be people.

  57. “Well… that escalated quickly.”

    Haven’t seen this much mud-slinging since the “I AM A GUN OWNER” photos where one woman had the nerve to declare she was a pro-choice feminist. Aiyah.

  58. Ladies and gents – this has turned into a very divisive conversation. When you read through it, whether you agree with me or not, perhaps it would be better to write a letter to your congressman pushing to advance gun rights than it would be to fire off a reply to anyone and further divide us.

    For my own part, I’ve participated in this discussion far more than I should have. I’ve wasted time and writing on this discussion that I should have put into furthering the RKBA, and you all have my apology for that.

  59. Note to H.R.

    It is pretty obvious by now on TTAG that there are a, thankfully small, cadre of regulars who are simply keyboard commandos who will jump into any comment stream and carpet bomb it ad naseum. Their hobby is perpetuating these kinds of comment squabbles on this forum.

    I’ve been guilty of that myself too often, but now it is readily apparent who the chief offenders are here who are doing this.

    They think they are “doing something” for their rights by comment flooding on any topic they happen to latch on to. Funny how they are just preaching to the choir and basically yelling into a large empty room for the apparent thrill of hearing their own echo.

    It makes for some cheap entertainment and yes, I must admit, it is fun to throw some bait out there and see what bites, when you don’t have anything better to do.

    My advice, check the comment count on any post. Once it goes much past 100 it’s pretty much toast and not much point even bothering with it.


    • “Their hobby is perpetuating these kinds of comment squabbles on my forum.”

      There, fixed that for you, Paul.

  60. “The NRA does not take political positions on other issues.”

    I snorted coffee out my nose when I read this line. Especially since I was simultaneously watching a clip of Sarah Palin at the NRA convention throwing her support behind waterboarding terrorists (how do you know who is a terrorist to waterboard? Easy, the terrorists are the ones being waterboarded). That certainly SEEMS like a guest speaker with a pretty well established political agenda.

    Gun forums across the internet are predominantly right leaning. That’s a fact. So when left leaning people who also support 2A are actively taking part in being vocal, attacking them for everything they do or say doesn’t help 2A from either side of the aisle.

    But having been down this road many times before, I know what to expect after expressing any sort of a liberal sentiment on a firearms related site. Flame on, my friends.

    • @Well Armed Democrat, you might know who the terrorists are if you ever got off your couch and joined a team in the ‘box.

      Nice name though…Nazis and Soviets are another version of a “well armed Democrat”.

      • Mac, I’ll match my military credentials against yours any time. I attended basic training in 1989, deployed on a humanitarian mission in 1995 and to OIF in 2008-2009. None of this makes me qualified to know that Sarah Palin is an idiot and that torturing prisoners is wrong – being a member of the human race lets me know both of these things instinctively.

        • @Well Armed Democrat, I’ll match you and raise you. That said, if you were in deep on the GWOT, you would know that waterboarding is hardly a big deal. No one died from it. And we waterboard our own people in the course of training for certain MOSs.

          Its not like we cut their heads off with a dull butcher knife, etc.

          Your concern is misplaced, as is typical of the leftist mindset.

        • Oh? So the new right-wing definition of torture is, “it’s only torture if someone dies from it”?

        • @int19h, I wonder about someone that cries alligator tears for baby killers. Might want to have that checked out.

        • And the way you find out who are “baby killers” is by starting with someone suspiciously looking (like, say, a Muslim), and then waterboarding them?

        • Well yes, you’re right, that’s now how it done. First, the Commander in Chief by the Grace of God designates someone as a terrorist – he doesn’t really have to give any explanation for that, it’s just his gut feel. Then, you waterboard the shit out of them cuz they’re terrorists.

          I do wonder though, when they officially designate the militias as terrorist and start waterboarding the hell out of Cliven Bundy and co, will you still be insisting that it’s all for greater good, rah-rah ‘Murica?

        • @int19h, there is always the fear of putting the wrong man in jail or deathrow. But that doesn’t stop us from having a system in place to punish evil doers. I would say the same for waterboarding.

          But as for waterboarding, I can’t help you bro. If you don’t agree with it, that’s your right.

        • No, it’s not the same. When it comes to jail, that’s why we have this thing called “due process”, which is designed to minimize the chances of an innocent man being punished for something he didn’t do. Even then, a lot of people argue against death penalty precisely on these grounds – that, since we cannot ever know 100% that a given man is guilty, we shouldn’t apply something as decisively irreversible as that (and it’s not just us liberals – it’s also the religious Jews, for example).

          With waterboarding as practiced by US, though, there’s no due process. You’re randomly declared to be a terrorist by someone you don’t know, with no chance to challenge that assertion. There’s no court, no trial, and no jury of your peers. It’s just that one day a guy comes, straps you to a table, and starts pouring water on your face demanding the things that you do not know.

          In any case, any society that willingly practices torture and legitimizes it is no better than barbarians like Taliban, and deserves the same fate.

        • Not only is it wrong, it’s been proven 100% ineffective countless times.

          As such, it’s obvious the motive for torture is sadism, and nothing more. That’s a really horrible starting point, and one that has no foreseeable end.

  61. I have one point I’d like to make: Obama and the Democrats haven’t actually tightened any gun regulations, but the perception of him doing so has if anything, helped INCREASE gun ownership and drive up the costs of both firearms and ammunition as people went out and bought up all the supply. We’re living in a renaissance as far as the gun manufacturers are concerned. The uptick in the prices of ammunition and the scarcity of certain types of ammunition by the sheer capitalistic virtue of supply and demand is a direct market indicator of this. Arguably, the gun control proposals by the Democrats were if anything, just lip service. They did not try hard, nor are they currently trying hard to implement any sort of control. They HAD to say something, if anything because of Sandy Hook. Another interesting point too, is that firearm regulations have decreased throughout the nation since 2008 without hardly any Federal level intervention. This is also a truth concerning many other laws being passed by states. Democrats don’t really want to take anyone’s guns, because they know there is a significant progressive base that supports the Second Amendment. The take away: Gun ownership and gun rights are better than ever in 2014 even though there is a Democrat in office.

    • @allemandes, yes, we have BHO and his ilk to thank for waking up the sleeping giant. That’s the only thing that have kept the Leftists/Statists in check.

  62. The Liberal Gun Club folks aren’t the only ones left of the GOP that supports gun rights. Socialists and Communists have historically supported the rights of the workers to possess guns to defend themselves from oppression and to fight for liberation. The new trend of so-called “leftists” who oppose guns is counter-revolutionary and contrary to Marxism itself.

    To check us out, go to:

    “The workers must be armed
    and organized…under no
    pretext should arms and
    ammunition be surrendered.
    Any attempt to disarm the workers
    must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
    – Karl Marx

    • You guys aren’t socialist nor communist. You support the reactionary rebels in Slavyansk who declare themselves as the “revived White Movement”, are led by a guy openly espousing absolute monarchist views and expressing extreme dislike of the Bolshevik revolution combined with “judeo-bolshevik” form of anti-Semitism stereotypical of Nazi and fascist movements, and have officers in its ranks who openly call of massacre of “all those who oppose our religion”.

        • Borot’ba is a very minor communist party that has practically no say in the government of rebel regions.

          If you look at the actual leaders of the Donetsk People’s Republic, OTOH, you see no communists and no socialists. You see hardcore Russian nationalists and clerical fascists. For example…

          Strelkov (Girkin) – commander in chief of the armed forces of Donetsk People’s Republic. This is the guy who is basically in charge of all the fighting in Donetsk, Slavyansk and Kramatorsk from the rebels’ side. He self-identifies with the White Movement and considers absolute monarchy as the pinnacle of political systems. Here’s some of his quotes:

          [on the collapse of the USSR] “On one hand, I had huge satisfaction that the anti-Christian, anti-human, anti-Russian government is collapsing.”

          “I consider myself an idealistic supporter of autocratic monarchy in Russia. Back in the day, I was among of the first in Moscow to pledge fealty to Vladimir Kirillovich [Romanov].”

          “God shall grant us an Autocrat, if he is merciful to Russia.”

          “The very concept of the White Movement is amorphous. I consider the best description to be in the works of Solonevich and Il’yin.” [Il’yin was the guy who praised fascism for being anti-communist]

          “It is my personal and deeply held conviction that Bolshevist rule is still in place in Russia. Yes, it mutated almost to the point of no recognition. Yes, the formal ideology of that rule has an opposite sign. But it remains unchanged at its core: in its anti-Russian, anti-patriotic, anti-religious stance. In her ranks are the direct descendants of the people who perpetrated the revolution in 1917.”

          And here’s one of his prominent officers, Babay:

          “Everyone who is against the Eastern Orthodox people and Kievan Rus, I have a request for you: leave the country, and quick. Because when we come and take over, those who are against us and against our Orthodox faith, against our Holy Rus, those, I think, shall simply be executed. Because God said, ‘Kill the one who blasphemes your faith’. And that is why we are going to do just that.”

          I’ll let you decide what that makes Borot’ba, if they support people like that.

    • Soviet flags and portraits of Stalin do not imply that their bearers are communist. A lot of hardcode nationalists in Russia worship Stalin as fuhrer because they think that he “crushed the judeo-bolsheviks” (that’s how they interpret the purges) and restored a national empire, Russia for Russians. For example, these guys really like Stalin, and they also support the insurgents in Ukraine:

      Now look at their flag and tell me that they’re communists, I dare you.

  63. I’ve been reading through the comments, and one thing that I have not noticed mentioned yet, and it is the one thing that I am not happy with the NRA for, is that since 1967, republicans have contributed to actually many state and federal gun control laws. Start with Ronald Reagan in 1967, who had the full blessing and support of the NRA for his Mulford Law. Then you have George HW Bush’s law on different assault weapons, AKs, and certain manufactures. Which of course you could comply with if you applied a specific amount of components marked “made in USA” on them, as well as some other minor bans and restrictions during his presidency. Then you have Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts Assault weapons ban. And lets not forget the Brady bill, which was written on behalf of a Republican, pushed by someone who was very high up in the RNC, supported by many republicans, but was signed by a democrat.

    My point is not to say that Democrats are better than Republicans, or vise versa. My point is that the NRA almost constantly and with vigilance supports Republicans. But just like any politician, they are just saying things that they think people want to hear, and that will help get them elected. I think , just my opinion, but if the NRA was more politician based and not just party based, they might get a lot more people supporting them. If they truly were Gun rights focused, and not just appear to be a front for the republican national committee, I would once again join them. Yes, I was a member for decades, and even my father was, and still is a lifetime member since 1945, but even as hard core republican as he is, even he has been disappointed how they have changed. You can even see the transgression from gun owner rights to a republican support group in the decades of magazines they have published. I myself have every issue since the early 60s, and have read every single one of them over many years, and you can really see when facts superseded party coming on in the late 60s, to early mid 70s. Republican politicians heavily influenced them, even when then Vice President George HW Bush resigned his NRA membership due to comments the NRA had made, they still supported him and the other republican politicians who were leaving their ranks then. but when I realized that they focus on glorifying one party over the other, no matter what the politician does, and other little factors like you almost never see a person of color or other race, and only recently start to see more of women, the NRA appears to be a very tightly focused republican party machine, whether they are or not, it is what they are perceived to be. Agree, Disagree, it doesnt matter to me what you think of what I wrote or my opinion. What does matter is that when the NRA and others discount possibly thousands, or even in the millions if an actual count was able to be made, of non republican gun owners who support gun owners and their rights were to be accepted, and not just made fun of and bashed. If politicians were actually called out for what they did, over what they said, no matter what party they belong too, I bet you could see the NRA memberships increase greatly. But as long as they are a party line organization, no mater what the facts are, then that is all they will ever be. A republican party magazine for republican gun owners. And while that might make hard core Republicans who hate anyone who doesnt think, act, dress, and talk like they do all giddy inside, it doesnt help the United States citizens who enjoy legal , safe ownership and use of firearms. But just think if the NRA and its current members could open up to welcome others with the same goals and desired for firearm ownership in the USA? Now that would put a huge dent in the anti all firearm ownership people in politics and across the country. The enemy of thy enemy, is my enemy.. But that would have to take a lot of growing up for many on all sides of the political spectrum to make work. That is something I fear might not happen in todays USA.

    • @daniel, you are either full of crap or a solid troll. It takes very little digging to uncover the fact that the NRA has supported many Demoturds in the past. Harry Reid was one of them until he went of the Leftist/statist cliff for Obama. And based on their record, there is no doubt they would continue were it not for the fact that the Democrat Party has gone full Leftard almost to a man/woman. Pretty hard to support someone from that anti American liberty party.

      The one thing that you said that makes sense, and to paraphrase, is that all parties bear watching. An R beside their name doesnot automatically make them rp-liberty, conservative and America loving. But the fact that is now more clear than ever is, you stand a better chance with a Republican than a Democrat. Not a perfect chance, just better.

  64. I’m a leftist gun owner. Our country has been taken over by the most powerful set of billionaire oligarchs in the history of humanity. For someone to say they support the working class, living wages, workers rights etc. And then to say that we need to disarm the populace while the 1% tighten their grip on society is naive and dangerous.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here