TexasCHLforum.com

karder wrote:The waitress, the bank teller, the construction worker who may be leaning to the left politically and feel that gun control is prudent. I believe that most people who fall into that category have little to no experience around guns and have a fear of them based on that lack of experience.

I am married to a bank teller, who is a former waitress :)

Anyway, yeah, we might be able to ease their fears and get them to become ambivalent about gun control, and perhaps even if something happens in their life to make them think that maybe they need a gun then they might actually actively oppose gun control, BUT THEY WILL STILL VOTE FOR POLITICIANS WHO ARE ANTI-GUN BECAUSE THOSE POLITICIANS SUPPORT THE REST OF THEIR POLITICAL POSITIONS.

And that's the point. Someone afraid of guns is perhaps also afraid of being poor, afraid of not having health insurance, afraid of not being able to get ahead in their job, afraid of this, that, and the other thing, and they are going to vote for politicians who promise to do whatever to allay these fears. So what if they suddenly are not afraid of guns? They will still vote for the same people in spite of their new-found gun beliefs.

That's because ideologically, gun rights are part and parcel of individual liberty, which is the other side of the coin opposite individual responsibility. So we all know that either we have liberty, and we also have responsibility, or we have neither. And I think most Americans would happily give up liberty in exchange for also giving up responsibility. We just passed a health care bill that makes this point.

karder wrote: Fear of guns is almost universally linked to a lack of experience and knowledge of guns.

Really? I don't notice that anyone who knows or cares about politicians' positions on guns, gun control, or government actions towards gun rights have any fear of guns or lack of experience. Those fearful of guns, who lack the experience, as you correctly suggest, probably do not pay attention to gun rights at all.

I think those who actively want to restrict your ownership and rights with respect to guns, and who desire to ensure that only the government has access to guns, absolutely and definitely know what guns are useful for and are quite comfortable with them being used to create a disparity of force. You know that no liberal politician who intends to restrict your gun rights is afraid of guns, certainly not afraid of the guns being carried by their own protective detail and most of them have guns of their own. They just don't want you to have guns. Or money. Or anything else that will give you power that cumulatively may add up to enforce accountability from government.

So you are suggesting the NRA should morph into "the ACLU for hunters", and that is what is going to help those who support the 2A win elections?

I don't agree with this premise one little bit. In fact, I think the NRA is too broad to do a very good job as it is, so making it more diffuse is not going to help. What's wrong with the ACLU carrying the flag for the 1A? Let some other organizations handle your 8th Amendment and 4th Amendment arguments (with which I fully agree, we need to confront these things, but it's just not the role of the NRA).

The problem, if there is such a thing, is that the two big political parties have inconsistent platforms. In some ways, each one supports some kind of liberty or limitation of government, and in other ways each party supports some kind of restriction of liberty or abridgment of rights. It just so happens that the left wing Democrats support restriction or abridgment of the 2A rights, and at least pretends to support the 1A instead (well, as long as your 1A rights don't include free exercise of the Christian religion...). The Libertarian party may be close to supporting liberty and the least abridgment of rights, but we should recognize that most people do not support this philosophy. Simply put, today's Americans, by and large, don't support the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. They may support part of it, as it benefits them specifically, but otherwise they seem to desire abridgment of rights and handing over more and more powers to the government. We are already halfway down the slippery slope either way. Too many people with their hands out are having something put in it to gain support of taking away the handouts and returning freedom to people to their own right to their property. Too many people have special status according to the law to support equality and liberty, since it will result in taking away their "special" status and allowing others to be just as "equal" as they are.

Sounds like the suggestion is to turn Conservatives into Liberals, only with support for the 2A. That's a fool's errand and will not result in what we need.

Frankly, the reason we are going to need the 2A eventually is because of the abridgment of the rest of our freedoms and conversion of our government to veiled socialism, ignoring of the Constitution besides the 2A, which are all part and parcel of the Democrat party platform. The 2A can be used to defend our freedom from a tyrannical government. Allowing a tyrannical government in order to preserve the 2A is not exactly going to work.

marksiwel wrote: I think its time for organizations like the NRA to branch out and support personal freedoms, like gay marriage, smaller government, less taxes, freedom of speach, freedom of privacy ect to get more people on "The gun side" so that way liberals know that they cant touch gun issues with a 10 foot pole, and Republicans know they cant Wiretap people without warrants without losing the gun vote.

What do those issues have to do with the NRA? I am not the biggest fan of the NRA but certainly diluting their purpose and blurring issues together is not going to help any.

And by the way, what does "gay marriage" have to do with freedom? This is another law someone wants passed to give something to somebody. Gay people have the same right to a state-sanctioned marriage as straight people do. When you go get a marriage license they don't ask if you are gay. There are probably many thousands of gay people in TX who are legally married. Now IMHO, if the state did not sanction ANY marriage and then this becomes a complete non-issue. What the gays want is not to be able to get married. They want to force society to validate their lifestyle choice. This is about as anti-freedom as you can get.

IMHO.

Zee wrote:Liberals, by definition, are open and tolerant. Liberals should be the easiest to talk to because they are apt to listen.

I have not found that to be even remotely true.

Not even occasionally.

The liberals I have talked with (such as many of my family members) tend to be very resistant to actually having a reasoned conversation about anything unless you already agree with their position. Yeah, they are open and tolerant as long as you already agree with them.

The second amendment is not about duck hunting. I believe in gun responsible gun rights. Not everyone shows to be responsible and shouldn't have a gun until they become responsible.

Well, then, I propose those who think this way might be interested in amending the Constitution in order to avoid rebuke by those who believe in our current Constitution. Maybe it could say:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as long as they are proven to be 'responsible', according to appointed liberals."

Anyway, consider my view when you try to be heard by someone who may be a little biased against your position. Maybe it will help the issue.

It may very well be your view that is subject to disagreement. What, then?

I am not sure you can convert liberal friends, at least not in any way that will get them to vote for conservatives. Sure, maybe events in their lives can cause them to consider the value of being armed, but it is a real stretch to expect them to ignore the bulk of their other beliefs and become a single-issue RKBA voter. For example, I am sure Mr. Zee likely voted for Obama, regardless of his position on RKBA. And likewise, I might actually support at least one position of a Democrat running for office and oppose at least one position of the Republican they are up against, but on the whole, I am still going to vote for the one who represents the majority of my views.

Seems the thing that happens that causes liberals to begin to support the RKBA, at least for the chosen few (including themselves, of course), is finding themselves vulnerable or victim to some crime wherein access to a gun would have been a distinct benefit. Then one day, they may actually find that their faith is valuable, when they experience some crisis through which they discover that they like the idea of a higher power. And maybe they wind up having children who become teenagers and they suddenly, intuitively understand the danger of moral ambiguity. And when they have pay 5 digit or larger tax bills, they make a full conversion to conservatism and get off of the big government bandwagon. Only then will they actually vote for pro-2A candidates on the whole.

So the process of converting your liberal friends is to just leave them alone and hope that they live long enough to wise up.

Maybe this thread belongs in the Political Issues area...