The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 10, 2018, 09:17 AM   #26
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,652
Quote:
Angry Rant
is a common output of some NRA's prominent supporters. Wayne and Ted's Excellent Adventures might be an example.

The antigun folks love to do that also.

I would like a return to civility but the hyperpartisan tribal focus has washed that away.

When an issue becomes totemic of tribal membership, rational discussion suffers.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 10, 2018, 11:19 AM   #27
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,780
Quote:
The 1994 AWB passed due to a personal appeal to every US House member by Ronald Reagan.
Perhaps my memory is faulty, (again ) but I don't remember hearing Reagan support the AWB. Clinton pushed it to the hilt.


Quote:
With the popularity of Self defense, CC and the firearms associated with it the opposition went militant, maybe because gun owners went militant about the guns they owned.

Take a trip back in time through the Gun Digests of the 50’s-60’s and see what guns were popular, check out the prevailing attitude about small concealable handguns it may surprise you.
It doesn't surprise me, I watched it happen. We (gun owners) went "militant" as a REACTION to the laws and restrictions pushed by a few powerful legislators (and all belonged to the same party) while we were "peacefully" enjoying our blued steel and wood.

You could buy an AR-15 or an FAL in those days, too. Few people did. They were expensive, and not well suited for hunting, and so were a niche market, and not even anywhere on the gun banner's radar at the time.

What the ant-gun forces (led by Dodd, Metzenbaum and a few others -and where Schumer got on the bandwagon -note, all the same party...) were focused on, primarily was the "Saturday night special". (which to them meant any handgun in general, but cheap easily concealed pistols in particular). And they took their shot at our "blued steel and wood" too, with the ending of direct mail order sales and the establishment of other restrictions that previously did not exist. (National age restrictions, the FFL system, and creations of prohibited persons as a general class, not as individuals which was what had been the law, previously).

It was later discovered (and only publicized in the gun press) that Dodd had gotten a copy and translation of a 1933 (34?) Nazi gun control law, and large parts of the 68 GCA that he sponsored was virtually a word for word reproduction of that law!!

So here we were, basically living our lives "fat, dumb, and happy", until they essentially bushwacked us in 68. The political unrest of the times, (including the murders of Kennedy, Kennedy, and King, and our own "domestic terrorists, such as the SDS, the Weather Underground and others who were actually exploding BOMBS in public places ) gave the public support push needed to "do something". And they did, do something.

Another little remembered fact is that, at the time, our domestic firearms industry SUPPORTED the proposed GCA 68, because of the import restrictions. The bill was sold to gunmakers as a trade protection measure, and the other parts were downplayed. Not exactly a lie, but far from the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The current cycle of demonization of semi autos (and gun ownership, lawful self defense and etc.) began in 1986. With Patrick Purdey's mass murder in the Stockton schoolyard, all the elements came together. Mass murder, Children!!! at a school!!, the killer killing himself at the end, and leaving only grief, frustration, ANGER, and a semi auto AK-47 variant to focus on. and, boy did they focus on that!!

Following copycat, and near copycat shootings, certain politicians decided that this was a stalking horse that they could ride until it foundered, and then beat votes out of its dead carcass for years to come. Since the bulk of these politicians were all from the same party, when they rose to full leadership of that party, its no surprise that they made the issue a political plank of the party they now controlled.

If you want the answer to why gun control has become not just a social, but a political partisan issue to the degree that now exists, the answer is simple. Certain people in one political party worked very hard, and very successfully to make it so.

or that's how I see it, anyway.

Why are "assault weapons" so much in demand today, when they weren't back then? The answer is simple. Ban anything (and fail to make it all inclusive, complete and permanent) and you create a desire in the people to own them. call it forbidden fruit, or anything else, but if you want to make something MORE popular, just get the government to try and outlaw it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 10, 2018, 12:37 PM   #28
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,757
Quote:
Perhaps my memory is faulty, (again ) but I don't remember hearing Reagan support the AWB.
Reagan stood with Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and supported the AWB.

Refresh your memory here:

Quote:
On May 3, 1994, Ronald Reagan and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6c716f25cf95

Quote:
It was later discovered (and only publicized in the gun press) that Dodd had gotten a copy and translation of a 1933 (34?) Nazi gun control law, and large parts of the 68 GCA that he sponsored was virtually a word for word reproduction of that law!!
There was no 1933-34 Nazi gun control law.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...son-nazi-guns/

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

Last edited by thallub; July 10, 2018 at 12:44 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old July 10, 2018, 01:39 PM   #29
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44AMP
Perhaps my memory is faulty, (again ) but I don't remember hearing Reagan support the AWB. Clinton pushed it to the hilt.
That's because RWR didn't push the AWB during his political career, the part of his life for which he is noted. RWR was also an enthusiast for expanding federal power when he was in his 20s and 30s, but not during the notable part of his life, but it is true the same way saying that Abraham Lincoln was only three feet tall is true. (Lincoln was undoubtedly three feet tall at some point in his life).

BHO asserted after Newtown that

Quote:
Originally Posted by BHO
A majority of Americans agree with us on this. And, by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994, urging them -- this is Ronald Reagan speaking -- urging them to listen to the American public and to the law-enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons.
What BHO knew but did not include was that although RWR was formally diagnosed with alzheimers in 1994, the year of that ban, RWR had suffered deterioration even before leaving office five years before. Now, having alzheimer's doesn't mean one isn't responsible for what he says, and RWR certainly engaged in compromise on a number of issues while in office, but the assertion that the AWB was something the substance of which is palatable to the staunchest defenders of the 2d Am. is false.

Last edited by zukiphile; July 10, 2018 at 02:04 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old July 10, 2018, 01:53 PM   #30
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,757
As governor of CA Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law, outlawing the carry of loaded weapons. Yep, CA politicians were scared to death of the Black Panthers.

https://www.history.com/news/black-p...rt-mulford-act
thallub is offline  
Old July 10, 2018, 02:14 PM   #31
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by thallub
As governor of CA Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law, outlawing the carry of loaded weapons. Yep, CA politicians were scared to death of the Black Panthers.

https://www.history.com/news/black-p...rt-mulford-act
In 1967, six years before which he was a democrat. How does that help to explain the partisan divide on 2d Am. rights?

Last edited by zukiphile; July 10, 2018 at 02:52 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old July 10, 2018, 06:27 PM   #32
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 755
Reagan was a Goldwater Republican when he signed the Mulford Act, and Trump was writing checks to Hillary’s Senate campaign not too long ago. I suspect that at some point people will start to question the logic behind having a pro-gun control bumper sticker next to a Resist one on their Subaru wagons. The tide can turn again.
Mainah is offline  
Old July 11, 2018, 04:49 PM   #33
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,283
This is a very good thread with lots of informative posts.


I'd like my NRA to focus exclusively on gun rights and not get involved in aspects of the culture wars that have nothing to do with guns. President Brownell's columns seemed to be an effort to be more inclusive which is the direction I would like the NRA to go.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old July 13, 2018, 09:50 PM   #34
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 263
I am a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, but the guy wasn't perfect, and when it comes to gun rights, for all we know, if he had been able to have a sit-down with some of us and really discuss the issue, he might have completely changed his opinion on things like "assault weapons." Regarding his saying to "listen to law enforcement," both the anti and pro-gun forces (NRA) do that, and to me it's nonsense, because it depends on the law enforcement. If you are talking big city police chiefs and departments, they heavily support hard gun control. If you are talking rural sheriffs, they heavily resist it. Because the police chiefs answer to big-city councils which are dominated by leftists, and the Sheriffs answer to rural populations that are more right-wing.

Regarding why weapons like AR-15s weren't popular until the last few decades, there are a few reasons this changed:

Historically, from what I understand, almost all firearms used by American soldiers in war then became highly popular with them for self-defense and hunting use when they came home. The AR-15/M-16 was the first occasion where this changed, for a couple of reasons: For one, the original AR-15 and M-16 had some major flaws, flaws that in the form of the M-16, got a lot of soldiers killed in Vietnam. Two, due to the nasty politics and way that war split the country, and the horrible treatment many soldiers received upon coming home, many veterans just wanted to put the war behind them when they got home. Purchasing the crappy plastic shoddy rifle that got a lot of their buddies killed in the war that they were called "Babykillers" in and spat on when they got home, was not high on the list.

By the 1980s, the design flaws of the AR-15/M-16 had been mostly worked out. Then I believe a few coalescing things happened that increased their popularity.

One, the 1994 ban. Since the government decided they were going to ban such weapons, people suddenly decided they wanted them and tons were purchased in the run-up to the ban. In addition, the ban didn't actually ban them, it just banned the ones that possessed two or more "Evil Features."

Two, video games and military action movies. Unlike the old cowboy movie days with the lever-actions and six-shooters, now you had the Hollywood action movies with the popularization of Special Operations and soldiers using M-16s, MP-5s, etc...plus you had the various similarly-themed video games where the same weapons were being used. So a generation of kids grew up being exposed on Hollywood and in video games to the "tactical" weapons as opposed to the more conventional weapons.

Three, because lots were purchased in the run-up to the ban and due to their increasing popularity overall due to the new media, people began to become far more familiar with them, realizing that they are quite ideal weapons ergonomically and for a range of uses.

Four, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers returning home from those wars have continued in the tradition historically of returning soldiers adopting the weapon they were issued in the military for civilian use. Unlike with Vietnam, the soldiers have been treated well for the most part, the wars didn't split the country to the degree that Vietnam did, and the modern M-16s/AR-15s are far better quality in both design and materials than the original 1960s versions.
LogicMan is offline  
Old July 13, 2018, 09:51 PM   #35
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainah
Reagan was a Goldwater Republican when he signed the Mulford Act, and Trump was writing checks to Hillary’s Senate campaign not too long ago. I suspect that at some point people will start to question the logic behind having a pro-gun control bumper sticker next to a Resist one on their Subaru wagons. The tide can turn again.
Many of the same people who accuse Trump of trying to become or start a tyranny also want to ban all the guns.
LogicMan is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 12:39 AM   #36
ROCK6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Georgia/Afghanistan
Posts: 256
Quote:
The NRA did it to themselves. They tied the organization to extreme conservative positions. It might have been a marketing decision to increase revenue from true believers. However, it was not a good decision for the USA in general.
I don't think the NRA had much of a choice. Even many closet, moderate Democrat gun-owners fear the demonization by the media and gun-confiscation crowd. I do agree though that the NRA could really make headway by reaching out to them. My only issue is that I don't trust "moderate" gun-owners. Many don't see the 2A the same way as those more strictly focused the Constitution. I no longer believe in compromise when it comes the 2A and it's no longer a "moderate" debate. You are either for the 2A or you are for its elimination.

The Democratic-socialists party is so extreme I can't understand how any gunowner could vote for a Democrat at the state or federal level. That said, the Republican party isn't much better and it really requires homework to identify the RINOs verse more Constitutionally-dedicated conservatives.

The Democratic party is no longer pushing the whole "common sense gun-control"; they are now pushing for absolute confiscation and elimination of the 2A. I can understand the more social-issue-oriented Democratic voters, but if they own firearms and believe in the intent of the 2A, whichever party is in power after the castration or elimination of the 2A, tyranny is soon to follow.

We lose the 2A, we lose civil liberties, the 1A, and other Amendments will lose their government-restraining efficacy. You want Socialist-Democrats in power? Take a good look at Venezuela...

Until the conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans can come together for libertarian candidates, the only vote for saving the 2A is with the GOP right now...and I don't have much faith in them either, but they're far more the lesser evil than the current Democratic party.

Firearms ownership/CCW laws and the 2A are very much partisan issues for the foreseeable future, and (unfortunately) makes me pretty much a single-issue voter.

ROCK6
ROCK6 is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 01:13 AM   #37
KY_blkout
Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2018
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCK6 View Post
I don't think the NRA had much of a choice. Even many closet, moderate Democrat gun-owners fear the demonization by the media and gun-confiscation crowd. I do agree though that the NRA could really make headway by reaching out to them. My only issue is that I don't trust "moderate" gun-owners. Many don't see the 2A the same way as those more strictly focused the Constitution. I no longer believe in compromise when it comes the 2A and it's no longer a "moderate" debate. You are either for the 2A or you are for its elimination.

The Democratic-socialists party is so extreme I can't understand how any gunowner could vote for a Democrat at the state or federal level. That said, the Republican party isn't much better and it really requires homework to identify the RINOs verse more Constitutionally-dedicated conservatives.

The Democratic party is no longer pushing the whole "common sense gun-control"; they are now pushing for absolute confiscation and elimination of the 2A. I can understand the more social-issue-oriented Democratic voters, but if they own firearms and believe in the intent of the 2A, whichever party is in power after the castration or elimination of the 2A, tyranny is soon to follow.

We lose the 2A, we lose civil liberties, the 1A, and other Amendments will lose their government-restraining efficacy. You want Socialist-Democrats in power? Take a good look at Venezuela...

Until the conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans can come together for libertarian candidates, the only vote for saving the 2A is with the GOP right now...and I don't have much faith in them either, but they're far more the lesser evil than the current Democratic party.

Firearms ownership/CCW laws and the 2A are very much partisan issues for the foreseeable future, and (unfortunately) makes me pretty much a single-issue voter.

ROCK6
Couldn't agree more, compromise isnt an option anymore on 2A. If we let them have this or that, 2 years later it will be more and more. The crazy thing is alot of the lefties have openly admitted the goal is one law change at a time until guns are down right outlawed. Then they wonder why the NRA and 2A supporters dont want any change or compromise in any gun laws.
KY_blkout is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 10:11 AM   #38
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
What? Are you implying that Democrats don't own guns? Or they're somehow deprived or forbidden from owning them? Maybe Dems only have hunting weapons? Do they have to turn in their handguns in order to comply with the party line? If I change my registration to Dem do I have to destroy all my guns? Or can I sell them to recoup some cost?
The post you are replying to is not singling out one person, or a small group, it's looking at the "Big Picture". Sure, people that are registered Democrats own guns. But when you look at the big picture, as a percentage of gun owners, you'll see what he means. A majority of Republicans (55%) say they have a gun in their home, compared with 32% of Democrats. See Gallup poll:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/21496/g...democrats.aspx

Now just because a person doesn't own a gun, it doesn't make them anti-gun. But, if you looked at percentages of people that would fit into the anti-gun group, there would be a higher percentage of Democrats. And yes, there are anti-gun Republicans.

Not that an anti-gun person is a bad person, I just happen to disagree with them on that subject.

Last edited by Mike38; July 15, 2018 at 10:16 AM.
Mike38 is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 11:28 AM   #39
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,780
Quote:
Now just because a person doesn't own a gun, it doesn't make them anti-gun.
Don't overlook the fact that there are people who own guns that are anti-gun!
One prominent anti-gun politician made a big deal of turning in her pistol when she got a law requiring that passed in "her" city. And, she did surrender ONE.

Turned out that she owned 2!! One got turned in, for show, the other was kept!!! now, this particular person is politically left/liberal, but in this case, its not a right/left or liberal/conservative matter.

It's a matter of elitism. And that can be found in people of both parties.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 12:05 PM   #40
craddleshooter
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2018
Location: NY
Posts: 90
i know for sure everything in this planet has been politicized. politicians want to control everything and that's not possible. everything sane person has the right to protect him/herself...that's a right a freedom all was born with. the Politicians can't take or give it because its not theirs to give or take. This right here is the issue.
craddleshooter is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 12:09 PM   #41
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,652
Elitism is a good point. There is a reasonable view that being Democrat or Republican doesn't matter as the elites of both parties are in cahoots to keep their entire class in control for their economic benefit.

Elites really don't like that power sources can be distributed to the non-elite slice of society. That's why you see so-called conservatives being opposed to firearms that have the most utility in the defense against tyranny (EBRs, higher cap weapons).

Some theorists think that major social disruption won't be based on conservative vs. liberal (to use this stupid but current short hand terms) but economic elite vs. the mid and lower SES if member of those sections realize they are being used. However, the elites keep the members of those classes divided on social issues. A bit of divide and rule. Race, religion, sexuality, gun control, other similar social topics keep the peasants fighting among themselves and away from storming the gated communities.

The state is recognized as the monopoly user of force in most societies. The USA is variant as it enshrined the use of force against the state as a possibility in the 2nd Amend. Elite classes will fight against that.

That's a risk in SCOTUS decisions or discussions that focus on self-defense and common usage and reasonable restrictions. It's a risk in the 5 is enough crowd that denigrates those who want to have or carry more (I understand the convenience and risk analysis arguments) but folks who call the carry more folks as nutty commandos play into the hands of the limit the arms of the peasantry folks of the elites.

A rich Romney or Rich Diane calling an AR a weapon only for the military and not you nuts - they are protecting the elites. Don't fear the NRA, says the Donald - wonder why, rich boy?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 01:04 PM   #42
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 377
Quote:
Mike38


The post you are replying to is not singling out one person, or a small group, it's looking at the "Big Picture". Sure, people that are registered Democrats own guns. But when you look at the big picture, as a percentage of gun owners, you'll see what he means. A majority of Republicans (55%) say they have a gun in their home, compared with 32% of Democrats. See Gallup poll:
im very skeptical of polls about gun ownership. I know i wouldnt answer a question about whether or not i own a gun to anyone, never mind someone who calls me up from a polling organization.
heyjoe is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 01:54 PM   #43
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,780
Quote:
A bit of divide and rule. Race, religion, sexuality, gun control, other similar social topics keep the peasants fighting among themselves and away from storming the gated communities.
Don't forget the Bread and Circuses!
(which, I think these days is foodstamps and TV ...)

Or tv and sports or dope or celebrity watching, or what ever else they can distract the great unwashed with...

Quote:
im very skeptical of polls about gun ownership. I know i wouldnt answer a question about whether or not i own a gun to anyone, never mind someone who calls me up from a polling organization.
I'm skeptical of all private polls, and I'm had occasional doubts about the official ones...

Had a friend, back in the Clinton years, and old farmer, he was slightly less political than a rock. Somehow, he got on a poll list. They called, asked him what he thought of the President, the job he was doing, etc. Since he didn't care, he told them he thought the Pres was ok...

THey called him every 2-3 months, for a couple years...he always told them the same thing. Then, one time, just to be a curmudgeon, he told them he didn't like the Pres, or the job he was doing.

They NEVER called him again....

As to a survey over the phone, from someone I don't know, and can't verify who they are (and especially if my caller ID says "not provided", no, I'm NOT going to tell them the truth. Ever.

I get a number of calls from people who say they are some kind of "Home Security" company, they want to give me a free installation of their system….ask what I've got for home security now....right.....like I'm going to tell a complete stranger the truth about my setup, but I sometimes do, tell them I have 400lbs of very hungry rotweillers, a moat filled with diseased alligators (if they even scratch you, you get gatoraids!) claymores , automatic flamethrowers, a voodoo curse and a gypsy hex, and that's just in the front yard....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 03:19 PM   #44
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,652
When I was young I had a job making cold phone calls to ask about music preferences for radio stations. We were given demographics wanted liked 20-25 year old male elephant handlers. If you got them to do the survey, you received a couple of books over minimum wage.

Everyone cheated and hoped there was a call back to check on you. One guy was getting a tremendous amount of successful surveys. We knew he was cheating but the Boss said he was a great work until the auditors busted both of them.

Point being that if callers have to get paid by the piece, you can never trust the data they collect.

This was so long ago that we got names from old obsolete White Pages that they ripped up and gave to us.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 04:58 PM   #45
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 2,044
I agree polls can be skewed, no doubt about it. But I'd like to believe that Gallup is one of the better polling agencies, maybe? Anyhow, it doesn't take a poll, a neurosurgeon, or a NASA scientist to know that by percentages, more Republicans own guns than Democrats do. Likewise, as a whole, looking at the big picture, Republicans lean pro-gun, Democrats lean anti-gun.
Mike38 is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 05:08 PM   #46
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,652
Agreed. However, if 32% of Democrats are gun owners, it is a mistake to adopt insulting rhetoric to all Democrats as some folks and organization leaders are prone to do.

That's why we like pro and anti gunner as descriptive in our discussions here. Folks have to make hard political choices and swallow the crap from the extremists of both parties in order to protect some issue that rises to the top of their priority list.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 05:36 PM   #47
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,109
That is the distinction after all, very well said.

Just something to think about...
What kind of a mix do we believe that there is among Americans, relating to who claims which major political party?
If one party has 55% of it's members that own firearms, and the other has 32% of it's member that do, how many Americans own firearms?
Why are people so quick to believe that gun owners are in a minority when the opposition tries to convince us that we are?
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!
turkeestalker is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 06:29 PM   #48
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
However, the elites keep the members of those classes divided on social issues. A bit of divide and rule. Race, religion, sexuality, gun control, other similar social topics keep the peasants fighting among themselves and away from storming the gated communities.
The very definition of "Keep them asking the wrong questions and you'll never have to worry about the answers."

Quote:
Originally Posted by turkeestalker
What kind of a mix do we believe that there is among Americans, relating to who claims which major political party?
At the risk of being overly simplistic, it seems that more and more folks fall in to one of two categories. Either, they realize that they "mostly" agree with one party or the other and so vote that party simply because it's easy, they're lazy, they don't really care to do deeper... or they have no party affiliation and often no political interest at all and don't participate (including voting) beyond meaningless banter and spreading uninformed opinion.

Fact is, nuanced stands are incredibly difficult to translate into voting choices in the current 2 party, basically choiceless system.

If I'm pro-gun and pro-choice... which party engenders my loyalty? Or anti-gun and pro-life? Hard line elements controlling the parties leave us little with which to identify on either side and our "digital", zero or one, singular input voting system essentially ensures that it stays that way.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 07:53 PM   #49
ROCK6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Georgia/Afghanistan
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
At the risk of being overly simplistic, it seems that more and more folks fall in to one of two categories. Either, they realize that they "mostly" agree with one party or the other and so vote that party simply because it's easy, they're lazy, they don't really care to do deeper... or they have no party affiliation and often no political interest at all and don't participate (including voting) beyond meaningless banter and spreading uninformed opinion.
Politics in general, turn a lot of people off, which his unfortunate, but also a political strategy by both parties to reduce opposition voting. I also have the opinion that media bias and influence along with the "swamp" like to keep voting to single, polarized issues...it sure makes their job easier! I fully agree though that "adults" able to legally vote are typically uninformed, apathetic, often more passionate about social issues rather than Constitutional liberties, and are in general, not very well informed about the actual platform issues. Of course we get a complicit media and bureaucrats who love feeding those masses...

Fact is, nuanced stands are incredibly difficult to translate into voting choices in the current 2 party, basically choiceless system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
If I'm pro-gun and pro-choice... which party engenders my loyalty? Or anti-gun and pro-life? Hard line elements controlling the parties leave us little with which to identify on either side and our "digital", zero or one, singular input voting system essentially ensures that it stays that way.
Fear-mongering; it works like a charm. While we have politicians and lobbying groups stating they want to ban all firearms...a Constitutional Amendment, the whole Roe V. Wade hasn't really been brought up by many on the Right. Now, rhetoric is a media/politician weapon and those on the Left say the opposition-nominee will take away your "right to choose", starve your kids, institute slavery, or whatever baseless argument to drum up support and money. The Right isn't much better, but they are far more accurate when they say the Left wants to "take away your guns"...many on the Left have come out and publicly stated that.

I go back to the one-issue of importance when I vote. Most of your little social liberties are protected by the Constitution...specifically the 1A and 2A. The biggest threat are not the people on the Left or Right, it's those in political power, whether they are Left or Right, or the spineless Independents (spineless only because they have no core platform to stand up for or against). My last comment is why only radicals and single-platform individuals participate in elections...it's simply easier.

Guns and just about all other issues are partisan and highly charged. Only education and truly revealing the facts in a logical manner will combat that froth-mouthed protestor who likely can't even spell "Constitution", and is likely getting paid less than minimum wage to carry divisive posters and spew hate-filled rhetoric towards the opposition...of which they likely don't even care who they oppose, it's just the "in-thing" to do and get some publicity. Yeah, guns will be a partisan topic for some time to come.

ROCK6
ROCK6 is offline  
Old July 19, 2018, 05:05 AM   #50
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,109
Guns will be a partisan issue for, well... basically forever.
My point is that as gun owners, we need to stop buying into crap that we're fed by those that oppose us.
When you look at the two major political parties, and then stop to consider independents, and where that group typically stands.
Gun owners and supporters of the 2nd amendment are not in a minority in our country, not by a long shot.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!
turkeestalker is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10747 seconds with 10 queries