Gun Club for Liberals: The Un-NRA

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=22557321

Gun Club for Liberals: The Un-NRA
Feb. 18, 2014
By ALAN FARNHAM

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."

The LGC will even sell you an AR-15 lower receiver:



(now THAT will give the self-appointed zampolits a case of the fantods!)

[PoliticAverse]

1. From January...

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Liberals-find-comfort-level-in-NPR-of-gun-clubs-5107330.php

[proudretiredvet]

2. Now this makes me LOL for real.

I was just shut out of the gun grabber area on this site because I insisted that the debate be factual, real, truthful, and honest without spinning, twisting, or making up "facts."

This must really be a big tent. If you were anyplace close to them they would suffer spontaneous combustion.

There are many, many liberal and voting democrats who own and shoot firearms. There are many many on the left who insist on having their second amendment rights.

I am for background checks on each and every firearms sale.

I am for mandatory training before the purchase of your first firearm.

I am for mandatory safe and sane storage if the firearm is not in your immediate possession.

I am for responsible gun owners, period.

Hunting and shooting competition are legitimate sports.

The second amendment is as important as all the rest of of the amendments.

No nationally elected politician can be elected in this country without the votes of gun owners. I bet that one is very hard for some to swallow.

[oneshooter]

3. Welcome to OUR tent, sit down and have a cuppa.

And WELCOME to DU.

[proudretiredvet]

13. oneshooter

I'm still shaking my head after reading through this thread. I'm a Retired Air Borne Ranger with 23 years active duty. I carried a fully automatic weapon the majority of that time. I had a TS security clearance with an extended back ground investigation and served with Delta Force for several years.
No person ever told me that they were sorry I was protecting their safety, security, or constitutional rights. On the other side of that coin I never had to ask any of them if I could carry that weapon or do my duty.
Long story short. The anti gun folks are crazy if they think I'm going to ask for their permission to partake of my constitutional rights and legally possessing or carry a firearm after all of that.
Not only will I not ask their permission to legally carry a weapon I will not apologize for doing so or accept any of their guilt trips either.
I left out one point. I'm a disabled vet due to battle injuries. I have paid the price for my constitutional rights. I am in fact, a proud Vet.

[clffrdjk]

14. Thank you sir.

[oldhippie]

15. Thank you for your service, and .....

...... I totally agree with your sentiment.

Also a proud retired vet here. Forty years service, active duty and DA Civilian combined. Old enough to have caught the Viet Nam thing.

[proudretiredvet]

16. Thank you also for your service.

There are millions of vets like you and I out there. They are Left of center to one degree or another and have been left out of most of the political discussions. They are more quiet and reserved in voicing their thoughts but they do vote. In the last two presidential elections they voted for President Obama.
We are good law abiding citizens who have served so all Americans can have, share, and enjoy all of their constitutional rights. We have served so the protesters of the Dunn verdict can scream about the injustice, indignity and racism of the verdict. We have served so that the strong women and strong men who support them can loudly point out the inequity, and unequal pay between men and women. We have served so that we can continue to have the right to KABA. The right to be an armed citizen was the second amendment written into out constitution. It was as important to our forefathers as it is to many of us today.
This party needs our votes to win elections. That is just a hard proven fact. The last time the democrat party pushed gun control in a national election it bit them in the ass and drew blood on both cheeks and they lost.
Keep your head up, never apologize for utilizing one or all of your constitutional rights, do not accept their highly manipulated statistics, and do not fall into their guilt traps that are based on constructed data.
When they ask you a question speak the truth, the provable factual truth. Then respond with a truth based pointed question and do not allow them to avoid answering it.
In the end thank them for the debate and discussion and remind them that they need the votes of the liberal gun owners to win in the next election.

[SecularMotion]

17. Correction

It's the Democratic party, not the democrat party and your post sounds like it was written by the NRA.

[proudretiredvet]

20. My mistake

And nope I have never been a member of the NRA. Your problem is that I only disagree with you and that what I say is mathematically, statistically, and factually correct. The Democratic party needs the votes of the liberal gun owners to win and when the Democratic party runs on a gun control platform they lose.
Thank you for not calling me names. Thank you for a well thought out comment.

[SecularMotion]

21. The Democratic Party has the votes of liberal gun owners.

The Democratic Party does not need the votes of supporters of the NRA interpretation of a "robust" 2nd Amendment. They are a small minority in this country whose views are more in line with the Tea Party and the radical right wing.

[proudretiredvet]

22. I understand your point of view

It is historically and factually wrong but I understand that you have to feel that way for your passion against guns to exist here.

The true and factual numbers are there for all to see what happens when the Democratic party runs on a gun control platform. We loose.

I completely and totally reject any stated position that liberal gun owners who are second amendment supporters are not valued and needed members of the democratic party.

[SecularMotion]

23. I have no "passion against guns"

Please don't misconstrue my words or try to state my opinion.

The claim that the 1994 assault weapons ban cost Democrats control of Congress is a NRA myth.

The Deadly Myth of Gun Control in Electoral Politics

In politics, conventional wisdom can be slow to die, even when the so-called wisdom is neither true nor wise.

So I was reminded on a recent visit to Capitol Hill, when I asked several lawmakers and senior members of their staffs to explain the Democrats’ timidity about standing up to the National Rifle Association by pressing needed measures to curb gun violence.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama tossed cold water a few weeks back on Attorney General Eric Holder’s well-founded enthusiasm for reviving the assault weapons ban that Congress and the Bush White House let expire in 2004.

I was struck by a common thread in the responses I heard: Enactment of the original 1994 assault weapons ban cost Democrats control of Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/opinion/09sat4.html?_r=0

[Straw Man]

24. Of course you don't, dear.

Bless your heart.

BTW, the NY Times Op-Ed page doesn't get to define liberalism. And as a Democrat, I'd rather believe my party's setbacks in the mid-'90s had more to do with its stance on gun control than with "perceived arrogance and corruption," as per the article.

[SecularMotion]

25. You're free to believe NRA myths, but please don't promote them on a website for Democrats.

[Straw Man]

30. And you don't get to define liberalism either ...

... nor to determine what a lifelong Democrat should or should not post on this site.

[proudretiredvet]

44. I am as free as you are to state my opinions and beliefs.

Is that a principle of the first amendment you have forgotten or just chosen to ignore because I do not agree with you or speak as you wish me to? Would you choose to censor me just because of your belief of superior self worth that somehow your words just have to mean more than mine, or is it just the lack of facts on your side of the argument?
What you say does not match the history of how people of our party voted against gun control.

[SecularMotion]

45. The first amendment doesn't apply here. There are limits

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[proudretiredvet]

49. OK I read it and so did everyone else.

What I got out of it is that if someone, or many someones do not agree with you then they have no rights to state any differing opinion. This is not about DU, there are many gun owners on here. This is about you.
Your position is clear, plain and understood.
News flash there are millions and millions of gun owning liberals and democrats. Because you have an opinion, any opinion, does not negate that fact.
Next news item of the day. Gun owners, have, do, and will in the future vote their gun rights first. Or they will simply choose to stay home and not vote at all.
I will not bow to your definition of what all liberals are.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Poisoning the well? Thin gruel...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

[oldhippie]

34. "I have no "passion against guns"

[SecularMotion]

36. I do have a passion against gun nuts.

[oneshooter]

38. Everybody WATCH OUT!!!

Circular is dropping Google Dumps as it's own opinion.

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. Not necessarily.

If a Democrat candidate advocates strong anti-gun positions, a lot of liberal gun owners will not vote for them. Gun control is a "dealbreaker" issue for a lot of people on either side of that debate.

Would those liberal gun owners then vote for the Republican? Highly unlikely. They'd just not vote at all in that race, or perhaps vote for a third party or independent candidate whose gun control position is irrelevant because they have no chance of being elected.

[SecularMotion]

28. That's what the NRA keeps telling us

But I've never seen any proof of "a lot of liberal gun owners" not voting for a Democrat who supports strong gun laws.

[Lizzie Poppet]

29. No proof (either way) is available.

Secret ballot, and all that...

There's only whatever anecdotal evidence is available to any of us individually. In my case, that strongly indicates that an extreme gun-control position causes some liberal gun owners to reject a candidate. Most have told me that they simply don't vote in that race. YMMV, of course...

[beevul]

31. Forgotten about the colorado recalls so soon? N/T

[SecularMotion]

32. The Colorado recall elections were an anomaly.

I wouldn't use those as an example of liberals rejecting candidates that support strong gun laws, besides the NRA lost in the end when their attempts to reverse the laws were defeated.

[oldhippie]

33. Of course. Any fact that goes against your position is ....

.... an anomaly.

[beevul]

35. Hahahaha.

The anti-gun-nuts outspent the pro-gun side 5 to 1, yet 2 in somewhat blue areas were successfully recalled, and a third resigned in a VERY blue area, rather than risk losing.

Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

[SecularMotion]

37. I'm not ignoring it

Just pointing out that there were a lot of factors involved in a special recall election and it shouldn't be used as an example of liberals rejecting candidates that support strong gun laws.

Did you enjoy seeing Democrats lose seats in a NRA driven recall election?

[gejohnston]

40. It wasn't NRA driven

although they helped. Should representatives reflect the wishes of their constituents, or the wishes of a right wing authoritarian billionaire believes in limiting all of the BoR?

[Eleanors38]

50. There's that 3rd Way: Democrats stayed home because they weren't particularly devout..

as to gun control. No one wants to waste energy and mythical political capital on gun bans when they have read the same debate "points" over the last 30 yrs, and have put bans back on the back shelf.

Given these public servants were Democrats, no liberals here can celebrate a win. It's just so frustrating to see them take torpedoes and turn turtle because -- after all these years -- in friggin' Colorado -- they simply didn't know their constituency. Act locally, for chrissakes.

[beevul]

53. You sure aren't being honest about it, not even with yourself.

"Just pointing out that there were a lot of factors involved in a special recall election and it shouldn't be used as an example of liberals rejecting candidates that support strong gun laws. "

None of the factors you refer to apply in the case of Hudak.

She resigned to protect the seat...because her seat was under attack...why exactly?

If it wasn't the gun issue, what was it hmm?

"Did you enjoy seeing Democrats lose seats in a NRA driven recall election?"

They lost their seats largely because of their votes on gun control, so how about you answer that question for us.

[SecularMotion]

54. It was the NRA

and if you're not being honest about it, you're carrying water for the right wing gun lobby.

[beevul]

55. Anti-gun talking point.

All of the pro-gun spending, including that of the nra, amounted to 20 percent of what the anti-gun lobby spent.

Try again.

Oh, and you never did answer why her seat was under attack, or what issie was mainly to blame.

We're all ears.

[SecularMotion]

56. You're in denial

Mark Glaze, a spokesman for Bloomberg's anti-gun violence group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, cautioned against applying too many conclusions from Colorado to the broader gun debate.

"There's an understandable impulse to extrapolate the Colorado results into a national trend. The only trend here is the NRA wasn't able to defeat as many legislators as it went after," Glaze told The Huffington Post in an interview. "A national coalition against gun violence provided counterweight to the NRA in these recalls for the first time. The NRA cherry-picked the most vulnerable legislators in Colorado, including a Senate president who represents one of the most conservative congressional districts in the country."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/colorado-recall-results_n_3903209.html

[beevul]

58. Quoting a bloomberg spokesman?

I imagine, after outspending their opponents 5 to 1, they're as desperate for excuses, as you are.

[Duckhunter935]

63. He can't

deal with that fact. Bloomies billions did not help much even though that side spent much more. Where is the grass roots here?

[oneshooter]

41. Just a simple MudMarine here.

8 years, two trips to RVN the rest stateside.

[geckosfeet]

52. Agreed and well spoken.

Be well.

[proudretiredvet]

57. Another liberal gun owner just sent me this link.

This is a big poll of professional LEO's from all over our nation. They are the ones out on the front lines who see and investigate the violence in our country.

It would be hard to sell an excuse that they do not know what they are talking about.

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/

[SecularMotion]

4. This is the correct forum for those debates to take place.

You can spin, twist, and make up all the "facts" you want in here.

[oneshooter]

5. Hey Circular, speaking of "spin" have you gotten dizzy yet? n/t

[SecularMotion]

46. That's hilarious! Who writes your material?

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Feeling a bit irritated and tense, are we?

[SecularMotion]

7. Not at all, but if you are I hope you're not carrying a gun.

[oneshooter]

8. Why are you planning to assault either of us?

If not then it wouldn't matter if we were carrying.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Also, most assaults *don't* involve firearms

[SecularMotion]

18. Michael Dunn was a bit irritated and tense.

I'm concerned for public safety, when gun toters become irritated and tense.

[oneshooter]

39. Most of the time, when I read your Google Dumps......

I'm laughing so hard that I couldn't draw a weapon if I wanted to.

[SecularMotion]

42. I'm concerned that you find reports of gun violence so amusing.

[oneshooter]

43. It's not the reports, IT'S YOU!

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Whereas, if they don't have a gun they're okeydokey?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/aggravated_assault_table_aggravated_assault_types_of_weapons_used_percent_distributioin_by_region_2012.xls

Aggravated Assault, Types of Weapons Used

Percent Distribution by Region, 2012

Region Total

All weapons

Firearms 21.8

Knives or cutting instruments 18.8

Other weapons (clubs, blunt objects, etc.) 32.6

Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 26.8
Total 100.0

Doesn't it concern you just a teensy bit that even if all guns evaporated magically tomorrow
and all murders commited with (that's with, not by) them weren't
committed by other means the United States would still have one of the highest
murder rates amongst the OECD countries?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_7_murder_types_of_weapons_used_percent_distribution_by_region_2012.xls

Total all
weapons

Firearms 69.3

Knives or cutting instruments 12.5

Unknown or other dangerous weapons 12.9

Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 5.3
Total 100.0

You lot don't seem to care very much about about non-gun violence...

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Then again, you hope *no one* is carrying a gun

But that's okay- I like that you're willing to mix it up here, away from the comfort of
the prohibitionist group, and we'll still talk to you when and if you choose
to be candid about your actual goals.

I find echo chambers boring, and if everybody here agreed with each other we'd be no better
than those on the other side of the fence...

[Duckhunter935]

12. I doo like the dialog

unlike over in bansalot that is just an echo chamber.

[Eleanors38]

10. And if a controller, post with no comment.

[MicaelS]

19. Thus speaks our resident Zampolit.

And it's an actual post of his own words, not something just copied and pasted from somewhere else. Amazing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. Whereas in Castle Bansalot only one side of the debate can do that.

And boy fucking howdy, do they do that...

[Eleanors38]

51. And that mud-splattering hippo fart regularly drifts thru GD.

[SecularMotion]

60. Welcome Back

[SecularMotion]

62. You do realize this is a board for Democrats?

The Democratic party platform supports gun regulation, so I'd be wary of using "regulationists" as a smear on DU if I were you. You're attacking the majority of DU and the Democratic Party.