Earlier this week I found out that Daily Kos favors the Second Amendment. The “big three” of liberal bloggers (DKos, Washington Monthly, and Talkingpointsmemo.com) haven’t really talked much about guns; I thought it’d be a good idea to see if Josh Marshall of TPM would go on record about self defense and the ever-important 2A. His site gets over 100K hits a day, and he’s quite the busy guy, so I was pretty flattered that he wrote back.
While not a ringing endorsement of our position (I wrote back to quibble with him on what the Second Amendment means), it seems he’s on board with one of my central messages–if the Democratic Party ever wants to win voters like me back, harping on gun control ain’t the way to travel. Sayeth Josh Marshall:
I don’t think the 2nd Amendment bars regulation of firearms. That’s for starters. I think it’s about state militias, etc. I also don’t think much ofthe NRA. However, I’d say I’m perfectly comfortable with what I guessyou’d call a pro-gun stance. I think background checks are a good thing. Someone right out of a mental hospital shouldn’t be able to buy a gun. Felons shouldn’t be able to buy guns. Beside that, gun ownership is part of our culture. People can own as many as they want, as far as I’m concerned. I certainly don’t think gun control is an issue Democrats should be pushing.
I’ve never corresponded with Kevin Drum of Washingtonmonthly.com, and I have no idea if he’s noticed me hammering on the gungrabbers that populate his comments section. He’s next on my list.
As you might expect, the naysayers at THR couldn’t help but stick to their guns, and argue that we non-GOP gunowners are an exceedingly rare breed. I love pointing out how wrong they are.
‘I think it’s about state militias, etc.’
He is incorrect. Not sure i’d say he’s on ‘our’ side.
Comment by SayUncle — June 10, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
Excellent! I always knew I liked that man…
Good job!
7
Comment by Shadan7 — June 10, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
Please don’t conflate Markos (the man) with Daily Kos (the community). While the site has his name on it, the community has the diversity of opinion you might expect among any gathering of progressive thinkers. That’s not to say that the Daily Kos community is visibly anti-gun.
While I’m not terribly familiar with the positions of the current front-pagers (roughly, assistant editors) many previous front-pagers have been outspoken 2A defenders. Plutonium Page and Meteor Blades come immediately to mind.
Possibly of interest is a discussion which popped up on this topic this evening:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/11/11722/0991
You might be surprised to find that the Daily Kos community is not only NOT overwhelmingly anti-gun, there is general acceptance that gun control is, as Kos said, a dead issue.
-AG
Comment by AlphaGeek — June 11, 2006 @ 2:18 am
Uncle,
For some reason it zapped your comment–but I think while it’s not encouraging that Josh buys into the “its about State Militias” thing, you can’t deny that it’s HUGE that he said he believes we can own guns, and as many as we want. He made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t support gun control or restricting the firearms law abiding citizens can buy.
Edit: Ooops I saved it, phew. Uncle’s comment is back.
Comment by Administrator — June 11, 2006 @ 10:08 am
I don’t find it particularly encouraging. All I see is that he is 1) wrong and 2) a hack about it. It’s like saying the GOP is wrong on gay marriage but good for them for wanting to ban it because the majority shares that view.
Comment by SayUncle — June 11, 2006 @ 11:44 am
[…] Pro-Gun Progressive continues taking the pro-gun fight to the lefties: Earlier this week I found out that Daily Kos favors the Second Amendment. The “big three” of liberal bloggers (DKos, Washington Monthly, and Talkingpointsmemo.com) haven’t really talked much about guns; I thought it’d be a good idea to see if Josh Marshall of TPM would go on record about self defense and the ever-important 2A. His site gets over 100K hits a day, and he’s quite the busy guy, so I was pretty flattered that he wrote back. […]
Pingback by SayUncle » Liberals and guns — June 11, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Hey, we dont doubt that you are progun, but forgive our skepticism over the supposedly pro-gun dems you promote. So far the vast majority talk the talk but fail to walk the walk when they come to power.
And yeah, I admit that this is somewhat unfair to any that are genuinely pro-gun, but it isnt a complete block to Dems. Politicians dont spring from nothingness onto the national scene. There is plenty of time to build up a solid pro gun reputation at the local and state level before transitioning to the national level scene. Look at Howard Dean for a great example. Of course, look to what the Democratic party did to his candidacy as a great example of why gun owners rightly suspect the intentions of the national Democratic party.
Comment by beerslurpy — June 11, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
AG-
You did well (referring to the DailyKOS link), but missed with the automatic handgun comment. Specifically you said “There’s really no such thing as an “automatic handgun”. “. See http://www.glock.com/g18.htm for one example, there are others. Not trying to pick, just that it’s important that we be precise when dealing with people who don’t know, if nothing else to avoid the “HA! You were wrong!” stuff coming back at us on somthing so off point, but confusing the real issue.
Comment by Matt — June 11, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
I guess at this point I’ll take my victories in small doses and be glad for the little blessings. He could have very easily said “eh, the 2A only protects the National Guard and no one else needs a gun, and I support AWBs, and CCW is a bad idea…etc” but he didn’t. He agreed it’s a bad idea for Dems to support gun control and that you should have the right to own whatever guns you like.
Think about it this way: that position would piss the hell outta Sarah Brady and the CSGV types. Considering the source, I’ll take it.
Let’s not gripe that the $50 bill that we found in our back pocket in our old jeans wasn’t a $100.
Comment by Administrator — June 11, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
Not really seeing all that much positive movement. Acknowledging that Gun Control is a losing political position is a vast chasm away from being Pro Gun. He’s onboard with GCA ‘68 and opposed to Gun Rationing Laws. Umm, yeah, so?
I suspect there’s a great many people holding this position who are simply biding their time until a new day dawns, public opinion shifts a little, and the balance of power in Washington shifts a little. Those who are likely to seek and obtain the Democratic Party Nomination for President for the next 10 to 20 years aren’t going to be very gun owner friendly. Hubert Humphrey is probably the last Democratic President or Presidential Candidate who was truly gun owner friendly.
Comment by Ken Grubb — June 11, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
Ken,
I’m a little disappointed at the glass is one quarter empty attitudes I’m seeing.
What part of “you can own as many guns as you like” is hard to understand?
I wouldn’t read too much into the 2A thing; yeah, it’s disappointing, but there’s a BIG difference that sort of misunderstanding of what it means and actively being a gun-grabber. Josh’s stance is one of someone who blindly accepts a soundbite because he hasn’t really given it much thought, but he’s pretty clearly not out to get our guns.
You guys have to keep this in some sort of perspective: his stance would drive Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer up the wall. It would make Sarah Brady have conniptions. Compared to what we’re used to hearing, you just can’t look past someone on that side of the aisle saying “yeah, gun ownership is part of our culture and you can own as many as you like.”
Comment by Administrator — June 11, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
Even Senator Chuck Schumer “believes” in the 2nd Amendment. Look, “belief” is for religion, the Constitution is a matter of law and not faith.
So, what does the 2nd Amendment do in the minds of these pro-gun Democrats. Does it mean every American citizen has the right to buy, own, and have ammunition for any firearms he wants or can the government restrict machine guns, semi-automatic pistols and rifle and other firearms that look bad or have a record of use by criminals? Does it mean that they support the repeal of laws such as Maryland’s assault pistol ban which ban’s Olympic competition pistols from being sold in Maryland?
Does it mean that any citizen of this country can go into any gun store in any place in the country and buy any firearm which may be legally sold at that store?
Does it mean that veterans with no record of violence but suffering from “post traumatic stress disorder” (”shell shock” as we used to call it) can be legally banned from owning firearms?
A lot of these guys will tell you they support the 2nd Amendment (a lot of Republicans too), but the devil is in the details.
Chuck Schumer supports the 2nd Amendment, but not in a way I think is meaningful. If you don’t look for better victories than this, they won’t mean too much to me.
Phil
Comment by Phil Lee — June 12, 2006 @ 7:04 am
Same question Phil–what part of “you can own as many guns as you want and doing so is part of our culture” is hard to understand?
I really think you guys need to consider the totality or breadth of opinion that exists on this issue, and how much worse his position could have been. He’s one of, if not THE, most influential people in the liberal blogosphere, and his opinions influence a LOT of voters. That he’s not advocating AWBs, handgun registration, ballistic fingerprinting, and repeal of CCW laws is huge, any way you slice it.
Is his position perfect? No. But to deny that it’s a huge improvement over what we’ve come to expect from that side of the aisle is foolhardy.
Comment by Administrator — June 12, 2006 @ 7:33 am
Sebastian, I applaud you for your efforts and hope you continue this. I realize that when one is a volunteer such as yourself, one needs a little pick-me-up every now and then, too. But you have to empathize with the skeptics too — I’m sure some of them have been involved with this a long time and have seen the same comments you have, but not much to show for it in the end.
I guess what bothers me is that the *fundamentals* aren’t there. The language is so nuanced and reeks of a “control” attitude that it just seems like they’re giving with one hand and taking from the other. There’s no underlying philosophy that demands a hands-off approach to guns. It’s more of a political philosophy: this is okay, but we really need to control that, etc. Comments like “people can own as many as they want, as far as I’m concerned” — gee, thanks. I would certainly hope so. Also, what Ken commented on: “I certainly don’t think gun control is an issue Democrats should be pushing” is a far cry from gun rights advocacy. I hope we’re on the right track, but I’ll feel a lot more at ease when Josh’s reply is “fuck no, hands off my guns!”
Comment by Tim James — June 12, 2006 @ 8:18 am
One other thing I wanted to comment on. I’m a big believer in using education to reduce fear of guns. I take a lot of people to the range and I’ve changed a few hearts and minds. Whenever some average Josephine makes a desperate plea in a newspaper article to take away everyone’s guns for the children, I always think, “someone just needs to take her to the range.”
But the most frustrating individual I see in the newspaper or online is the type that already owns a gun, but has no problem with published lists of CCW holders, gun-purchase licenses, or regulations on the number of guns you can buy per month. The only way to convince those people is with philosophy, and a nuanced one that you see from the left these days is not going to do it, unfortunately.
Comment by Tim James — June 12, 2006 @ 8:26 am
“As you might expect, the naysayers at THR couldn’t help but stick to their guns, and argue that we non-GOP gunowners are an exceedingly rare breed. I love pointing out how wrong they are.”
But I don’t think they’re wrong.
Nor, do I think you’ve proven them wrong.
You’ve got a LONG struggle ahead before the “progressives” agree with you. Don’t take this as dismissal, I’m glad to see you’re fighting the good fight.
There are just some substantial structural problems with most “progressives” supporting you.
“if the Democratic Party ever wants to win voters like me back, harping on gun control ain’t the way to travel.”
As you no doubt recall, the Democrats have figured this out. But the problem, for a non-aligned voter more to the right of you, is that their _answer_ was to stop harping about it, lie through their teeth, and then regulate/legislate the hell ouf of them. As everyone remembers, prior to ‘04, the leaked memo came out, saying that they needed to “Change the perception” that Democrats were anti-gun.
But it *didn’t* say that the Democrats needed to change THEIR actions, just the _voters_ “perception”. In other words… We just need to stop talking about it, and those morons will vote for us, and then we can do what we want.
That’s what I find dangerous about your presumption that lots on the “progressive” side _actually_ mean what they say about “gun rights”. Because, when you dig deeper, you find out, often, that their idea of “gun rights” and yours ain’t quite the same thing. “Gun show loophole”, “Assault weapon”, “Sporting purpose” tend to color their language. “But, but, I’m all for you having a single shot black powder! What’s your problem?!”.
And I don’t exaggerate much. THR has the (D) party pretty well tagged. Nor, am I excusing the (R) for their weak, barely-acceptable support - but it’s _barely acceptable_. Not un. But that’s a longer, different subject.
I hope you keep up the fight, and get people to change their mind. It will require a LARGE paradigm shift in thinking to most “progressive” thinkers (Who prefer government making decisions FOR you). Actions speak louder than words. So when they start *acting* (and voting) pro-gun, and pro-liberty, *THEN* you’ll get to show THR that they’re wrong.
Comment by Unix Jedi — June 12, 2006 @ 8:57 am
A couple of interesting links:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/001223.php
“My interest isn’t so much along the standard gun control politics lines. I’m more interested in way the debate is structured in contemporary American politics.”
The rest of the article is a slam on someone for attacking Bellesiles, but without any followup to note that as it turns out, Bellesiles was an academic fraud. This one reviewer might have been right, for the wrong reasons, but as it stands now, Bellesiles is the wronged party.
A little followup to mention that Bellesiles methods might have had some substance to them, had he actually followed them, and reported them correctly would not have been remiss.
So if you read TPM, you’d think Bellesiles was attacked unfairly, and will likely dismiss the scathing Cramer and Lindgren rebuttals that demolished Bellesiles and drove his book into the “fiction” category.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2001_05_13.php
“The combination of McCain’s support for campaign finance reform and his creeping support of moderate gun control just makes him too plump a target to pass up.
The charge against McCain apparently runs like this: McCain is a hypocrite because despite his support for campaign finance reform he is part of Americans for Gun Safety’s multi-million dollar ad campaign in support of closing the gun show loophole. (AGS was founded in July by Monster.com executive Andrew J. McKelvey.)”
“Moderate gun control” and “gun show loophole”?
Tis what I mean.
Comment by Unix Jedi — June 12, 2006 @ 9:11 am
Well put Jedi.
Comment by Matt — June 12, 2006 @ 9:12 am
Hey Tim,
Thanks for checking in.
I agree about education–nothing makes an antigun or gun skeptical person change their attitude faster than actually learning about guns. Worked for me, anyway!
As for the language from Josh Marshall…yeah, I hear ya barkin. I’m just suggesting that we look at where he lands on the scale or spectrum from 2A activist to Sarah Brady. Yeah, he’s not where we want him to be, but he’s got potential and he’s certainly not working against us actively either. It’s a small victory, but I’ll take it over a guy who says “why do you need guns? The cops have them! And you should submit to registration…blah blah blah”.
Comment by Administrator — June 12, 2006 @ 9:40 am
Jedi–you’re missing my point.
The Democratic Party isn’t our friend, but that wasn’t what I was saying–I’m simply pointing out that people who think like me aren’t as rare as the black-and-white viewpoint types on THR wish they were. 1/3 of Dems own guns, and a bunch of them certainly must be sympathetic to our point of view; there are tons of non-GOP gun owners out there, who admittedly need to get more vocal. The idea that there are only a mere handful of people like me is false.
I’m certainly in the minority in the non-GOP world, but not such a minority that our viewpoint can be discounted entirely. Remember, we don’t have to get all the Dems or even a majority of them to be pro-gun. There’ll always be a good number of GOP progunners, and if we get even a third of Dems to adopt pro-RKBA stances, we’ll have a majority in legislative bodies every where.
I don’t have to get all or even most Dems, liberals, and progressives to be pro-gun. Just enough that those who aren’t can’t vote our rights away.
Comment by Administrator — June 12, 2006 @ 9:45 am
Well, I don’t think that I’m _missing_ your point.
“I’m simply pointing out that people who think like me aren’t as rare as the black-and-white viewpoint types on THR wish they were.”
We’ll ignore the “think like me” (If they thought like you, then we’d not be discussing them). I know what you mean. In areas, other than guns. OK, fine.
But the problem is, your initial statement was “naysayers at THR couldn’t help but stick to their guns, and argue that we non-GOP gunowners are an exceedingly rare breed. I love pointing out how wrong they are.”
But you haven’t pointed that out. Well, you haven’t proven you’re right. You’ve stated that, and you’ve shown that they’re not *nonexistant*. But that wasn’t what you were trying to prove, or they were claiming. Just there aren’t very *many*.
So if you’re “proving” that there’s an existance. Sure, I doubt anybody will argue that with you. But *how many*. And how many are you counting as “thinking like you”, when in fact, they merely are unclear on their thinking, or their vocabulary, such that you lump them in with you, but they don’t belong?
“1/3 of Dems own guns, and a bunch of them certainly must be sympathetic to our point of view;”
Sure. Zell Miller’s one.
I’ve known many people who are still self-identify with Democrats, due to historial and habitual reason, but they’d sign off on everything on the (R) platform, and sneer at everything on the (D). Again, not to say that that means they can be discounted, _but_ you’re using that as proof that there are more than in my experience, exist.
As I’ve said, I wish you well. I agree with your goals. I hope you have more luck convincing people from “within” the tent. I just won’t bet any money on it.
My point to comment on your statement was more, it’s antagonizing to the THR guys, for example, without _really_ countering them. You’re kind of counting coup, but without proving the point you’re claiming to.
And that actually works against you, when you then try and convince the THR people, or people like me, that _really_, people _do_ agree with you. I’m not trying to say “Dude, that’s so bull”. I’m trying to say “I don’t think your conclusions are fully supported, and thus, you weaken your argument, and other conclusions you’re drawing”.
Comment by Unix Jedi — June 12, 2006 @ 10:21 am
Sabastian, you ask ‘ … what part of “you can own as many guns as you want and doing so is part of our cultureâ€? is hard to understand?”
I’d say four parts.
1. Presently, in Maryland, I may not buy an Olympic competition pistol which is banned as an assault pistol. Is that ban illegal according to these progressives and contrary to the 2nd Amendment and, if so, what do the “progressives plan to do about it, if anything?
2. Presently, in Maryland, I may not buy a single shot hunting pistol the Thompson Center Encore (and others). Is this ban illegal and, if so, what do these progressives plan to do about it, if anything?
3. Presently, according to Federal law, I may not go to Virginia which sells these firearms as legal and buy them since I’m a resident of Maryland. Is this ban illegal and, if so, what do these progressives plan to do about it, if anything?
4. Presently, according to Maryland law, I must sit through a two hour safety class before I may be permitted to buy a handgun. Is this prior restraint on my 2nd Amendment rights illegal and, if so, what do these progressives plan to do about it, if anything?
Now, I’ve give specific parts (I could give more if you want) of “what part … is so hard to understand”. When these weasel wording Democrats understand that some of us mean business and start speaking to us in terms that we can understand, we’ll welcome them.
First rule of plain speaking is that we may do things because we have rights and not because you or government permits us to do so. When the Democrats understand that and use appropriate language, we’ll respond accordingly.
Comment by Phil Lee — June 12, 2006 @ 10:22 am
Phil–
Those are all legit gripes. But we’ve certainly got no indication in Josh Marshall’s email that he’d be supportive of any of those silly policies you mention. He might be out there fighting on your behalf, but he’s not fighting against you either. That’s a step in the right direction.
Jedi–
I dunno what else to tell you. If PGP were the only such site in existence, your skepticism might be well founded. But there are a bunch of sites like mine, and on the big discussion boards like DU and DKos, anti-RKBA stances are shouted down soundly. You simply cannot deny the pro-RKBA groundswell we’re seeing.
The leadership isn’t with us yet, but if the people lead the leaders will follow. Give it time.
Comment by Administrator — June 12, 2006 @ 10:44 am
Unix Jedi — Sebastian as an antagonist on a web forum? No way, that doesn’t sound like him!
I think we’ve said enough on this. Sebastian, enjoy your small victory. After all, I’d rather you keep working than have everyone shout you down so much that you quit. Then maybe one day all the Democrat bloggers will “speak plainly” on gun rights.
Comment by Tim James — June 12, 2006 @ 10:52 am
PGP:
I don’t ever check DKos. But I noticed you got booted off of DU Guns. I do check it occasionally.
I don’t notice “iverglas” being “shouted down” successfully. Instead, the DU Guns forum is pretty much a perfect example of why you’re a outlier, in my opinion.
As I said, I’m all for your attempts. But I think you’re taking what you *want* to see, and subsituting it for what *is* there. Which is fine, until you tell us “It’s there! Really! Look! - and we don’t see it. TPM, despite what you said, doesn’t, can’t go in the “pro-gun” category. But you’ve put it there, which I can’t agree with.
Sure, is it some progress? Undoubtably! Don’t take this as a knock on your efforts, I just have to critize your analysis.
I comment a bit more at length:
http://unix-jedi.livejournal.com/5315.html
Comment by Unix Jedi — June 12, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
You must not be reading the same DU forum I’m reading. In the guns forum, the moderators and the few antigunners constantly gripe about how they’re overrun by progunners.
I can ASSURE you that the antigunners there don’t feel they’re winning or that they’re shouting us down. And although I won’t reveal my user name, I can assure you I’m still over there fighting the good fight.
Sounds to me as though your bias is toward assuming we PGP’s are exceedingly rare, and nothing I tell you is gonna change your mind. Ultimately it doesn’t really matter, I guess–but once in a while it’s nice for we PGPs to notice we’re not as rare as the GOP contingent seems to think we are.
Frankly I’m not surprised they don’t want to lose the monopoly on the gun issue. A pro-RKBA Democratic Party would be swept into power.
Comment by Administrator — June 12, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
I was actually reflecting today on what I would think about a pro-RKBA Democratic candidate in any race. Although gun rights are a major issue to me, I’m not enough of a one issue voter to give a pro-gun Democrat (or any leftist) a free ride. I think if a candidate talks sense on guns, I would respect that candidate enough to at least listen. But if he or she starts with the usual anti-gun rhetoric, all I can think of is what an idiot that person is.
Comment by Tim James — June 12, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
I’d agree with Sebastian’s comment that a pro-RKBA Democratic part would probably hold power for many years. Unfortunately, the old “paradigm” thing comes into play. Their self view is that they are not anti gun, and they honestly don’t see it, in my opinion. At the same time, you have those who are truly antigun, but they are slick enough to not talk about it so it doesn’t become an issue. I think there will be a long way to go, but I am glad there are guys like Sebastian around to start the process.
Since it seems to be an issue for Jedi’s additional comments, I don’t know if there’s a definition of “progressive” that you subscribe to, or if there’s an “about” section of the website here, but it might be a good thing to clarify as to what manner you mean ‘progressive.’
Comment by Matt — June 12, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
PGP:
OK, see, now we’ve agreed it’s a perception issue. So it’s no longer factual, it’s anecdotal.
I’m sure you did sign up, in fact, I bet I know who you are. Rhetorical question: Why not ‘fess up to who you are?
Not meant to flush you out - but because you’d likely be banned. Again. As you mentioned on THR (Took til after lunch til I had time to scan that).
Dude, when you say “They keep kicking us out, we keep coming back”… and that doesn’t twig you onto that maybe I as a observer would *not* view that as “Most people are pro-RKBA!”… Well, yes, as long as you stick to subjective conclusions, we can’t really _disagree_.
“In the guns forum, the moderators and the few antigunners constantly gripe about how they’re overrun by progunners.”
The plural of anecdote is not data. Yes, I’m sure they complain. But that’s the problem. If all you do is cite what people *say* (and in particular, what their INTENTIONS are), and ignore what they *do*, then you’ve got a major problem, by my way of looking at the world. And that’s what you’re doing, you’re saying that the anti-gunners are complainging. Thus, you’re in the ascendancy, ergo… you’re about to turn the progressive’s around!
I’m not trying to make fun of you. I’ve said, and I mean with full honesty, that I HOPE you succeed. I really, really do. But the problem is, I see you drawing conclusions from at best inconclusive data, and then expounding on it, and/or making fun of other people (Like you initially did). You’re still defending it, instead of admitting that you’ve staked out a very-hard-to-defend area, and are going back to what you feel.
“Sounds to me as though your bias is toward assuming we PGP’s are exceedingly rare, and nothing I tell you is gonna change your mind.”
Yep. Because you can’t just *tell me* that it’s the case. I’m trying to point out this isn’t the way to convince people.
I want you to *show me*.
I *read* the DU forums. I draw completely different conclusions than you from it. Mine are pretty close to the same as many of the guys on THR. I watch benEzra and Hydrashock75, to name 2, get utterly and completely ad-hommed by iverglas, and her ilk.
You’re taking the DU forum, and holding it up “See? All the progressive’s aren’t anti-gun!”. But I’m pointing to it and saying “See? The very few who aren’t off the wall about guns are being marginalized, and have no voice”.
True, it’s subjective. But that’s the problem with your original stance, which says “the naysayers at THR couldn’t help but stick to their guns, and argue that we non-GOP gunowners are an exceedingly rare breed.”
But they didn’t say that non-GOP owners were rare. They said the Democrats, and the “progressive” wing were very anti-gun. Your existance shows it may not be _exclusive_, but neither does it _prove_ that it’s non-marginal. I count, what, 5? 6? “pro-gunners” on DU. Errr. That’s one of the biggest boards on the left. and.. 6? Heck, we’ll even say 10! TEN! are pro-gun. Not actively non-anti-gun, but pro-gun.
That actually proves the opposite of your position. That’s what I want, is facts, proof. Not what someone SAYS. John Kerry, in the Presidental race went out of his WAY to be shown with guns. But he wasn’t a RKBA supporter.. His actions spoke far more than his words.
“Ultimately it doesn’t really matter, I guess”
Sure it does. Well, I think it does. I think everybody needs to know how much something matters. That you’re fighting the good fight for liberty is *important*. And yes, it matters.
If it didn’t matter, I wouldn’t bother arguing with you, I’m trying to help you be more effective, not diminish your efforts!
“–but once in a while it’s nice for we PGPs to notice we’re not as rare as the GOP contingent seems to think we are.”
Don’t forget, I’m barely welcome under the “GOP” tent, and never have gone in. Sure, I understand totally your feelings about trying to find kindred souls. I’m quite in the minority myself in many areas. *But* I want to find someone who truely *is* a kindred soul.
Matt makes a very good point:
“Their self view is that they are not anti gun, and they honestly don’t see it, in my opinion.”
Most people who are the most dangerous to the RKBA would deny it - emphatically!
That’s what I’m trying to tell you here, PGP. If you don’t see this as constructive criticsim, blame me for being ineffective, but try and take it as such. You’re claiming something to be a fact, but only with feeling to back it up, and it’s largely something you’d like to see happen. That’s well and good, but when that runs counter to how lots of other people will see the same events, a lot more data is required, a lot more PROOF is required. Not just feelings. More fact, more actions.
The result of doing what you’re doing here will cause people to lose trust in you, and in large value, that you say what you mean. As a old-fashioned Southern boy, I try and mean what I say, and say what I mean, so that bothers me when people say things other than what they mean. And doggone it, I want all the help I can GET to get RKBA, and individual liberty to be a buzzword, a linchpin, a way of life not just here in the US, but all over the world.
Comment by Unix Jedi — June 12, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Sebastian,
You’re not as alone as some may have you think. I’m a progressive gun nut, as are my girlfriend and most of my friends. We are not vocal online, but we are out there, and we do our part to change minds about guns as much as we can. Most of the liberals/progressives/whatever I know who hate guns hate them out of fear and ignorance. Once shown that they are simply tools and are completely safe in responsible hands, minds can and do change, and I’ve seen them change firsthand. There are fanatical lefties who are anti-RKBA no matter what you tell them, and unfortunately that label gets stamped on the foreheads of all of us at times.
Keep up your fight. Makes me think maybe I should start a blog myself, just to provide some more proof and support.
Comment by drew — June 13, 2006 @ 11:53 am
PGP:
“we’ve always been talking about something that’s fairly subjective. I’ve never suggested we aren’t.”
Contrast that, with:
“As you might expect, the naysayers at THR couldn’t help but stick to their guns, and argue that we non-GOP gunowners are an exceedingly rare breed. I love pointing out how wrong they are.”
Those 2 statements are contradictory. Period. Full. Stop.
You have _made a claim_. You have not _backed it up_. You then say that you agree it’s subjective, and never said otherwise, when your initial statement was objective, and definitive.
“What isn’t in doubt”
That’s a factual, non-subjective statement. “isn’t in doubt”. But just about everything you list AFTER that is very much in doubt.
“is that there is a substantial body of Democratic and non-GOP gun owners,”
True, but gun ownership _by itself_ is not indicative. Chuck _SCHUMER_ owns guns. So does Rosie O’Donnell. Sarah Brady. This means, that metric is in doubt. You can’t take mere ownership, and put them in your “column”. This is what the THR guys were trying to explain, as well.
“that PGP is NOT the only site of its kind, ”
Never argued, in fact, several times specifically conceeded to be collegial. This is the _only_ statement of the ones you made “without doubt” that is actually, without doubt.
“that the gungeon over at DU is loaded with gun toting Democrats (that you conveniently ignore),”
But that’s _at best_ subjective. *I* don’t see that. So you can’t just airily declare “it’s not in doubt”. *I* Doubt it. The THR guys doubt it. So _by definition_, it’s in _doubt_.
“To deny any of this is nonsense.”
That’s not a subjective opinion. So, if you *were* agreeing it was all subjective, you just disagreed with *yourself*.
“Sure, the one or two idiots in control of Democrats.com and DU can ban me and my PGP friends if they want to. But you’re reading wayyyy too much into that little fact.”
No, I’m pointing out that I draw completely different conclusions from you from that. So it’s in doubt, not clear, AKA, at best, up for argument. Your point that “pro-gun” is gaining ground _falls utterly apart_ if you admit that the guys in charge _don’t share your pro-liberty, pro-gun views, and that you’ve got so little power, as a group, that they can kick/ban you repeatedly.
“You’re basically suggesting that because of the overpowering moderation efforts of a couple boobs, my contention that there are a lot of PGPs is somehow suspect. Bullshit.”
I’ve not said that. I’ve tried, very hard, to be collegial and supportive in your efforts, but to point out that your objective conclusion is not supported by objective facts. You’ve put false words in my mouth, and attacked them. This is hardly polite, and doggone it, it’s just plain rude. I have said that I *hope* you *can* gain lots of PGPs. I cannot accept your thunderous conclusion that there ARE lots based on the fallacious logic, and tenuous reasoning. That is what I’ve said. More than once.
“Don’t take this the wrong way…but you’re blind as a bat if you can’t see that the gunnies rule the roost there despite the moderators best efforts.”
I don’t see that. Insult me as you will. But your admission that the moderators, at _the_ “progressive” Democratic sites, don’t agree with you, wound your argument. I see, whenever guns are in the news, that board get flooded with new iverglases and Benchleys. Shadan was run off of Democrats.com. DK, which I don’t read unless someone sends me a link, I’ve seen hundred of thread comments that are just as antigun as anything iverglas or Benchley or Wickerman can come up with.
Heck:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118×125633
There. Some of your fellow Guns DUers disagree with your conclusion. So it *is* up for debate, and hardly a certain conclusion.
“So let’s recap–two of the three big liberal blogs aren’t pro-guncontrol”
Again, an assertation without proof. I’ve addressed this above, and you’ve ignored it. What someone *says* (by itself) is not Point. Set. Match., your victory. I, in fact, and without rebuttal, showed where TPM used the classic words that got us the AWB, the racist outlawing of pistols state by state, and the continual attack on guns by how they look.
“(including one you admit that you don’t even read, no wonder you’re a doubter), ”
My views on Moulitos aren’t printable. As it is, his one post there was rather underwhelming in terms of “convincing” me, or the others.
“your erroneous assessment of DU notwithstanding (mostly cause it’s bullshit)”
But I thought it was subjective?
I’m sorry, PGP. This is *why* I posted. Because you’re *not arguing effectively*.
And I *want* you to. From my perspective, as a strong RKBA supporter, it’s GOOD that you’re over there, fighting the good fight. We’re allies in this. I *want* you to be able to convince your DU/Dkos (leave Moulisas, if you will) friends how _critical_ RKBA is to this grand experiment.
You’re swapping back and forth, with factual argument, then to subjective, then declaring subjective to be factual, _and then insulting people for not listening to you_.
“to be made that there are many gunnies there, and they more than easily go toe to toe with the antis, and as BenEzra points out about a third of Dems own guns…”
That’s a good fact. Completely irrelevant to your argument, however. (or almost completely). I know many gun owners who buy into the worst of the anti-liberal gun-grabber nonsense. “Well, they’re not going to ever come for MY gun”. “It won’t affect ME”. The ownership of guns doesn’t mean that they are part of the group that you’ve declared that they _definately belong to_.
So since you’ve conclusively concluded something that’s utterly at odds with my subjective opinion/observations, and declaring as supporting facts that don’t support your conclusion, do you see why this is _not conducive to convincing your progressive brethren_? It’s certainly not with your gun-rights supporting brethren.
“since you’re not suggesting any real standard by which to measure the relative strength of the PGP movement, I’m not sure why any of your criticisms hold much water anyway.”
But I _have_.
How do people act. Not what they _say_, or what they say their _intentions_ are! ( “The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself.” - Senator Chuck Schumer, 5/8/02 Press Release!) How they (and their representatives) vote. What they insist on as campaign platforms, planks, promises.
That’s how I said we have to count them. When they’ve got enough power to get “sporting purpose”, “Assault weapon” and “gun show loophole striken from a party platform.
That’s pretty doggoned concrete. And it’s why it “holds water”. Because it’s ironclad, it doesn’t allow for platitudes or excuses.
Comment by Unix-Jedi — June 13, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
“Those 2 statements are contradictory. Period. Full. Stop.
You have _made a claim_. You have not _backed it up_. You then say that you agree it’s subjective, and never said otherwise, when your initial statement was objective, and definitive.�
No, they’re not contradictory. My definition of exceedingly rare and yours might differ, but I’m arguing that by mine (admittedly subjective), PGPs aren’t rare. I’ve provided collateral for my point of view. Nothing contradictory here.
“True, but gun ownership _by itself_ is not indicative. Chuck _SCHUMER_ owns guns. So does Rosie O’Donnell. Sarah Brady. This means, that metric is in doubt. You can’t take mere ownership, and put them in your “column�. This is what the THR guys were trying to explain, as well.�
First, Sarah Brady is a Republican. Second, for everyone of those idiots you mention, I’ll mention Russ Feingold or Paul Hackett. The existence of the hypocrites you mention doesn’t impugn the rest of the gun owning Democratic populace. You’re ignoring the populist Democrats in the flyover states, the Pennsylvania farmers in my family who are dyed in the wool blue, but also several generations of NRA members. A few urban elitist who own guns but are hypocrites does nothing to suggest that even a substantial minority of Dem gun owners have that sort of attitude. Yeah, it’s subjective, but I’m arguing that it’s not reasonable to assume that a great number of the Democratic, working class folk who own guns, who hunt, who use them for sport, etc. are anti-RKBA. Certainly the RKBA has no friend in the Dem party today, but that doesn’t mean that the Dems who do own guns are anti-RKBA. Consider articles like this.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1330
“But that’s _at best_ subjective. *I* don’t see that. So you can’t just airily declare “it’s not in doubt�. *I* Doubt it. The THR guys doubt it. So _by definition_, it’s in _doubt_.�
THR is overwhelmingly far, far right wing. They don’t pay attention to anything that goes on at DU. So their doubts aren’t credible. You obviously don’t pay much attention either, so I’d say my regular participation and observation there is much more credible than your “doubts.�
Pat Robertson doubts evolutionary theory. That doesn’t mean it’s really in doubt.
“That’s not a subjective opinion. So, if you *were* agreeing it was all subjective, you just disagreed with *yourself*.�
Now you’re just being a prick. You can use objective observations to support subjective opinions. I can see that the t-stat reads 90* and make the subjective statement “damn it’s hot today�.
“No, I’m pointing out that I draw completely different conclusions from you from that. So it’s in doubt, not clear, AKA, at best, up for argument. Your point that “pro-gun� is gaining ground _falls utterly apart_ if you admit that the guys in charge _don’t share your pro-liberty, pro-gun views, and that you’ve got so little power, as a group, that they can kick/ban you repeatedly.�
And now you’re just being a troll. What are you smoking? The case for the PGP movement falls apart because a couple guys running a site banned me for beating up iverglas?
That’s the stupidest thing ever posted on this site in its short lifetime.
“I don’t see that. Insult me as you will.�
Of course you don’t. Because you’re trolling, and there’s no fun in that after I point out that the RKBA types actually outnumber the antis in the Gungeon (despite the mods best efforts).
“But your admission that the moderators, at _the_ “progressive� Democratic sites, don’t agree with you, wound your argument.�
Gimme a break. Because Wickerman and Skinner aren’t pro-RKBA, my argument suffers? Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Keep trolling.
“ I see, whenever guns are in the news, that board get flooded with new iverglases and Benchleys. Shadan was run off of Democrats.com. DK, which I don’t read unless someone sends me a link, I’ve seen hundred of thread comments that are just as antigun as anything iverglas or Benchley or Wickerman can come up with.�
Funny, those idiots are always complaining about how they’re flooded with gunnies.
“So let’s recap–two of the three big liberal blogs aren’t pro-guncontrol…
Again, an assertation without proof. I’ve addressed this above, and you’ve ignored it. What someone *says* (by itself) is not Point.�
At this point we’ll just have to agree to disagree. TPM and Kos don’t support gun control. Good enough for me.
“ I, in fact, and without rebuttal, showed where TPM used the classic words that got us the AWB, the racist outlawing of pistols state by state, and the continual attack on guns by how they look.�
Without rebuttal? Put the bong down. I already conceded that his language about the 2A was problematic and incorrect. I wrote him back about it, in fact.
“My views on Moulitos aren’t printable. As it is, his one post there was rather underwhelming in terms of “convincing� me, or the others.�
Because you insist on seeing a glass that’s ¼ empty. As I’ve repeatedly stated, we don’t really need to get these guys to join the NRA and go shooting with us. We just need them to dump the Brady Bunch and not support taking our rights away.
“But I thought it was subjective?�
Ah, not just a troll, but also a smartass. Nice. What constitutes a “substantial number of PGPs out there in the worldâ€? is subjective. What isn’t subjective is that A) the very mods you mention at DU feel the place is overrun with gunnies and that B) even casual participation there will reveal that gunnies rule the roost in the Gungeon there, both in terms of quality of argument and quantity of RKBA types. You keep coming back to iverglas and benchley because they’re really they only two diehard antis there that don’t fade away. I guess you can reasonably disagree, but you sound pretty misinformed when you do. I’ve been posting there for about a year under different names, and feel pretty well in the majority when I do. I could go back and count up for you if you like. But seeing as the very anti-gun mods there AGREE WITH ME that the place is overrun with gunnies, and they’d know better than you would, I don’t know why you can’t concede here. You must have some agenda, but I’m at a loss to guess what it is.
“I’m sorry, PGP. This is *why* I posted. Because you’re *not arguing effectively*.�
I’m supporting my opinions pretty well, actually. I’m not the one arguing that the RKBA case falls or stands for liberals based on what a couple idiotic moderators do.
“And I *want* you to. From my perspective, as a strong RKBA supporter, it’s GOOD that you’re over there, fighting the good fight. We’re allies in this. I *want* you to be able to convince your DU/Dkos (leave Moulisas, if you will) friends how _critical_ RKBA is to this grand experiment.�
If you wanna be an ally here, questioning my credibility and insulting my reasoning in such a careless and haphazard fashion as you’ve done isn’t the way to go.
“You’re swapping back and forth, with factual argument, then to subjective, then declaring subjective to be factual, _and then insulting people for not listening to you_.�
No, I’m using objective observations to support a subjective opinion, and also some subjective ones as well that you can feel free to object to (the DU thing).
“That’s a good fact. Completely irrelevant to your argument, however. (or almost completely). I know many gun owners who buy into the worst of the anti-liberal gun-grabber nonsense.�
Man, did you take a fullofshit pill today? It’s reasonable to assume that at least a substantial portion of the gun owning Dems do support the RKBA. We know that when polled, about 70% of Americans support the RKBA. 70% of the US isn’t GOP. It’s quite reasonable to assume therefore that some substantial number of non-GOPers are pro-RKBA. I can’t make it any simpler for you.
“But I _have_.….
That’s pretty doggoned concrete. And it’s why it “holds waterâ€?. Because it’s ironclad, it doesn’t allow for platitudes or excuses. ”
Blah blah blah…you’re back to Chuck Schumer again. He’s a known entity. So fuckin what? No one here supports that guy or anything he says. You still haven’t presented what *you* think would constitute a substantial body of progun progressive types.
Comment by Administrator — June 14, 2006 @ 8:48 am
Y’all are getting a bit verbose here for those of us with soundbite level attention spans
Couple comments. First, though the article is good (ref article in the Administrator post above), it is from 2002. I feel that lately, as RKBA is so strongly identified with the Republican party, that this has shifted somewhat as part of a general backlash against Bush. Just my perception, the problem with identifying so strongly with one party, especially if one goes beyond the immediate issue of RKBA, puts the whole issue in the realm of “Us vs Them” in the view of the ignorant public. I think the NRA, MSI, and any other gun groups should overly trumpet any Democrat who is pro fireams, Gianetti comes to mind (and MSI seems to be doing a good job of this, NRA less so).
‘Nother comment. I was heartened to read “We’ve reached out to all groups in this campaign, including hunters and gun owners, and we endorse Second Amendment rights,” in the article. Specifically, this is an overt statement recognizing that gun owners are not necessarily hunters. This differs dramatically from the “We’re not after granpa’s hunting rifle” mentality, which infers there is a difference between that an one of my AR rifles.
Seems like this whole disucussion is about perceptions, at least the last couple marathon posts. PGP’s perception is that things are getting better. Jedi’s perception is that there is only lip service at best. Just to muddy things, my perception is both. I see a lot of political tactics, even in the article referenced above. I see a lot of people saying “Gee, we shouldn’t bring up guns, we’ll get our collective asses kicked”. This is fine, but the problem is that the threat is not yet gone. What I don’t see, at least not yet, is an overt statement to the ilk of “Gee, we were wrong on all this, and we absolutely affirm that we agree that the second amendment does, in fact, grant private ownership of firearms, which include handguns and semi automatic rifles, even scary looking ones we occasionally don’t feel so good about”. At that point, I’d say things have really changed in terms of viewpoints. At this point, I can say that things have changed in terms of approach. That, perhaps, is the crux of the difference, in that Jedi is looking for a change in viewpoint, which hasn’t happened yet on a grand scale, and I agree with that. However, PGP is looking at a change in tactics, which has changed on a grand scale, and declaring that there is a change, and I agree with that also.
Until I see the above statement well repeated, btw, I’m still trying to figure out just how and where in the backyard to bury the AR’s when Maryland makes them illegal ;>
Comment by Matt — June 15, 2006 @ 8:57 am
I hope Matt doesn’t get ‘“Gee, we were wrong on all this, and we absolutely affirm that we agree that the second amendment does, in fact, grant private ownership of firearms, which include handguns and semi automatic rifles, even scary looking ones we occasionally don’t feel so good aboutâ€?’ since the 2nd Amendment grants nothing.
In fact, since the Constitution is a grant of power from the people to government, the 2nd Amendment should be read as “notwithstanding all the powers we the people grant the government in other parts of this Constitution, we the people reserve to ourselves the right to keep and bear arms just like we did before this Constitution and we prohibit government from infringing on those rights.”
To read it any other way is to postulate a sovereign over the country who grants things like private ownership of firearms. Who would be that sovereign?
Instead, I hope we get “Gee, we were wrong on all this, and we absolutely affirm that every lawabiding citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for any lawful purpose including self-defense and that the Second Amendment does restrict all governments from infringing on those rights and that any prior restraint is illegal.”
Phil
Comment by Phil Lee — June 15, 2006 @ 9:40 am
Thanks, Phil, you said what I meant to say much better than I did.
Comment by Matt — June 15, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
Seb-
“1/3 of Dems own guns, and a bunch of them certainly must be sympathetic to our point of view”
Just remember that in that 1/3rd are people like Boxer and Feinstein. You know my politial views, but undoubtedly on this issue there are many Dems that hold the “What’s good for me isn’t good for you” view. How many Dems that own guns really want a right-wing kook like me to be able to go buy and carry one? You may be making progress, but don’t be surprised if you are hearing what you want to hear, but not seeing the legislation (or lack of legislation) that you want to see.
Chris
Comment by Chris Stack — June 19, 2006 @ 9:28 am
Seb wrote:
> First, Sarah Brady is a Republican.
Given the frequency with which she appeared at Democratic Party events, that argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Doesn’t really matter what her political views are, what matters is that the Democratic Party leadership holds her in high esteem, and why? The gun issue, pure and simple.
> I’ll mention Russ Feingold or Paul Hackett
Hackett doesn’t hold public office any more, and city council members could only do a limited amount of good. I certainly hope he stays in the political fight because I think he’s very genuine and a rock solid pro-gunner.
Even though Feingold had a change of heart on the AWB, McCain-Feingold was aimed, IMHO, at the NRA among others. The intent, I believe, was to hurt gunowners. Feingold also voted against S397 (The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act).
> The existence of the hypocrites you mention doesn’t
> impugn the rest of the gun owning Democratic populace.
There’s a vast chasm between Democratic voters and Democratic leaders. Democratic leaders, by and large, have an awful, persistent and continuing record on the gun issue.
> I’m arguing that it’s not reasonable to assume that a
> great number of the Democratic, working class folk who
> own guns, who hunt, who use them for sport, etc. are
> anti-RKBA.
It rings hollow when so few pro-gunners step up and into the spotlight in an effort to change the Democratic Party on the gun issue–and I mean truly change the Party and not simply repackage the same tired anti-gun arguments and efforts. I know it won’t be an easy step for those who are wavering, but it’s as important as it was to rid the Democratic Party of Klan affiliation.
> Certainly the RKBA has no friend in the Dem party today,
> but that doesn’t mean that the Dems who do own guns are
> anti-RKBA.
And until the Democratic leadership undergoes real change, the suspicions will remain.
> Chuck Schumer
Schumer is perhaps the worst anti-gun Dem, but there are just so many anti-gun Dem Senators with considerable power. Senators Lautenberg, Feinstein, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, Reed and Durbin come to mind. DeWine and Chafee need to go–DeWine just might and WITH the support of the NRA likely backing his Democratic opponent–but neither has as much influence as do these anti-gun Dems.
John Dingell is a solid friend of gunowners, but in 1994 he yielded to Party politics and voted with President Clinton on the AWB. Tom Foley had also been A rated by the “Democrat hating NRA”, before he helpful push thru the AWB. Until powerful Democrats are willing to buck the party, rather than fold to seek more power, the situation won’t change.
Maybe Dingell is the honest one, and Feingold is the one full of sh*t. Maybe Feingold didn’t really undergo a change of heart and simple realized it was a losing prospect in the near term so he came out against the AWB renewal believing it would fail anyway. Many more people vote pro-gun than vote anti-gun. I don’t know, but while suspicious I want very much to give the benefit of the doubt.
Comment by Ken Grubb — June 22, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
First, lots of Dems and Republicans appear at each others events when it’s politically expedient. Regardless, she’s a Republican.
McCain Feingold was not aimed purely at the NRA. They’re not the only lobby in the world. Anyone who’s heard of Jack Abramoff (which should be more or less anyone with a pulse and a TV) knows that’s silly Ken. Feingold did vote against 397, but explained his vote as a matter of principle–the GOP has been on a tear working to reduce the ability of average citizens to seek redress of grievances against Corporate America everywhere, and has been doing everything they can to restrict the ability of the individual to sue corporations at every turn (big shocker). Just like McCain Feingold wasn’t just about the NRA, his vote there wasn’t just about getting at gun owners. How do we know this? Because you conveniently ignored that he voted against the AWB and the extension of it ten years later
.
I do agree with you that the leadership of the party, the Senators you mention (Durbin, Schumer, TK, Kerry, and the Emmanuels, Pelosis, et al) are out of touch with the average Democratic voter. That’s exactly the point I’ve been making for weeks now! You can’t look at that motley collection of gun grabbers and assume that Democratic voters outside the NE and the Bay Area are in lockstep with them on this issue; in fact, the opposite is true.
Comment by Administrator — June 23, 2006 @ 7:21 am
Trackback
It takes your enemy and your friend, working together, to hurt you: the one to slander you, and the other to bring the news to you
Trackback by Michael — December 3, 2006 @ 11:53 pm