Liberals Who Don’t Care About Their Gun Rights

I can completely understand why folks like this wouldn’t really appreciate the GOP:

It’s the Liberal Gun Club, the left-leaning version of the National Rifle Association.

The group’s members share the same fascination with guns that many assign to NRA members, but Liberal Gun Clubs members eschew the NRA’s notoriously right-leaning politics.

I don’t care how sick you are of hearing about the “Kenyan Muslim socialist,” the fact is that this Administration is outrightly hostile to your right to keep and bear arms. That is an unarguable fact just a year into his second term. NRA endorsed quite a number of Democrats in the 2010 elections, a number of whom were facing tea party backed Republicans. Where were all of you liberal gun owners then?

The group, like the NRA, supports the right of American citizens to own and carry a wide array of firearms. Most members of the Liberal Gun Club even think recent calls for expanded background checks on gun owners go too far.

Great. I agree with you. But if you’re going to vote for people who are against every single one of those concepts, what use are you? Give me a list of anti-gun Democrats you’re going to try to primary with pro-gun Democrats. Let me know how you’re going to work for gun rights within the Democratic party. Forming a shooting club doesn’t mean jack. If you’re not voting your gun rights, to be blunt, you don’t really care abut gun rights, and no one will ever give a crap about what you think on this topic. If all you’re doing is saying you love guns, but keep voting for people like Obama, DiFi and Boxer, you’re part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

37 thoughts on “Liberals Who Don’t Care About Their Gun Rights”

  1. Hm.

    Is it a front?

    Or did NRA outreach fail?

    Or are they at least partially right?

    The current invective in politics, all sides, is disturbing, at the very least. Whither this group comes from, I have no data.

    1. Not sure yet, really. They say all the right things, unlike false flags in the past who usually shilled for anti-gun Democratic policies, as long as they left hunting guns alone… so they may just be a bunch of liberal enthusiasts who haven’t thought enough about how the politics of this issue works.

  2. I agree with you. However, I read the article earlier and there are some other issues they bring up that we can help with to bring them to our side. They are also concerned with the freedom to live as they choose. Concern that most of us mix our religion with gun rights. There are other things as well.

    What we need to do is communicate more directly with these types of people. The perception is that we are against every other issue they believe in and fight for. We need to connect based on our similarities rather than differences. Take the media portrayal of “gun people” out of the equation.

  3. These guys have been around for a few years. IIRC they floated a “compromise” where standard cap mags would require a NICS check to buy. And a few years ago I think they were a-ok with registration/”background checks”/etc.

    Maybe they can learn.

    Then again, these jokers bought the ticket, they can ride the train. Even today, their forum for RKBA issues is called this:

    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.”

    A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

    They don’t get what “Regulation” means in the context of the 2A? :-\

    Maybe once the Democrat-commanded SWAT teams they love so much in the Worker’s Paradises of CA, NY, etc start burning down their homes they’ll get on board.

    In the long run it would be nice to see the “Liberal Gun Owners” rid themselves of the cancer in the Democratic party so that gun rights become bipartisan again, but anyone who helps the Dems get a majority in any house or appoint a single judge at this time is helping to gut the 2A. Period. Especially with the “nuclear option” being detonated in the Senate…

    1. They want to discuss “Regulation”?

      Invite them to muster in full “militia” gear at 4:30 am on Saturday. THAT’S where you can “discuss Regulation”!

  4. I agree with what you said, but they are correct about the NRA’s right-leaning politics and two glaring examples come to mind:

    1. During the last election they put on a shooting event for the RNC, but not the DNC.

    2. They always go to CPAC, but I have never heard of them going to the leftist-equivalent.

    This sends the message that Democrats aren’t welcome.

      1. Ding!

        I’m pretty sure CPAC invites the NRA, and since CPAC is also reliably-enough pro-2A, they go.

        Likewise with the RNC vs. DNC.

        The DNC doesn’t want the NRA there, I imagine, because it would Complicate The Message For The Base, eh?

        (Then again, I’m confused about the idea that the NRA itself has “reliably right-wing politics”.

        I don’t recall ever seeing the NRA take a political position on any topic unrelated to firearms rights; they sure as hell don’t seem to have done so in any of the member publications I bother to read.

        Can I get a concrete example from anyone?)

        1. CPAC != RNC by any stretch. You will find the Cato Institute and Eagle Forum at CPAC, two groups that are probably at odds with each other on many issues but also contain many reliable votes for right-leaning conservative politicians.

          You are right. The NRA is a single issue organization. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this for some. There are certainly some “shared” ideologies with the right on the part of board members. David Keene, former NRA president, used to head the American Conservative Union, for instance. However, the only expressed positions of these people has really been on the side of individual rights and less busybody government. That seems to be something that self-styled liberals should stand behind…

    1. yup. The NRA has recently done all they can to cozy up to the Tea Party to increase their membership

        1. Abandoning support for Harry Reid as they were honoring Sarah Palin with a gold-plated rifle.

  5. Sorry, but if you are a Democrat and owns firearms, you do not respect the Second Amendment. Who routinely floats all of the gun control legislation? Answer: Democrats. Sure, some RINOs go along because they lack a spine and are despicable.

    Note that “reasonable gun regulations” is part of the Democrat platform. Simple logic disproves the existence of “sensible” or “reasonable” gun control laws. They only detrimentally impact law-abiding citizens by infringing on this basic right. Little to no impact on criminals or the government. Game-Set-Match.

    This is not much different than saying that you belong to the Nazi Party in 1943, but do not support the death camps. When a political party has a particular stance that you oppose, your true priorities become apparent (i.e. you belong to the party for other reasons and your stated reason is bogus or secondary).

    It would be nice if everyone was an Independent, political parties did not exist, and the merits of a candidate was all that was under review. Alas, big money is needed to run for office and they sell their souls to their party.

    1. Some RINOs?… whole damn party seems to be RINOs these days, and still I’m told to vote for them.

      Me thinks you and a lot of other people have been suckered into the “truth” that says you can only pick one of 2 ways to be oppressed.

    2. And if you are a republican, you do not respect a woman’s right to choose.

      1. I’d wear that accusation. If you poll me I’m pro-choice, but I won’t vote for abortion rights over gun rights, and there are a few other things that outrank abortion too. But all other things being equal, I’d vote for a pro-choice Republican in a primary over a pro-life one.

        1. False dichotomy.

          Roe v. Wade isn’t going anywhere at the Federal level, hasn’t even under “conservative Supreme Courts”, and at the state level even the most restrictive laws pretty much parallel local polling on the issue within those Fed limitations. The “Safe, Legal, and Rare” standard is not under any real threat, to claim it is is political theatre.

          The same cannot be said about gun rights, which are actively Constitutionally enumerated and fundamental to self-defense and our system of government at the Fed and state level.

  6. When Wayne LaPierre gives speeches at CPAC or other arch-conservative venues, what do you expect? Other than guns, the NRA should STFU on political issues, but they have chosen not to. The Second Amendment Foundation’s approach is much more likely to pull in allies from across the political spectrum, IMHO. There are many gay, African American, urban hipsters, environmentalists, etc. who own guns but who look at the company the NRA keeps and says “No way.”

    I tried for years to work for reform within the Democratic Party when it comes to guns, but finally gave up & am a registered Republican again, despite my much more liberal leanings in other areas. But I’m a one-issue voter; most people aren’t. At least a sizeable percentage of Democrats, I won’t go so far as to call it a majority, but it’s a lot, do support gun rights, but the party leadership has encased their views on the subject in amber and will not change, despite most of them not having the knowledge it takes to load a revolver. But, the NRA’s overt hostility to non-gun-related left-leaning politics and those who identify with them serves to reinforce stereotypes of gun owners and convinces many Democrats that gun owners are “those people,” not “their people.”

    1. Where does NRA get into general right politics? Sure, they speak at CPAC, but it’s always been a gun rights speech when I’ve heard it.

            1. Ask? You mean -pay- to attend an event, raising funds which per platform will be used to counter their own single-issue message, to which they are not invited and at which they will not be allowed to speak? And at which they are likely to be demonized with no provision to respond? And yet their presence will likely be presented not as “honest involvement” but offensive or supplicating?

              Why on earth would anyone want to do that?

              1. For the exact same reason NRA tried making both John McCain and Mitt Romney into great heroes of the Second Amendment.

                1. That’s just painting a grey horse white, not trying to put a saddle on ass and calling it a stallion.

    2. If anyone hasn’t said it yet I will, welcome to the Republican Party. It’s good to have another hard core pro-gun person swell the ranks of the party. I myself am pretty libertarian and back in the 1990’s even was a member of the Libertarian Party. But a decades worth of the Democratic Party’s war on guns showed me that the lesser of two evils was the more sensible way of advancing my own policy preferences in the American political system.

      I have hopes that people like myself (and perhaps you too?) can help move the Republican Party more in a libertarian direction. There is no question that the basic nature of both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party has been furiously shifting over the last 50 years, as both parties average ideology has shifted away from the middle.

      1. “as both parties average ideology has shifted away from the middle.”

        One of the problems with this sort of statement, is that both parties have been hauling ass toward the same socialist side for a looonngg time. It’s just the Dems have been racing each other to get there, while the GOP is lagging behind while shuffling with their walkers. The “middle” has been left far behind them both.

        How can you define the “middle”, when it has become such a moving target?

        Like everything connected with .gov now, when the reference points are constantly being moved, you can’t nail anything down.

  7. Just remember that these “Gun Loving Liberals” are the statistically most likely people to commit the next mass shooting event.

    I’d stay as far away from them as possible.

  8. Even more unbelievable is the Socialist Rifleman forum. Hilariously, they had to do a lot of soul searching when one of their members suggested that perhaps the name should be changed to Socialist Rifleperson.

  9. It was the NRA that was pushed out of the Democrat party, not the other way around. The Democrats have moved far to the left. The only way a pro-second amendment Democrat is welcome is if they are a “false flag” front that says they are for the second amendment, but when it comes down to a critical issue, abandon the issue to do the bidding of the party.

    I remember when there were lots of Democrat second amendment supporters. They have all been driven from the party.

    1. I agree. I think 1994 was the real breaking point for gun policy inside the Democratic Party. Clinton wanted to advance his anti-gun agenda, and the only way that agenda could proceed was if pro-gun Democrats in Congress stayed loyal to the Party and Clinton instead of favoring their own claimed principles about gun-rights. The pro-gun Democrats choose party loyalty, and suffered the backlash from the voters in November. Thus the great shifting of Democratic Party power to Republican Party power began.

  10. Even if some of these ‘gun-rights’ Dems were elected, how long would they stay that way after Nancy or Harry got to them??? Seems as if the top leadership determines the way EVERY Democrat votes.

    1. Begich and, what, 3 or 4 others buck their leadership on guns sincerely and consistently.

      The problem is that they understandably vote party line on things like judicial appointments and ancillary issues that can and do impinge on gun rights longer-term.

      A Dem who is narrowly “pro-gun” is, as we’ve seen, good for playing defense against direct Legislative overreach but won’t help us in the Courts.

  11. folks, i’d like to point out that some of you seem to be mixing up being liberal with supporting the Democratic Party whole hog. That would be like saying being conservative means that you support every position of the GOP. For example, Log Cabin Republicans, pro-choice Republicans, supposed ‘small-government’ Republicans all exist, despite a clear record of the GOP embracing policies that are anti-gay, anti-family planning, and anti-small govt. Consider the LGC a kernel of gun sanity within the Democratic coalition and hold off on the hostility.

Comments are closed.