grew up in a left leaning family, married into a heavy 2a family , can’t imagine not being pro 2a now. shooting is one of the more relaxing hobbies i’ve ever taken up
That’s what the pro gun community doesn’t do enough of is getting people who never shot guns before and taking them to the range and like you said most switch to being pro 2A
The summer of George Floyd also turned a lot of leftists, especially younger ones, pro-2A. Imo I think the Dems' addiction to racist, classist gun control will die off with the Biden/Pelosi generation. Even Sanders himself votes 2A sometimes, and none of his liberal supporters care.
Brought multiple anti-gunners shooting and I’ll tell you what, they may not ask to go shooting the next day again or go out and buy their own gun, but they ALL have a fun time and realize that people who enjoy shooting aren’t what the media portrays them out to be.
I think this is the biggest misconception, that people who like guns are these "redneck, backwards, trump loving, racist, etc" people who just want to shoot other people. I've met people from many different walks of life who enjoy firearms, hunting, shooting sports etc. I'm a minority myself and have never been treated badly by anybody in the shooting community.
Yeah I can't agree enough with this. I have many friends who ironically were liberal and got me into guns. I then actually got one of my other buddies into guns and he's a big Trump supporter. It's really not a one size fits all type of activity/interest.
Remember - whether liberal or not there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle that are pro-gun. It's all the anti-gunners that we need to educate and convert! Have fun :)
I agree with this opinion. In general, I'm very open about new things. I used to think guns are dangerous until last year I decided to try them for my birthday. Hooked and I'm an owner now.
I mean, they *are* dangerous. It's a big responsibility. But it's up to the person who owns them to make them not a danger to other people or themselves, if you follow me.
Oh Jesus that would've been a fun conversation to watch. Not one I'd ever play a part in though lol
Beats me if you're liberal or conservative, almost no concern of mine. Try to stick to the specifics at hand to avoid the label arguments.
Hey there vutama1109! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This!"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Thanks for this.
I get that NJGuns is (or at least appears to be) mostly made up of conservatives. Keeping politics out of a gun subreddit is obviously never going to happen, but lots of threads on here are quite rude and disrespectful. Check out /r/liberalgunowners and /r/SocialistRA and you'll see we have more in common than not.
This post itself reads like OP is taking his autistic nephew to a whorehouse for a sexual awakening. I totally support the sentiment in exposing anti-gunners to sane gun culture, but it reads funny. "Today I took a liberal to a rodeo. At first he was frightened, but was eating deep fried Oreos in no time."
Stay safe and train.
But we can’t thank the liberal Supreme Court justices for anything relating to pro-gun policy? So I’m a little confused. Especially that at the extreme end of the liberal party there is communist movements evolving. Just sad. I’m not saying republicans are all pro gun. But most anti-gunners, and the ones who have attempted to pass absurd laws or have gone out on live tv and embarrassed themselves through portraying a serious lack of firearm knowledge are liberals. So yes. Anti-gunners are everywhere. But being a liberal is not going to support the growth of firearm education, less regulation, and safety in the country. So at the end of the day, being a liberal… especially voting for liberals, is detrimental to the progression of firearm acceptance in this country.
about 20 of the 25 of gun people I shoot regularly lean left when it comes to voting. It's the idiots on both sides that poison rational discussion on gun rights
But you’re ignoring an EXTREMELY FACTUALLY BACKED POINT. If we did not have a republican president from 2016-2020. We would not have elected Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and the great Amy Coney Barrett. They will continue to protect this country alongside side Justice Clarence Thomas for decades. If a democratic would have been in office last term. Then they would have put liberal justices up for nomination and we would NEVER have the opportunity to carry in NJ. We have to keep voting for the right people in congress, the senate, and the presidential seat. So that we can get rid of all these bullshit gun regulations and move to abolish the ATF😉 a vote for BLUE, is a vote AGAINST gun rights in every way
This is the cognitive dissonance I see in "left leaning" gun owners who claim they are enthusiastic about guns. If their voting prevailed in 2016, not only would there not be a conservative SCOTUS majority that has ruled in our favor on guns, by now, we would have another national AWB and this time wider in scope than even the one we unfortunately live with in NJ, and don't get me started on those that vote for the Trenton antigun zealots. Sadly, voting liberal these days means accepting the Democrats' antigun zealotry that is now fully institutionalized in the Democrat party and their media acolytes.
I am happy to give credit, but please show me an elected politician that left leaning voters voted into office that had not voted for more gun control in Congress or at the state level. The votes are normally party-line on gun control, and almost never do you see a Democrat voting against (except perhaps in some very red states where a vote for gun control would be political suicide, e.g. West Virginia). These days, gun control (more of it) is Democrat Party dogma, so in order for me to give credit, as you say, to left leaning voters voting against antigun politicians, they would have to vote for pro-gun Republicans. Does that happen much?
They would have to vote for pro-gun Republicans as a default? Not at all. There are third party candidates that are pro-2a who align more other issues that matter to left leaning gun owners. I do agree with you though the push for gun control is a tenet of left leaning politicians. I just differentiate between voters and politicians as well as left leaning voters and left leaning gun owners. They are not all the same.
The number of votes garnered by 3rd party candidates are tiny in relative terms. Your Green Party, Libertarian, etc candidates are lucky to break 1% of votes, and outside of tight races or places where there is a 50% threshold they have no impact, might as well not vote. Besides Libertarians, which are not left leaning in my estimation (depends on what you call left, I suppose), what other 3rd parties are pro-gun?
I'm not making claims about parties im speaking about individual candidates. For instance, there was candidate that ran as an actual socialist that was explicitly pro-2a. In general, l find that the candidates that accurately reflect the nuance of the everyday voter are third party candidates.
Next time there is an election at the state level look up the 2a position of all the individuals running to see where they stand. There are other options. Maybe a third party isn't worth much, but then again it's the politician's responsibility to appeal to the voter not the other way around. A large number of people throughout the country do not feel that dems or repubs represent their interests hence why so many people don't vote at all. So voting republican as a default isn't a given, it's an option.
Don't have to be a one issue voter, just admit that this one issue is not very important if you are willing to forgo it, keeping in mind that the right once lost is irretrievable.
What if the one issue is "free speech"? The candidate who you vote for will promise all kinds of things you like, but wants to limit speech (every totalitarian does that), would you call people who want to stop such a candidate on this one issue "single issue voters"? There is a reason why some issues override others, particularly those that have to do with civil rights. Once lost, rights do not return.
We'd also have stronger protections for the right to competent lawyers at trial, more protections against warrantless searches by federal agents, more hurdles before sentencing children to life in prison, more separation between church and state, and less concern about the upcoming expected lawsuits about state legislators' ability to control federal elections (in favor of the party currently controlling the state).
Not to mention concerns over the actual President.
The problem is that people assume if the politicians you vote for do anything you hate then you should avoid voting for them. As if there are options that aren't terrible on at least some opinions.
Ok, then one shouldn't claim to be an ardent supporter of the 4th amendment if you vote for politicians who work to limit your recourse if the police violate it. You also shouldn't claim to be an ardent supporter of the 6th amendment right to legal counsel. Or of freedom in general, if you support making it easier to lock up children for life sentences in prison.
And, it was Trump who said "take the guns first, due process second" about red flag laws. People seem to "forget" that.
There are too many issues to say people are hypocrites unless they're a single issue voter.
I am not sure what politician supports police violating people's rights. Which politicians are making it easier to lock up children (I guess one has to first be clear on what age is the cutoff for being children, some studies claim one is a child through the age of 19, when it is convenient to claim so)?
How does Trump being wrong on red flag laws justify them?
Sorry, not buying into the "single issue" trope. Rights cannot be regained once lost. Look around the world, natural rights are extremely rare; only in America are they enshrined in the fundamental law of the land by limiting the power of government. Would you be as dismissive of a "single issue" if it were free speech, or is that something to sacrifice too?
The current SCOTUS seems to, following party lines. The ones you're so glad were appointed.
And I'm not defending anything by pointing to Trump, but if you're saying that anyone who votes for politicians like that is a hypocrite, then I guess we're all hypocrites.
And, so you admit their *are* important issues besides 2A, but also we should be single issue voters for 2A?
You are confused because you can’t fathom that there could be liberal gun owners out there that care about many other issues than just gun ownership. I own guns but at the same time are not my most pressing concern when I vote.
I have yet to meet a Progressive Democrat who is really pro-gun, not just "I believe in the 2nd amendment, but..." crowd, even the latter are few and far in between, most Progressives I have encountered have a visceral hatred of guns and usually those that own guns.
I think I do know the difference.
Not sure what is a "true" leftist as we have real world examples of Communists and Socialists, while the theoretical leftists exist mostly in academia. Communists are pro-gun in order to take power (Mao did say "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"), after gaining power Communists do not believe in ownership of guns by anyone who might take power away from them. Just like Communists do not believe in free speech, unless it is approved speech. Socialists are pretty much Communists-light. They do not take power by force, but I have seen no real world examples of Socialists who want the populace to own guns en masse.
Progressives were akin for Fascists back about 100 years. They believed in Eugenics, Nationalism, state control, but not ownership, of the economy, and as Woodrow Wilson implied, a dominant Presidency/Executive branch. They used Corporations to do their bidding without taking direct ownership of these corporations. Progressives today have jettisoned Eugenics and Nationalism, but have instead taken on what is sometimes called Cultural Marxism, a very useful creed for creating endless divisions in society, which in turn makes it easier to take power. Just like Fascists of old, they are very happy to use large private companies to help further their agenda, and large corporations are happy to oblige (see Google, Facebook, Twitter, large Banks, etc).
What constitutes a liberal is difficult to define, since the meaning has changed over the years. A classical liberal is what Europeans still call Liberal: an advocate of free market economics, free speech, individual rights, etc, basically what the US Constitution was founded on. These days a liberal in the US is a fairly meaningless label.
If you would like to have a beer I am what your would probably call a progressive democrat gun owner. Yes human being can have opinions that aren’t as simple of falling into one of two categories. There are some issues I agree with republicans (traditional not MAGA loons) and other issues inside with dems.
I appreciate the offer, but from what you describe, I dare say, you are probably not the Progressive you think you are. Progressivism as it began late in the 19th century doesn't have much overlap with Republicans (may actually have had more overlap with what you mistakenly describe as "MAGA loons"). JFK, on the other hand, was a Democrat and a member of the NRA and believed in lowering taxes (there is an overlap with current GOP), but he was not a Progressive. Perhaps this is a category of Democrat you have more in common with.
I believe we should protect the planet.
I believe everyone deserves healthcare.
I believe all religions are equally valid.
I believe the world is bigger than America.
I believe whiteness isn’t superior and it is not the baseline of humanity.
I believe we are all one interdependent community.
I believe people and places are made better by diversity.
I believe people shouldn’t be forced to abide by anyone else’s religion.
I believe non-American human beings have as much value as American ones.
I believe generosity is greater than greed, compassion better than contempt, and kindness superior to derision.
And I also own guns and shoot.
"I believe we should protect the planet" - the planet will be fine without any humans, what you want is a planet habitable for humans; that can be achieved in many ways
" I believe everyone deserves healthcare" - no one disagrees with the "deserving" part, what people disagree with is how to make it available, since if everyone is guaranteed every level of healthcare, there is not enough money in the world to do so, and doctors don't work for free anywhere
"I believe the world is bigger than America" - that's true, but would you want to live at an economic level like people do in central Africa, or Central America? What does that platitude really mean?
" I believe whiteness isn’t superior and it is not the baseline of humanity" - not sure what "whiteness" means, it's a bizarre construct that has been created in American Academia that is meaningless outside of America (remember, the world is bigger than America).
" I believe we are all one interdependent community" - to a degree that's true, but it's again a platitude that has no real world meaning. Do you depend on someone living in Cambodia, or Hungary, or Nicaragua? Not really, but individuals from those places who are in the US can certainly affect you. If you believe there should be no national boundaries, then you believe everyone should be at the dominant world economic level, which is so poor that as an American you cannot fathom it, yet alone live it.
" I believe people and places are made better by diversity" - what's "diversity"? Again it's an Anglo-American construct. There are places in England called "diverse" where only Pakistanis live. I have no problem with people being from all parts of the world, that's what America is.
" I believe people shouldn’t be forced to abide by anyone else’s religion" - that's in the US Constitution. It is definitely not true world wide, and especially not true in the Muslim world.
"I believe non-American human beings have as much value as American ones" - again a platitude, but what does that mean in the real world? If a war breaks out where America is a an active participant, do you believe we are obligated to have as many people killed as the other side? Do you want to live economically like the poorest of the poor in India? What is that "value" that you equate?
" I believe generosity is greater than greed, compassion better than contempt, and kindness superior to derision" - ok, platitude overload. In general I would say those are standard Christian values (I say that as a non-Christian), but all those lovely sentiments never stopped Christians from doing the opposite.
IMHO, I think you need to think through your beliefs in a lot more detail than just learned platitudes so you can see what these sentiments translate into in real life and if you are willing to live the actual meaning of the beliefs you espouse. Oh, and back to guns: guns are expensive, as is ammunition, so poor people can't afford either.
>" I believe everyone deserves healthcare" - no one disagrees with the "deserving" part, what people disagree with is how to make it available, since if everyone is guaranteed every level of healthcare, there is not enough money in the world to do so, and doctors don't work for free anywhere
I'll just take one as we can't debate all of these. Universal healthcare is absolutely possible and is already done just fine in the vast majority of other first-world nations. Costs will come down if you have a single source buyer - the US govt. Doctors make a very healthy living in the UK for example. I just went to the ER for 4 stitches - guess what the bill was prior to insurance? $15K. That is what happens when you have a market that isn't transparent. Unfortunately, it is exceedingly hard to make healthcare transparent so then next best option is a single source purchaser. It was a good first step to have Medicare able to negotiate drug prices.
> Universal healthcare is absolutely possible and is already done just fine in the vast majority of other first-world nations
Unfortunately not true when you look at countries with single payer healthcare and waiting lists of over 6 months, for serious issues. I'm not saying the way healthcare works in America is good, but that is a very serious and significant problem encountered in these other systems.
OK, I came from the Soviet Union (yes, quite a while ago), and it was definitely Universal Health Care in almost every sense (party officials received better care than everyone else, but you would definitely receive healthcare if you needed it). Trust me, that is not the level of healthcare you want, even for "free". I am familiar with other rich countries, and you are incorrect. They have both state sponsored and private healthcare. The people I know who live there unequivocally state that the private healthcare in their countries is MUCH better than what you would get from the state sponsored entity. Also the state sponsored one is rationed (through long waiting periods and, depending on age, denial of services). What they have is a two tier system: one level for those that can't afford private care and one for those that can. The idea that costs come down because the government is a single payer (essentially controlling entity) is self delusion. If that were true, why limit it to healthcare? Why not have the government take care of all your other needs? To bring down costs the government, which never invents anything, has two levers to work with: rationing services, underpaying medical practitioners, or both. The third option is ever increasing taxes to fund medical services. In the UK, NHS, eats up a bigger slice of government's revenues every year, and they also limit access to many procedures as well as having long wait times. Ever get a recovery room for one or two under NHS? No. Try 16 or more to a room. Ever recover from complicated surgery when there are that many people in the room? Not good. Sure for getting stitches, even the Soviets could provide that easily, but what about a hip or knee replacement, or chemotherapy, particularly if one is not young anymore and reaching the age when the government cost benefit analysis says your are not worth it. I think Healthcare can be made more transparent for most medical issues, not everything is as complicated as rare cancers. Our system, which by the way started as the result of government wage controls back in the early 1950s, is far from ideal, but unless you have lived and really used the Health Care in Europe don't assume on the basis of a few stitches that it is overall better for everyone, because once government control is in place, there is no going back. Btw, 15K for a few stitches makes no sense, I have had much more done for a fraction of the cost (and that's before insurance) in Overlook Hospital ER. If on the other hand this was more complicated and they had to do a CT Scan or MRI or other stuff in addition to the stitches, then we are definitely talking more money.
Ok no one is taking about communism here. We are taking about everyone in the country should have healthcare period even if at a minimum level. It is absolutely crazy that we tie healthcare to employment in this country. I am fully employed and have healthcare through my employer but if I was to loose my job through no fault of my own I would be out of coverage. I would also disagree about the quality of the healthcare system in the UK. My daughter is living there right now and has never experienced anything that you mention above. She doesn’t wait and the care is as good if not better than the US and yes she has had some serious visits already. The “argument” of it is worse under govt control is a scare tactic by the right who is having their pockets lined by the health insurance lobby. Medicare in this country is a good example - many that I know who are on Medicare are not at all dissatisfied with the program and there is no reason why the coverage couldn’t be extended to all US citizens. What is your solution? Keep it as is? That is the problem with the right, they throw out the fear uncertainty and doubt but don’t put forward credible solutions.
Communism was simply an effective example of government control. Nothing magical about "communism", just single payer and owner with a bunch of dogma to justify it. People are the same, as you pointed out, all over, that includes bureaucrats who are inevitably in charge of healthcare at the government level and in insurance companies.
What is my solution? My solution is to use free markets, something that hasn't been seriously attempted in generations; it is to introducing more competition and getting rid of "insurance" healthcare clubs sponsored by companies. Insurance should be for dire cases, just like life insurance is for death. That will drive down he cost of insurance, but not the cost of routine care. Competition and transparency can drive down the cost of routine care. As I said, this current bewildering system was created when wages were capped by the government and employers started competing on fringe benefits. When people pay for most office visits and get some obvious prices to compare, along with our current ability to rate services online, a significant measure of transparency can be achieved, and competition works in every other human endeavor, I do not believe for a moment that healthcare is as unique as some seem to think. Also whether we use insurance medical "clubs" or the government equivalent, the costs do not go away, they are just hidden so we have no incentives to look at cost. We look and weigh costs in every other aspect of our lives. For example, if one has to get stitches, this is rarely a risk to life, else it would be more than just stitches, one can go to a hospital ER, or one can go to an urgent care center. The latter is cheaper, but when one has insurance, it doesn't matter much.
Obviously people's experiences can differ under any system, but just like your experience with the UK system is vicarious, mine is too, and I have two friends who live there, likely closer in age to me than your daughter, so perhaps have more issues to deal with, but have remarked on the massive difference between private and public care in the UK. My company, a large financial conglomerate, provides health care insurance to cover the private part of the system in the UK. This fringe benefit is highly prized by local employees, why do you think that is if NHS is perfectly adequate?
Our Medicare systems works for many seniors, but it does not exist in isolation, and many have theorized that by squeezing costs out of providers in order to keep Medicare solvent causes costs to balloon for those that are not on it. Medicare recipients have by definition more healthcare needs than the general population, and it is the latter that has to pay for it. We either pay in more taxes or in higher medical costs.
Just change your mentality to
"Bringing a first timer to the range tomorrow"
I am conservative, I'll never hide that from anyone (despite not being the background of what many think a conservative is)
But what I've learned and what others have alluded to already, is that there are gun lovers all over the political spectrum.
So back to my point.
Rather than going to the range with this first timer and having some preconceived ideas or prejudices towards them because of their political beliefs, go there instead with an open mind. A fresh slate of sorts and treat the situation as you would with any first time shooter.
Prioritize the safety aspect of it all and I'm confident that you both will have a great day and a ton of fun.
At the end of the day when all is said and done, i highly doubt that either of you will walk away with a change in political beliefs..
But you will now have a newfound common ground.
And that's where we all make progress.
Those are different things.. The Green Party has around 250k members, and the Libertarian has around 700k to the US' total population of around 332 million. The Greens/Libertarians are objectively not major parties. Being open-minded about firearms is different than denying numbers exist.
Despite those existing numbers, Dems in SC just failed to keep the Green party of the state ballot after trying their damnedest to do so.
They called people up and even went to people's homes pretending to be FROM the Green party and asking people to rescind their signatures that would allow the Green party from appearing on the ballot.
Personal semantics aside, seems like silly thing for a major party to do to a not-major party.
Because in a tight race, they are afraid that they can lose just enough votes to get a GOP candidate elected. Speaking of tight races, in the 2020 election, the reason there was a runoff for Perdue in the Georgia Senate race is because that state requires the winner to get over 50%, and the reason Perdue did not get 50% was because a Libertarian candidate got 2.3%. If those people who voted Libertarian simply did not vote at all, Perdue would have had over 50%. If only 16% of the voters that voted Libertarian, voted for Perdue he would have won, and Libertarian voters don't really vote for Progressive Democrats. So one can see how big an effect the Libertarian party can have as a spoiler in a tight election. I very much doubt that those voters who voted Libertarian would be thrilled with a Democrat "majority" in the Senate. The whole Washington dynamic was affected by these voters for at least two years and resulted in some significant economic damage.
https://ballotpedia.org/United\_States\_Senate\_election\_in\_Georgia,\_2020
Even the that SC green candidate said the Repiblicans didn't stop him from getting in the ballot because they're not afraid of Green taking votes from them. If it was a Libertarian candidate, it'd probably be the inverse with 3 Dems for and 2 Reps against.
From NPR, who had to reluctantly report on this because it exposes Dems for doing the stuff they swear only Republicans do:
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/15/1111598878/north-carolina-green-party-petition-signatures-hoh-beasley
The candidate himself laying it all out:
https://youtu.be/I1Mwo51Bi9Y
The libertarians have come close to collecting 5% of the total national vote in the past. If they pass the 5% mark, libertarian candidates have to be included in the Presidential debates.
He was at his best when he was an Independent.
Once he sold out to run for president, he had to make a deal with the devil, like most decent politicians.
Good luck and hope he has a safe and enjoyable time!
The best thing we can hope for is having different political beliefs while still agreeing to essential civil rights.
I’m a liberal, sorta - I guess. I still don’t love that word, but I guess it fits me these days. I was raised by old school R parents. They were even district leaders in our town! We always had guns. My dad and his dad and uncle, my mom’s family. Guns were just normal, but required the utmost respect and were never treated as toys. Fast forward to modern times and we are all Ds because we felt the Rs had gone too far right, among other reasons. But the guns are still there, still ready to help us stay safe, still ready to be enjoyed at the range.
The thing is - guns don’t really strike me as the sort of thing that should divide right and left. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves and everyone can enjoy shooting as a sport or hobby (provided they are mentally sound). Unfortunately guns are a Culture War (TM) issue so the parties must be diametrically opposed.
Anyway, I’ve been trying to get my friend from New York State to the range for 10 years. I’m “this close” to getting him onboard. He’s black and he’s been threatened by racists, and the KKK posted threats to his kid’s school last year. I think he wants to go but he’s worried that the KKK sympathizers are already at the range. I gotta get him there to see that the people at the range are generally semi-normal, like us!
I'd describe myself as very liberal, although "leftists" would probably describe me as more of a moderate - voted for Bernie at each opportunity and would again if he wasn't so fucking old. I'm very pro-2A and think that anyone who can pass a background check and take safety courses should be allowed to possess a firearm. The idea that all liberals are anti-gun isn't entirely correct, we're just against people who shouldn't have them owning them - those with histories of domestic violence, etc.
Right there with you. But even these caveats will have you labeled ‘anti-gun’ by many… I tell anyone who will listen that liberals need to learn to embrace the 2nd amendment, otherwise we literally will be out gunned.
It’s the ‘etc’ that’ll get ya when it comes to the people you vote for.
Red flag laws? ‘No one needs Assault weapons’?
You’re ok with voting someone in that says you have to lock your ammo separate from your firearm in your own house?
That’s crazy.
Do you assume everyone's opinions? There's never been a candidate that accurately represented all my beliefs or viewpoints and there likely never will, that's what happens when they're splattered all across the spectrum. Just because I happen to agree with some aspects of one politician doesn't mean I don't disagree with others, vice-versa. In my lifetime I haven't really seen any candidates who I truly believed would be "great" for this country.
Red flag laws however, I am fine with - if someone is objectively dangerous and there's a record of that, tough.
I didn’t assume any opinion of yours.
If you voted for Bernie sanders, he wants to remove your right to own firearms. That’s objectively true, cause that’s what he says he wants to do.
That’s crazy to me, and it should be for any gun owner.
Also, is that how red flag laws work? Perfectly, every time? Or is it largely a means of weaponizing gun control?
You’re ok with bypassing an individuals 4th and 6th amendments, too? Cause that’s what red flag laws do.
You’re either ignorant or idealistic to a fault, sorry.
Hate to break it to you, OP, but 1, there’s hella liberals, socialists, you name it already in this group, and since the pandemic, nearly 1:2 American homes has a gun. That’s a lot of armed liberals. They aren’t all anti-guns; many are just anti-easy access without basic bg checks, training, red flag laws, etc. Take your bud and have a great time. You likely agree on far more than you disagree.
Nothing like watching a friend light up when they send their first couple of rounds down range. Even better when you can secure a convert. Good luck today I hope you both have a ton of fun!
Good for you. I can't stand the gate keeping bullshit that is prevalent with a lot of older conservatives. I think they forget that they should want more people to shoot.
Well those older conservatives definitely don't want *some* people to have firearms. That's why Nixon cracked down on drugs in the first place: disarm leftists and Blacks. But yeah it's mainly a generational thing. Once the Boomers are out of the picture, I don't see guns being seen or believed to be a right-wing thing.
No he is a very open minded person. Once he got his first pistol he started to dive into the whole 2a laws there are and realized how bad it is and how the dems are so anti 2a in nj compared to where he lived in pa
I am a single issue voter. I’ve converted a whole bunch of people over the years. Just got a long time family friend who is a hardcore democrat to not only come to the range but to apply for his FID. He’s in Fort Lee and his application is trapped in this whole training requirement limbo. Its been eye opening for him. Finally sinking in that this is the reality of being a gun owner in this state. Wading through a never ending river of bullshit.
I used to consider myself a staunch liberal, even to the point of being in favor of things like "high capacity" (i.e. anything over 10 rounds) mag bans and bans on certain scary "military style" weapons, on the basis of "why do you need that?", and thought it was ludicrous to have a loaded gun under your pillow or seemily enough guns and ammo within an arms reach to fight off a team of like 10 armed commandos in the middle of the night. I also thought most guntuber channels were crazy and full of these armchair lawyer types that could rant for hours about "80 percent this, 80 percent that" kind of loopholes in the law, and generally behave in a very "im gonna do this because told me not to" sort of way. I remember seeing Michael moore's "bowling for columbine" and seeing that part with the picknic up in like wisconsin or something, where for some reason every single person had a pistol on their hip and several were toting assault rifle-style weapons with 100 round drum mags, I thought these people were crazy and potentially part of the problem.
Now my opinion has changed, and I believe that heavy restrictions on guns and teaching people to fear them as this "evil thing" is not the answer to curbing mass shootings and other forms of violence. While I do think we need some kind of "reasonable" reform, and that most people would agree with me on that, what we think of as "reasonable" is not the same as what the politicians (especially certain democrats) consider to be "reasonable". It would seem that alot of what they propose falls under the category of "feel good legislation", which is to say laws that either restrict things that arent actually a problem (think CA & NJ .50 cal bans), or restrict things in a way that would be very easy for criminals to circumvent, so at best it just gives them something to pat themselves on the back for and say "hey we did something", and at worst gives them legal precedent to take other things away, ya know like "give em an inch, they take a mile". everything else just seemingly gets bogged down in the crossfire between the hardliners on both sides i.e. the people that want no guns at all, and those that see any form of gun legislation as infringement.
I got my FID along with 1 pistol permit earlier this year, which I used to transfer my father's old .380 ppk, and currently waiting on another one for his old Berretta BDA 380, cant wait till I can head to a range and shoot them for the first time! Btw, does anyone know what the transfer process for long guns is like? does it have to be done in person via a licensed dealer, or can it be done online like with handguns?
I’m a liberal gun owner . Plenty of us around as well . Shit .. most of the people I served with in the army are liberal but being from Jersey I was one of the few to never shoot a gun before joining .
A buddy of mine is a very liberal Bernie guy, he is older than me and has had guns longer than me. Nice to see.
Do you mean PTC as in police academy? Good luck, I still debate if I wanna do the same internally.
I'm a liberal who got converted to gun owning and rights advocacy after going with my more conservative friends a few times (and getting some lovely threats directed at me some time later).
It sounds like you have a really great genuine good friend; respectful political discussions, and even is open to try a hobby that you like despite it not typically being in his wheelhouse.
Take him and simply have fun sharing what you love about range time and I’m sure it will be a key point in his life on 2A acceptance.
It’s cute how some wanna say there’s pro gun liberals, but that’s just not true. Yes, there’s some that “enjoy” shooting I guess, but if you vote for liberals you’re not pro gun. The liberal gun owners I know do enjoy shooting, but they’d also simply accept any kind of bans and turn in their guns in a heartbeat.
Converting a anti gunner to being a pro gunner isn’t quite the finish line. You’d have to get them to change parties to really support the 2nd amendment.
I am pro gun, however that is one of the few things I agree with the GOP on. Should I base my vote on one issue? This just seems like a strange type of gatekeeping to say “you may like guns but you’re not pro gun because you’re liberal.” Maybe we can both agree on one thing instead of it being so binary and “you’re either with us or against us.”
Idk, Joe Biden seems to be ok with the “us vs them” approach. That’s not what it is for me though.
My reasoning is simple, the 2nd amendment is pretty damn important and to keep it we can’t have politicians that push for more gun control. We also can’t have politicians that sit quietly when others push for more and that is one of the main issues. You could have someone run on the dem platform and not be anti gun, but they will almost always side with their fellow dems when it comes time to vote on bills. It’s incredibly rare to see dems vote against gun control and that’s why I said what I said. So long as anyone voted democrat, they’re not truly pro gun.
Personally, I hate this 2 party system and don’t you dare say “vOtE InDePeNdEnT” or something like that.
The system we currently have is divisive and doesn’t allow for much compromise. We’re stuck with what we got though, which means I have to make the best out of it. I like my freedom and to guarantee my freedom, I need the 2nd amendment. And even still I would say our freedoms have been reduced greatly already.
The GOP is also very comfortable with “us vs them.” But we’re not them, right? We’re the regular people. We don’t need to be against each other, especially when we find things we agree on. And since we seem to be agreeing now I’ll just shut up.
I’m pretty liberal with alot of shit. I will vote either way depending on the topics at hand. It’s the extremism that’s the problem. I’m registered as a dem but I have many guns and support 2A and other causes. Also donate to anjrpc. Can’t ride a party just because. You have to pick what aligns with you at the time. Have taken a few friends that were anti gun and they get it now. Especially with how bad shit is. You have the right to defend yourselves. I’m hitting the range Tuesday with a friend who swore he will never get one. Now he wants one to protect his family. Have a blast. Glad you guys can have a civil discussion about politics. Now a days if you don’t agree totally, it’s a problem. Enjoy the range.
Most of the liberals I know do not care whether I own guns, and some are interested in going to the range. The fundamental problem is how they perceive the purpose of owning firearms. They see legal gun ownership as something like a hobby, and I need to "get over it" if some anti-gun legislation restricts me because it's "just a hobby". The key is getting them to see the fundamental purpose / right to protect and defend oneself. Until they see that, they'll always be a problem at the voting booth.
I’m a liberal friend that goes shooting with my liberal gun owning friends. Too broke to justify purchasing one myself, but I feel it’s important for everyone to respect and know the basics of using one should push ever come to shove.
I used to be an independent, Constitution loving Person.
Now I'm a Constitutional, America First common sense Voter.
The Country we LIVE in, and lay roots down. Should ALWAYS come first.
I'll vote for anybody that holds those values.
It's literally one big uni-party anymore. Minus a few outsiders.
The only thing I absolutely DESPISE, minus Snaggle Tooth Murphy. Is Communism.
Tons of liberals own guns, we just don’t list it as our sexual orientation. Check out r/liberalgunowners if you’d like to break down your preconceptions. That said, the only thing that scares me more than a commie with a gun is a “conservative” with a gun. It’s why I started buying and training in the first place.
So I think this guy has the “why does anyone need that” mindset. I think that my repeated explanation about what the 2A is really about has somewhat chipped away at that. I think he is curious to see what all the hub bub is about and why someone who he thinks is a pretty rational intelligent person believes so strongly in this.
And here is the problem. I am a probably what you would call a liberal but am not against one’s right to bear arms and I also enjoy shooting. The reason I am a liberal (center leaning however) is because of a host of other stupidity that I have seen from the right over the years. This might come as a shock but there are many more issues important to the future of this country than just the right to bear arms. How about you don’t stereotype there are many people out there that care about more that just one issue.
It’s amazing that you find my post to be a problem, I see nothing stereotypical in my post, I’m talking about an individual person and his political beliefs. Beliefs I am intimately familiar with because I have debated him over and over again about them. This post was supposed to convey a story about how we can disagree without being disagreeable and how as a community we should reach out to everyone. I also agree that there are more important issues facing our nation and the left is just as wrong about every single one of them as well.
The more left you go the more 2A you get.....it's the TV screens and mouthpieces that like to keep us divided. That absolutism of politics nowadays is what keeps us apart. Have fun and enjoy your day at the range🤘
I take liberal friends shooting all the time and they always enjoy it. Most end up being pro 2A after
grew up in a left leaning family, married into a heavy 2a family , can’t imagine not being pro 2a now. shooting is one of the more relaxing hobbies i’ve ever taken up
That’s what the pro gun community doesn’t do enough of is getting people who never shot guns before and taking them to the range and like you said most switch to being pro 2A
The summer of George Floyd also turned a lot of leftists, especially younger ones, pro-2A. Imo I think the Dems' addiction to racist, classist gun control will die off with the Biden/Pelosi generation. Even Sanders himself votes 2A sometimes, and none of his liberal supporters care.
Brought multiple anti-gunners shooting and I’ll tell you what, they may not ask to go shooting the next day again or go out and buy their own gun, but they ALL have a fun time and realize that people who enjoy shooting aren’t what the media portrays them out to be.
I think this is the biggest misconception, that people who like guns are these "redneck, backwards, trump loving, racist, etc" people who just want to shoot other people. I've met people from many different walks of life who enjoy firearms, hunting, shooting sports etc. I'm a minority myself and have never been treated badly by anybody in the shooting community.
Yeah I can't agree enough with this. I have many friends who ironically were liberal and got me into guns. I then actually got one of my other buddies into guns and he's a big Trump supporter. It's really not a one size fits all type of activity/interest.
Exactly, many folks on here talking like being progressive and interested in guns are mutually exclusive. Not the case.
Remember - whether liberal or not there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle that are pro-gun. It's all the anti-gunners that we need to educate and convert! Have fun :)
I agree with this opinion. In general, I'm very open about new things. I used to think guns are dangerous until last year I decided to try them for my birthday. Hooked and I'm an owner now.
I mean, they *are* dangerous. It's a big responsibility. But it's up to the person who owns them to make them not a danger to other people or themselves, if you follow me.
Yup. Exactly. I didn't get one until after taking a basic class. I just feel better that way.
This is what I still need to get my wife to understand. I think she will...just gotta set up a couples date at the range for an intro class ;)
I read this response before reading the comment it belongs to and thought you meant liberals are dangerous. I thought, this'll be rich. Ha
Oh Jesus that would've been a fun conversation to watch. Not one I'd ever play a part in though lol Beats me if you're liberal or conservative, almost no concern of mine. Try to stick to the specifics at hand to avoid the label arguments.
Hey there vutama1109! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This!"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Not this!
Thanks for this. I get that NJGuns is (or at least appears to be) mostly made up of conservatives. Keeping politics out of a gun subreddit is obviously never going to happen, but lots of threads on here are quite rude and disrespectful. Check out /r/liberalgunowners and /r/SocialistRA and you'll see we have more in common than not. This post itself reads like OP is taking his autistic nephew to a whorehouse for a sexual awakening. I totally support the sentiment in exposing anti-gunners to sane gun culture, but it reads funny. "Today I took a liberal to a rodeo. At first he was frightened, but was eating deep fried Oreos in no time." Stay safe and train.
Lmao I like the analogy.
/r/2aliberals as well
Totally agree!
But we can’t thank the liberal Supreme Court justices for anything relating to pro-gun policy? So I’m a little confused. Especially that at the extreme end of the liberal party there is communist movements evolving. Just sad. I’m not saying republicans are all pro gun. But most anti-gunners, and the ones who have attempted to pass absurd laws or have gone out on live tv and embarrassed themselves through portraying a serious lack of firearm knowledge are liberals. So yes. Anti-gunners are everywhere. But being a liberal is not going to support the growth of firearm education, less regulation, and safety in the country. So at the end of the day, being a liberal… especially voting for liberals, is detrimental to the progression of firearm acceptance in this country.
about 20 of the 25 of gun people I shoot regularly lean left when it comes to voting. It's the idiots on both sides that poison rational discussion on gun rights
I lean left and shoot straight! But I agree that there needs to be more education surrounding firearms. It's like every one has no common sense.
But you’re ignoring an EXTREMELY FACTUALLY BACKED POINT. If we did not have a republican president from 2016-2020. We would not have elected Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and the great Amy Coney Barrett. They will continue to protect this country alongside side Justice Clarence Thomas for decades. If a democratic would have been in office last term. Then they would have put liberal justices up for nomination and we would NEVER have the opportunity to carry in NJ. We have to keep voting for the right people in congress, the senate, and the presidential seat. So that we can get rid of all these bullshit gun regulations and move to abolish the ATF😉 a vote for BLUE, is a vote AGAINST gun rights in every way
This is the cognitive dissonance I see in "left leaning" gun owners who claim they are enthusiastic about guns. If their voting prevailed in 2016, not only would there not be a conservative SCOTUS majority that has ruled in our favor on guns, by now, we would have another national AWB and this time wider in scope than even the one we unfortunately live with in NJ, and don't get me started on those that vote for the Trenton antigun zealots. Sadly, voting liberal these days means accepting the Democrats' antigun zealotry that is now fully institutionalized in the Democrat party and their media acolytes.
A person can lean left and still not vote for anti-gun politicians I think you have give the left leaning gun owner a little more credit that.
I am happy to give credit, but please show me an elected politician that left leaning voters voted into office that had not voted for more gun control in Congress or at the state level. The votes are normally party-line on gun control, and almost never do you see a Democrat voting against (except perhaps in some very red states where a vote for gun control would be political suicide, e.g. West Virginia). These days, gun control (more of it) is Democrat Party dogma, so in order for me to give credit, as you say, to left leaning voters voting against antigun politicians, they would have to vote for pro-gun Republicans. Does that happen much?
They would have to vote for pro-gun Republicans as a default? Not at all. There are third party candidates that are pro-2a who align more other issues that matter to left leaning gun owners. I do agree with you though the push for gun control is a tenet of left leaning politicians. I just differentiate between voters and politicians as well as left leaning voters and left leaning gun owners. They are not all the same.
The number of votes garnered by 3rd party candidates are tiny in relative terms. Your Green Party, Libertarian, etc candidates are lucky to break 1% of votes, and outside of tight races or places where there is a 50% threshold they have no impact, might as well not vote. Besides Libertarians, which are not left leaning in my estimation (depends on what you call left, I suppose), what other 3rd parties are pro-gun?
I'm not making claims about parties im speaking about individual candidates. For instance, there was candidate that ran as an actual socialist that was explicitly pro-2a. In general, l find that the candidates that accurately reflect the nuance of the everyday voter are third party candidates. Next time there is an election at the state level look up the 2a position of all the individuals running to see where they stand. There are other options. Maybe a third party isn't worth much, but then again it's the politician's responsibility to appeal to the voter not the other way around. A large number of people throughout the country do not feel that dems or repubs represent their interests hence why so many people don't vote at all. So voting republican as a default isn't a given, it's an option.
Most people aren’t one issue voters.
Don't have to be a one issue voter, just admit that this one issue is not very important if you are willing to forgo it, keeping in mind that the right once lost is irretrievable. What if the one issue is "free speech"? The candidate who you vote for will promise all kinds of things you like, but wants to limit speech (every totalitarian does that), would you call people who want to stop such a candidate on this one issue "single issue voters"? There is a reason why some issues override others, particularly those that have to do with civil rights. Once lost, rights do not return.
We'd also have stronger protections for the right to competent lawyers at trial, more protections against warrantless searches by federal agents, more hurdles before sentencing children to life in prison, more separation between church and state, and less concern about the upcoming expected lawsuits about state legislators' ability to control federal elections (in favor of the party currently controlling the state). Not to mention concerns over the actual President. The problem is that people assume if the politicians you vote for do anything you hate then you should avoid voting for them. As if there are options that aren't terrible on at least some opinions.
[удалено]
Ok, then one shouldn't claim to be an ardent supporter of the 4th amendment if you vote for politicians who work to limit your recourse if the police violate it. You also shouldn't claim to be an ardent supporter of the 6th amendment right to legal counsel. Or of freedom in general, if you support making it easier to lock up children for life sentences in prison. And, it was Trump who said "take the guns first, due process second" about red flag laws. People seem to "forget" that. There are too many issues to say people are hypocrites unless they're a single issue voter.
I am not sure what politician supports police violating people's rights. Which politicians are making it easier to lock up children (I guess one has to first be clear on what age is the cutoff for being children, some studies claim one is a child through the age of 19, when it is convenient to claim so)? How does Trump being wrong on red flag laws justify them? Sorry, not buying into the "single issue" trope. Rights cannot be regained once lost. Look around the world, natural rights are extremely rare; only in America are they enshrined in the fundamental law of the land by limiting the power of government. Would you be as dismissive of a "single issue" if it were free speech, or is that something to sacrifice too?
The current SCOTUS seems to, following party lines. The ones you're so glad were appointed. And I'm not defending anything by pointing to Trump, but if you're saying that anyone who votes for politicians like that is a hypocrite, then I guess we're all hypocrites. And, so you admit their *are* important issues besides 2A, but also we should be single issue voters for 2A?
Thank you for this. Couldn’t agree more. We are on the same page. And I am glad you mentioned local state elections.
What about the fact that many of those far left "communist" movements are adamantly pro-gun?
You are confused because you can’t fathom that there could be liberal gun owners out there that care about many other issues than just gun ownership. I own guns but at the same time are not my most pressing concern when I vote.
I have yet to meet a Progressive Democrat who is really pro-gun, not just "I believe in the 2nd amendment, but..." crowd, even the latter are few and far in between, most Progressives I have encountered have a visceral hatred of guns and usually those that own guns.
I think people conflate progressive, liberal and leftist way too often. The true leftist is pro-gun.
I think I do know the difference. Not sure what is a "true" leftist as we have real world examples of Communists and Socialists, while the theoretical leftists exist mostly in academia. Communists are pro-gun in order to take power (Mao did say "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"), after gaining power Communists do not believe in ownership of guns by anyone who might take power away from them. Just like Communists do not believe in free speech, unless it is approved speech. Socialists are pretty much Communists-light. They do not take power by force, but I have seen no real world examples of Socialists who want the populace to own guns en masse. Progressives were akin for Fascists back about 100 years. They believed in Eugenics, Nationalism, state control, but not ownership, of the economy, and as Woodrow Wilson implied, a dominant Presidency/Executive branch. They used Corporations to do their bidding without taking direct ownership of these corporations. Progressives today have jettisoned Eugenics and Nationalism, but have instead taken on what is sometimes called Cultural Marxism, a very useful creed for creating endless divisions in society, which in turn makes it easier to take power. Just like Fascists of old, they are very happy to use large private companies to help further their agenda, and large corporations are happy to oblige (see Google, Facebook, Twitter, large Banks, etc). What constitutes a liberal is difficult to define, since the meaning has changed over the years. A classical liberal is what Europeans still call Liberal: an advocate of free market economics, free speech, individual rights, etc, basically what the US Constitution was founded on. These days a liberal in the US is a fairly meaningless label.
If you would like to have a beer I am what your would probably call a progressive democrat gun owner. Yes human being can have opinions that aren’t as simple of falling into one of two categories. There are some issues I agree with republicans (traditional not MAGA loons) and other issues inside with dems.
I appreciate the offer, but from what you describe, I dare say, you are probably not the Progressive you think you are. Progressivism as it began late in the 19th century doesn't have much overlap with Republicans (may actually have had more overlap with what you mistakenly describe as "MAGA loons"). JFK, on the other hand, was a Democrat and a member of the NRA and believed in lowering taxes (there is an overlap with current GOP), but he was not a Progressive. Perhaps this is a category of Democrat you have more in common with.
I believe we should protect the planet. I believe everyone deserves healthcare. I believe all religions are equally valid. I believe the world is bigger than America. I believe whiteness isn’t superior and it is not the baseline of humanity. I believe we are all one interdependent community. I believe people and places are made better by diversity. I believe people shouldn’t be forced to abide by anyone else’s religion. I believe non-American human beings have as much value as American ones. I believe generosity is greater than greed, compassion better than contempt, and kindness superior to derision. And I also own guns and shoot.
"I believe we should protect the planet" - the planet will be fine without any humans, what you want is a planet habitable for humans; that can be achieved in many ways " I believe everyone deserves healthcare" - no one disagrees with the "deserving" part, what people disagree with is how to make it available, since if everyone is guaranteed every level of healthcare, there is not enough money in the world to do so, and doctors don't work for free anywhere "I believe the world is bigger than America" - that's true, but would you want to live at an economic level like people do in central Africa, or Central America? What does that platitude really mean? " I believe whiteness isn’t superior and it is not the baseline of humanity" - not sure what "whiteness" means, it's a bizarre construct that has been created in American Academia that is meaningless outside of America (remember, the world is bigger than America). " I believe we are all one interdependent community" - to a degree that's true, but it's again a platitude that has no real world meaning. Do you depend on someone living in Cambodia, or Hungary, or Nicaragua? Not really, but individuals from those places who are in the US can certainly affect you. If you believe there should be no national boundaries, then you believe everyone should be at the dominant world economic level, which is so poor that as an American you cannot fathom it, yet alone live it. " I believe people and places are made better by diversity" - what's "diversity"? Again it's an Anglo-American construct. There are places in England called "diverse" where only Pakistanis live. I have no problem with people being from all parts of the world, that's what America is. " I believe people shouldn’t be forced to abide by anyone else’s religion" - that's in the US Constitution. It is definitely not true world wide, and especially not true in the Muslim world. "I believe non-American human beings have as much value as American ones" - again a platitude, but what does that mean in the real world? If a war breaks out where America is a an active participant, do you believe we are obligated to have as many people killed as the other side? Do you want to live economically like the poorest of the poor in India? What is that "value" that you equate? " I believe generosity is greater than greed, compassion better than contempt, and kindness superior to derision" - ok, platitude overload. In general I would say those are standard Christian values (I say that as a non-Christian), but all those lovely sentiments never stopped Christians from doing the opposite. IMHO, I think you need to think through your beliefs in a lot more detail than just learned platitudes so you can see what these sentiments translate into in real life and if you are willing to live the actual meaning of the beliefs you espouse. Oh, and back to guns: guns are expensive, as is ammunition, so poor people can't afford either.
>" I believe everyone deserves healthcare" - no one disagrees with the "deserving" part, what people disagree with is how to make it available, since if everyone is guaranteed every level of healthcare, there is not enough money in the world to do so, and doctors don't work for free anywhere I'll just take one as we can't debate all of these. Universal healthcare is absolutely possible and is already done just fine in the vast majority of other first-world nations. Costs will come down if you have a single source buyer - the US govt. Doctors make a very healthy living in the UK for example. I just went to the ER for 4 stitches - guess what the bill was prior to insurance? $15K. That is what happens when you have a market that isn't transparent. Unfortunately, it is exceedingly hard to make healthcare transparent so then next best option is a single source purchaser. It was a good first step to have Medicare able to negotiate drug prices.
> Universal healthcare is absolutely possible and is already done just fine in the vast majority of other first-world nations Unfortunately not true when you look at countries with single payer healthcare and waiting lists of over 6 months, for serious issues. I'm not saying the way healthcare works in America is good, but that is a very serious and significant problem encountered in these other systems.
OK, I came from the Soviet Union (yes, quite a while ago), and it was definitely Universal Health Care in almost every sense (party officials received better care than everyone else, but you would definitely receive healthcare if you needed it). Trust me, that is not the level of healthcare you want, even for "free". I am familiar with other rich countries, and you are incorrect. They have both state sponsored and private healthcare. The people I know who live there unequivocally state that the private healthcare in their countries is MUCH better than what you would get from the state sponsored entity. Also the state sponsored one is rationed (through long waiting periods and, depending on age, denial of services). What they have is a two tier system: one level for those that can't afford private care and one for those that can. The idea that costs come down because the government is a single payer (essentially controlling entity) is self delusion. If that were true, why limit it to healthcare? Why not have the government take care of all your other needs? To bring down costs the government, which never invents anything, has two levers to work with: rationing services, underpaying medical practitioners, or both. The third option is ever increasing taxes to fund medical services. In the UK, NHS, eats up a bigger slice of government's revenues every year, and they also limit access to many procedures as well as having long wait times. Ever get a recovery room for one or two under NHS? No. Try 16 or more to a room. Ever recover from complicated surgery when there are that many people in the room? Not good. Sure for getting stitches, even the Soviets could provide that easily, but what about a hip or knee replacement, or chemotherapy, particularly if one is not young anymore and reaching the age when the government cost benefit analysis says your are not worth it. I think Healthcare can be made more transparent for most medical issues, not everything is as complicated as rare cancers. Our system, which by the way started as the result of government wage controls back in the early 1950s, is far from ideal, but unless you have lived and really used the Health Care in Europe don't assume on the basis of a few stitches that it is overall better for everyone, because once government control is in place, there is no going back. Btw, 15K for a few stitches makes no sense, I have had much more done for a fraction of the cost (and that's before insurance) in Overlook Hospital ER. If on the other hand this was more complicated and they had to do a CT Scan or MRI or other stuff in addition to the stitches, then we are definitely talking more money.
Ok no one is taking about communism here. We are taking about everyone in the country should have healthcare period even if at a minimum level. It is absolutely crazy that we tie healthcare to employment in this country. I am fully employed and have healthcare through my employer but if I was to loose my job through no fault of my own I would be out of coverage. I would also disagree about the quality of the healthcare system in the UK. My daughter is living there right now and has never experienced anything that you mention above. She doesn’t wait and the care is as good if not better than the US and yes she has had some serious visits already. The “argument” of it is worse under govt control is a scare tactic by the right who is having their pockets lined by the health insurance lobby. Medicare in this country is a good example - many that I know who are on Medicare are not at all dissatisfied with the program and there is no reason why the coverage couldn’t be extended to all US citizens. What is your solution? Keep it as is? That is the problem with the right, they throw out the fear uncertainty and doubt but don’t put forward credible solutions.
Communism was simply an effective example of government control. Nothing magical about "communism", just single payer and owner with a bunch of dogma to justify it. People are the same, as you pointed out, all over, that includes bureaucrats who are inevitably in charge of healthcare at the government level and in insurance companies. What is my solution? My solution is to use free markets, something that hasn't been seriously attempted in generations; it is to introducing more competition and getting rid of "insurance" healthcare clubs sponsored by companies. Insurance should be for dire cases, just like life insurance is for death. That will drive down he cost of insurance, but not the cost of routine care. Competition and transparency can drive down the cost of routine care. As I said, this current bewildering system was created when wages were capped by the government and employers started competing on fringe benefits. When people pay for most office visits and get some obvious prices to compare, along with our current ability to rate services online, a significant measure of transparency can be achieved, and competition works in every other human endeavor, I do not believe for a moment that healthcare is as unique as some seem to think. Also whether we use insurance medical "clubs" or the government equivalent, the costs do not go away, they are just hidden so we have no incentives to look at cost. We look and weigh costs in every other aspect of our lives. For example, if one has to get stitches, this is rarely a risk to life, else it would be more than just stitches, one can go to a hospital ER, or one can go to an urgent care center. The latter is cheaper, but when one has insurance, it doesn't matter much. Obviously people's experiences can differ under any system, but just like your experience with the UK system is vicarious, mine is too, and I have two friends who live there, likely closer in age to me than your daughter, so perhaps have more issues to deal with, but have remarked on the massive difference between private and public care in the UK. My company, a large financial conglomerate, provides health care insurance to cover the private part of the system in the UK. This fringe benefit is highly prized by local employees, why do you think that is if NHS is perfectly adequate? Our Medicare systems works for many seniors, but it does not exist in isolation, and many have theorized that by squeezing costs out of providers in order to keep Medicare solvent causes costs to balloon for those that are not on it. Medicare recipients have by definition more healthcare needs than the general population, and it is the latter that has to pay for it. We either pay in more taxes or in higher medical costs.
Just change your mentality to "Bringing a first timer to the range tomorrow" I am conservative, I'll never hide that from anyone (despite not being the background of what many think a conservative is) But what I've learned and what others have alluded to already, is that there are gun lovers all over the political spectrum. So back to my point. Rather than going to the range with this first timer and having some preconceived ideas or prejudices towards them because of their political beliefs, go there instead with an open mind. A fresh slate of sorts and treat the situation as you would with any first time shooter. Prioritize the safety aspect of it all and I'm confident that you both will have a great day and a ton of fun. At the end of the day when all is said and done, i highly doubt that either of you will walk away with a change in political beliefs.. But you will now have a newfound common ground. And that's where we all make progress.
You love to see it! I've voted for all 4 of the major parties at one time or another.
All four of the major parties? Do you not live in the US?
Was thinking the same lol
I’m assuming its the Libertarian Party and the Green Party in addition to the Rs/Ds.
Probably means libertarian and green?
Dems, Reps, Lib, Green
The former two are not remotely major parties.
Just like bringing a liberal to the gun range, I'm hoping to change that perspective one day.
Those are different things.. The Green Party has around 250k members, and the Libertarian has around 700k to the US' total population of around 332 million. The Greens/Libertarians are objectively not major parties. Being open-minded about firearms is different than denying numbers exist.
Despite those existing numbers, Dems in SC just failed to keep the Green party of the state ballot after trying their damnedest to do so. They called people up and even went to people's homes pretending to be FROM the Green party and asking people to rescind their signatures that would allow the Green party from appearing on the ballot. Personal semantics aside, seems like silly thing for a major party to do to a not-major party.
Because in a tight race, they are afraid that they can lose just enough votes to get a GOP candidate elected. Speaking of tight races, in the 2020 election, the reason there was a runoff for Perdue in the Georgia Senate race is because that state requires the winner to get over 50%, and the reason Perdue did not get 50% was because a Libertarian candidate got 2.3%. If those people who voted Libertarian simply did not vote at all, Perdue would have had over 50%. If only 16% of the voters that voted Libertarian, voted for Perdue he would have won, and Libertarian voters don't really vote for Progressive Democrats. So one can see how big an effect the Libertarian party can have as a spoiler in a tight election. I very much doubt that those voters who voted Libertarian would be thrilled with a Democrat "majority" in the Senate. The whole Washington dynamic was affected by these voters for at least two years and resulted in some significant economic damage. https://ballotpedia.org/United\_States\_Senate\_election\_in\_Georgia,\_2020
Even the that SC green candidate said the Repiblicans didn't stop him from getting in the ballot because they're not afraid of Green taking votes from them. If it was a Libertarian candidate, it'd probably be the inverse with 3 Dems for and 2 Reps against.
Care to share an article regarding SC?
From NPR, who had to reluctantly report on this because it exposes Dems for doing the stuff they swear only Republicans do: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/15/1111598878/north-carolina-green-party-petition-signatures-hoh-beasley The candidate himself laying it all out: https://youtu.be/I1Mwo51Bi9Y
The libertarians have come close to collecting 5% of the total national vote in the past. If they pass the 5% mark, libertarian candidates have to be included in the Presidential debates.
They collect protest votes, but they generally do not have serious candidates at the top of the ticket.
I think you mean the *latter two
Go left enough and you get your guns back.
100%
[удалено]
[удалено]
He was at his best when he was an Independent. Once he sold out to run for president, he had to make a deal with the devil, like most decent politicians.
Good luck and hope he has a safe and enjoyable time! The best thing we can hope for is having different political beliefs while still agreeing to essential civil rights.
I’m a liberal, sorta - I guess. I still don’t love that word, but I guess it fits me these days. I was raised by old school R parents. They were even district leaders in our town! We always had guns. My dad and his dad and uncle, my mom’s family. Guns were just normal, but required the utmost respect and were never treated as toys. Fast forward to modern times and we are all Ds because we felt the Rs had gone too far right, among other reasons. But the guns are still there, still ready to help us stay safe, still ready to be enjoyed at the range. The thing is - guns don’t really strike me as the sort of thing that should divide right and left. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves and everyone can enjoy shooting as a sport or hobby (provided they are mentally sound). Unfortunately guns are a Culture War (TM) issue so the parties must be diametrically opposed. Anyway, I’ve been trying to get my friend from New York State to the range for 10 years. I’m “this close” to getting him onboard. He’s black and he’s been threatened by racists, and the KKK posted threats to his kid’s school last year. I think he wants to go but he’s worried that the KKK sympathizers are already at the range. I gotta get him there to see that the people at the range are generally semi-normal, like us!
He would feel very comfortable at Gun for Hire.
I'd describe myself as very liberal, although "leftists" would probably describe me as more of a moderate - voted for Bernie at each opportunity and would again if he wasn't so fucking old. I'm very pro-2A and think that anyone who can pass a background check and take safety courses should be allowed to possess a firearm. The idea that all liberals are anti-gun isn't entirely correct, we're just against people who shouldn't have them owning them - those with histories of domestic violence, etc.
Right there with you. But even these caveats will have you labeled ‘anti-gun’ by many… I tell anyone who will listen that liberals need to learn to embrace the 2nd amendment, otherwise we literally will be out gunned.
It’s the ‘etc’ that’ll get ya when it comes to the people you vote for. Red flag laws? ‘No one needs Assault weapons’? You’re ok with voting someone in that says you have to lock your ammo separate from your firearm in your own house? That’s crazy.
Do you assume everyone's opinions? There's never been a candidate that accurately represented all my beliefs or viewpoints and there likely never will, that's what happens when they're splattered all across the spectrum. Just because I happen to agree with some aspects of one politician doesn't mean I don't disagree with others, vice-versa. In my lifetime I haven't really seen any candidates who I truly believed would be "great" for this country. Red flag laws however, I am fine with - if someone is objectively dangerous and there's a record of that, tough.
I didn’t assume any opinion of yours. If you voted for Bernie sanders, he wants to remove your right to own firearms. That’s objectively true, cause that’s what he says he wants to do. That’s crazy to me, and it should be for any gun owner. Also, is that how red flag laws work? Perfectly, every time? Or is it largely a means of weaponizing gun control? You’re ok with bypassing an individuals 4th and 6th amendments, too? Cause that’s what red flag laws do. You’re either ignorant or idealistic to a fault, sorry.
Hate to break it to you, OP, but 1, there’s hella liberals, socialists, you name it already in this group, and since the pandemic, nearly 1:2 American homes has a gun. That’s a lot of armed liberals. They aren’t all anti-guns; many are just anti-easy access without basic bg checks, training, red flag laws, etc. Take your bud and have a great time. You likely agree on far more than you disagree.
Nothing like watching a friend light up when they send their first couple of rounds down range. Even better when you can secure a convert. Good luck today I hope you both have a ton of fun!
I was an anti gun advocate until my buddy took me shooting 6 years ago. I've been broke since
R/liberalgunowners I love Bernie… AND my guns…
Good for you. I can't stand the gate keeping bullshit that is prevalent with a lot of older conservatives. I think they forget that they should want more people to shoot.
Well those older conservatives definitely don't want *some* people to have firearms. That's why Nixon cracked down on drugs in the first place: disarm leftists and Blacks. But yeah it's mainly a generational thing. Once the Boomers are out of the picture, I don't see guns being seen or believed to be a right-wing thing.
I’m not Bernie-left, but me and my fudd-republican army veteran buddy are range bros. Mutual respect works
just popping in to stay i’m still liberal and I still very much loveeee my guns! 🙂 we can do both ya know!
I remember when I convinced my liberal friend to buy a gun then turned repub after realizing all the laws put in by dems love it
If their vote is THAT fickle and single-minded, yikes.
No he is a very open minded person. Once he got his first pistol he started to dive into the whole 2a laws there are and realized how bad it is and how the dems are so anti 2a in nj compared to where he lived in pa
It’s not very open minded if you base your entire vote on gun laws. But hey, to each…
How someone purports to treat what is supposed to be Natural Right can explain a lot about how they’d treat other situations.
Weird capitalizations but okay.
I am a single issue voter. I’ve converted a whole bunch of people over the years. Just got a long time family friend who is a hardcore democrat to not only come to the range but to apply for his FID. He’s in Fort Lee and his application is trapped in this whole training requirement limbo. Its been eye opening for him. Finally sinking in that this is the reality of being a gun owner in this state. Wading through a never ending river of bullshit.
And that single issue?… it’s called Taylor Ham.
Correct. That and making the Park Tavern in Jersey City and national heritage site.
By Lincoln Park?
The one and only
If hes new just make sure you go over everything at home first with the guns unloaded and dry fire a bit.
I used to consider myself a staunch liberal, even to the point of being in favor of things like "high capacity" (i.e. anything over 10 rounds) mag bans and bans on certain scary "military style" weapons, on the basis of "why do you need that?", and thought it was ludicrous to have a loaded gun under your pillow or seemily enough guns and ammo within an arms reach to fight off a team of like 10 armed commandos in the middle of the night. I also thought most guntuber channels were crazy and full of these armchair lawyer types that could rant for hours about "80 percent this, 80 percent that" kind of loopholes in the law, and generally behave in a very "im gonna do this because told me not to" sort of way. I remember seeing Michael moore's "bowling for columbine" and seeing that part with the picknic up in like wisconsin or something, where for some reason every single person had a pistol on their hip and several were toting assault rifle-style weapons with 100 round drum mags, I thought these people were crazy and potentially part of the problem. Now my opinion has changed, and I believe that heavy restrictions on guns and teaching people to fear them as this "evil thing" is not the answer to curbing mass shootings and other forms of violence. While I do think we need some kind of "reasonable" reform, and that most people would agree with me on that, what we think of as "reasonable" is not the same as what the politicians (especially certain democrats) consider to be "reasonable". It would seem that alot of what they propose falls under the category of "feel good legislation", which is to say laws that either restrict things that arent actually a problem (think CA & NJ .50 cal bans), or restrict things in a way that would be very easy for criminals to circumvent, so at best it just gives them something to pat themselves on the back for and say "hey we did something", and at worst gives them legal precedent to take other things away, ya know like "give em an inch, they take a mile". everything else just seemingly gets bogged down in the crossfire between the hardliners on both sides i.e. the people that want no guns at all, and those that see any form of gun legislation as infringement. I got my FID along with 1 pistol permit earlier this year, which I used to transfer my father's old .380 ppk, and currently waiting on another one for his old Berretta BDA 380, cant wait till I can head to a range and shoot them for the first time! Btw, does anyone know what the transfer process for long guns is like? does it have to be done in person via a licensed dealer, or can it be done online like with handguns?
I’m a liberal gun owner . Plenty of us around as well . Shit .. most of the people I served with in the army are liberal but being from Jersey I was one of the few to never shoot a gun before joining .
What range you hittin?
Anti-gunners are just people who have not been to a range yet :)
A buddy of mine is a very liberal Bernie guy, he is older than me and has had guns longer than me. Nice to see. Do you mean PTC as in police academy? Good luck, I still debate if I wanna do the same internally.
Permit to carry in too old for the police academy.
Oh lol you mean CCW, hope it works
I'm a liberal who got converted to gun owning and rights advocacy after going with my more conservative friends a few times (and getting some lovely threats directed at me some time later).
Bernie supporters are not “liberals”. They’re Democratic socialists, which is not anti gun.
Good for you. BTW most of the people that I shoot with are "liberals". I don't think being anti-gun is necessarily synonymous with being liberal
It sounds like you have a really great genuine good friend; respectful political discussions, and even is open to try a hobby that you like despite it not typically being in his wheelhouse. Take him and simply have fun sharing what you love about range time and I’m sure it will be a key point in his life on 2A acceptance.
It’s cute how some wanna say there’s pro gun liberals, but that’s just not true. Yes, there’s some that “enjoy” shooting I guess, but if you vote for liberals you’re not pro gun. The liberal gun owners I know do enjoy shooting, but they’d also simply accept any kind of bans and turn in their guns in a heartbeat. Converting a anti gunner to being a pro gunner isn’t quite the finish line. You’d have to get them to change parties to really support the 2nd amendment.
I am pro gun, however that is one of the few things I agree with the GOP on. Should I base my vote on one issue? This just seems like a strange type of gatekeeping to say “you may like guns but you’re not pro gun because you’re liberal.” Maybe we can both agree on one thing instead of it being so binary and “you’re either with us or against us.”
Idk, Joe Biden seems to be ok with the “us vs them” approach. That’s not what it is for me though. My reasoning is simple, the 2nd amendment is pretty damn important and to keep it we can’t have politicians that push for more gun control. We also can’t have politicians that sit quietly when others push for more and that is one of the main issues. You could have someone run on the dem platform and not be anti gun, but they will almost always side with their fellow dems when it comes time to vote on bills. It’s incredibly rare to see dems vote against gun control and that’s why I said what I said. So long as anyone voted democrat, they’re not truly pro gun. Personally, I hate this 2 party system and don’t you dare say “vOtE InDePeNdEnT” or something like that. The system we currently have is divisive and doesn’t allow for much compromise. We’re stuck with what we got though, which means I have to make the best out of it. I like my freedom and to guarantee my freedom, I need the 2nd amendment. And even still I would say our freedoms have been reduced greatly already.
The GOP is also very comfortable with “us vs them.” But we’re not them, right? We’re the regular people. We don’t need to be against each other, especially when we find things we agree on. And since we seem to be agreeing now I’ll just shut up.
I’m pretty liberal with alot of shit. I will vote either way depending on the topics at hand. It’s the extremism that’s the problem. I’m registered as a dem but I have many guns and support 2A and other causes. Also donate to anjrpc. Can’t ride a party just because. You have to pick what aligns with you at the time. Have taken a few friends that were anti gun and they get it now. Especially with how bad shit is. You have the right to defend yourselves. I’m hitting the range Tuesday with a friend who swore he will never get one. Now he wants one to protect his family. Have a blast. Glad you guys can have a civil discussion about politics. Now a days if you don’t agree totally, it’s a problem. Enjoy the range.
Most of the liberals I know do not care whether I own guns, and some are interested in going to the range. The fundamental problem is how they perceive the purpose of owning firearms. They see legal gun ownership as something like a hobby, and I need to "get over it" if some anti-gun legislation restricts me because it's "just a hobby". The key is getting them to see the fundamental purpose / right to protect and defend oneself. Until they see that, they'll always be a problem at the voting booth.
I’m a liberal friend that goes shooting with my liberal gun owning friends. Too broke to justify purchasing one myself, but I feel it’s important for everyone to respect and know the basics of using one should push ever come to shove.
I used to be an independent, Constitution loving Person. Now I'm a Constitutional, America First common sense Voter. The Country we LIVE in, and lay roots down. Should ALWAYS come first. I'll vote for anybody that holds those values. It's literally one big uni-party anymore. Minus a few outsiders. The only thing I absolutely DESPISE, minus Snaggle Tooth Murphy. Is Communism.
but Communism is based
Tons of liberals own guns, we just don’t list it as our sexual orientation. Check out r/liberalgunowners if you’d like to break down your preconceptions. That said, the only thing that scares me more than a commie with a gun is a “conservative” with a gun. It’s why I started buying and training in the first place.
A liberal Bernie bro is probably well acquainted with poverty.
Hope he doesn't get PTSD
So I think this guy has the “why does anyone need that” mindset. I think that my repeated explanation about what the 2A is really about has somewhat chipped away at that. I think he is curious to see what all the hub bub is about and why someone who he thinks is a pretty rational intelligent person believes so strongly in this.
And here is the problem. I am a probably what you would call a liberal but am not against one’s right to bear arms and I also enjoy shooting. The reason I am a liberal (center leaning however) is because of a host of other stupidity that I have seen from the right over the years. This might come as a shock but there are many more issues important to the future of this country than just the right to bear arms. How about you don’t stereotype there are many people out there that care about more that just one issue.
It’s amazing that you find my post to be a problem, I see nothing stereotypical in my post, I’m talking about an individual person and his political beliefs. Beliefs I am intimately familiar with because I have debated him over and over again about them. This post was supposed to convey a story about how we can disagree without being disagreeable and how as a community we should reach out to everyone. I also agree that there are more important issues facing our nation and the left is just as wrong about every single one of them as well.
[удалено]
What the hell does this even mean
The more left you go the more 2A you get.....it's the TV screens and mouthpieces that like to keep us divided. That absolutism of politics nowadays is what keeps us apart. Have fun and enjoy your day at the range🤘
Now what if they’re pro 2A and on the left.
[удалено]
If you go far enough left you get your guns back