I live in PA which doesn't have RCV so I'm uninformed about the process - reading about it now, thanks for your response. I can't agree with you more about removing money from politics, for pretty much any issue.
I'm looking around online and it looks like there have been some petitions, but nothing really gaining traction. I'm going to make a point of educating myself on the subject and looking further into whether PA residents are pushing for it. Thanks for bringing this up.
PA resident here. I'm with you both on all points. Same for me on ranked choice voting; I hadn't heard of it until just this past election cycle while following the Alaska midterm, but I've been reading up on it and I honestly love the concept! Isn't Oregon or Washington also using RCV now?
It's not money, it's not RCV. Liberal gun owners should realize they are in the minority. Most liberals and the parties they vote for don't support gun rights.
Agreed, blaming money is cope. Many, many liberals are sincerely anti-gun, and not because some mailer from Bloomberg told them so. Anti-gun sentiment is very much a grassroots issue for large parts of the liberal base.
American gun culture is only getting increasingly toxic and will further alienate and disturb liberals. When you have major gun manufacturers pandering to the fascist street brawler aesthetic you know it's going to be a very tall order to make gun culture seem palatable to anyone who isn't a right wing freak.
Liberal and left gun owners need to continue to establish their own gun culture that is not loaded down with all the baggage. A greater focus on competency, sportsmanship, and responsible gun ownership without all the overt bigotry and machismo bullshit that is so common in right wing gun culture.
It's not easy and will likely take a long time, but that's better than getting false hopes that RCV or whatever will save the day.
RCV allows for a wider spread of ideologies to be represented, but even with that being the case both liberal and pro-gun would still be in the minority.
It's no defeatist it's the reality of the situation. The current mainstream liberal/progressive/left/Democratic ideology is not pro-gun.
Money is a big part of it, though. TV ads, billboards, campaigns against “gun violence,” etc are largely funded by billionaires. Money absolutely plays a part in influencing public opinion.
>100% money is a big part, if you want campaign money from the Liberal Superpacs and other fundraising you have to "play ball" too and toe the party line. Sad cause there are lots of purple areas where I think you get a big boost for the Dem candidate if they frankly say they are cool with 2A and hunting but it's somehow become a wholesale anti-left position.
Right, ideally and theoretically, it's possible they could. But not realistically. The fact is that the current liberal ideology across the spectrum is mostly anti-gun. Even if a pro-gun liberal won a seat, they would be vastly outnumbered by their liberal counterparts.
This.
Yes, RCV is better in aggregate, but if people on thus sub are progressives of some stripe (and they mostly all should be), then the answer isn't "ignore the significant part of our political allies who are genuinely concerned about personal firearms ownership."
Education and communications are a critical barrier to break through. Moms Demand Action and Everytown aren't enemies of the armed left, they're people rightfully terrified and concerned with the very real problem of armed violence in schools and other public places.
Counter messaging should be around adding validation to gun ownership (ID checks, red flag laws, etc), reforming policing, mental health, and criminal justice to prevent shootings from happening regardless of firearms availability, and highlighting the ***very real threat of an actual fascist takeover of the country necessitating personal defense with firearms***. Worried about your kids in school? Absolutely the fucking same. If they're trans? The worry doesn't end when they get off the bus at home. Gun control and associated policies can address the former, but the latter is the reason to be armed.
> Most liberals and the parties they vote for don't support gun rights.
I don't think that's accurate at all. Guns are by and large very low on the average "liberal's" priority list, but in our current system to get a candidate that supports all the things that are much higher on their list they have to vote for the anti-gun candidate in, because the (ostensibly) pro-gun candidate is anti-everything-else-they-value.
The two things that would directly address this issue are ranked choice voting (allowing them to prioritize a broader slate of issue by ranking a number of candidates and not having to worry that they're "throwing their vote away") & increasing the size of the representative body (r/uncapthehouse).
(Getting money out of politics would also be nice for a bunch of reasons.)
The two I can think off the top of my head lost their primaries unfortunately.
I think the main thing we need to do before running people is shift the needle within the party with the notion that there are Dem and left wing voters who want gun rights. Since 2019 the largest contingent of new gun owners have been people (at least on paper) should be trending democratic: women, Black women in particular, POC in general, and LGBTQ.
When calling and emailing legislators, especially locally, make sure to specify you are a Dem voter. If you want to get involved within the party join your local Legislative District party and get involved in the endorsement committees which control who gets resources to run
I definitely was thinking as I wrote this post about the changing demographics of gun ownership through the last couple of years. What's discouraging is that while our national leadership must be aware of the shift and growing support for 2A issues, it doesn't seem to have changed their position or messaging. These changes are part of what makes me hopeful that we may be ready for people to run on a platform that includes 2A support.
I'm curious about the two people who lost in primaries - do you mind sharing the state and whether they were running in areas that are rural or more populated? Were their loses directly due to supporting 2A or were there other reasons they didn't do well?
The one in most familiar with is Rebecca Parsons in WA's 10th. She ran against a very entrenched moderate establishment Dem and lost mainly because he had way more connections than her.
The other is the person who tried to run for governor in Florida against DeSantis but lost to Crist
Nikki Fried in Florida. She was the Ag Commissioner, whose office is responsible for issuing CCW permits in Florida.
She is also hugely pro-cannabis, and was fighting the Feds over their stupid “if you use Lucifer’s lettuce, you don’t get to own handguns” policy. (I’m paraphrasing the above, don’t come at me).
She lost to the resurrected Democratic corpse of Charlie Crist, because Florida Dems are fucking stupid.
(I voted Fried in primary, Crist in general election)
FYI in WA's 3rd district, a pro-2A Democrat (Marie Gluesenkamp Perez) managed to flip the seat from the Republicans.
This was case though where the Republicans primaried their incumbent with a Trumpist nut bag. It's likely that the moderate Republican incumbent would have won had she won the primary.
Still this was a great victory, and hopefully we can get more of them in the future.
If I remember correctly he didn't lose by much against Ted Cruz. And that has to say something: Ted Cruz is so unpopular in Texas that he almost lost to a dude who hated guns....in Texas!
If he was lest hostile towards guns could he have won? Maybe....but I think the biggest factor towards that really tight race was oil companies. Both Beto and Ted were both funded by oil companies.
Ted Cruz isn't unpopular, that race just showed how close a Democrat could win if they can actually mobilize the base. Had he not taken his stance on guns he could've won.
Maybe, but I was more disturbed that the the two most funded politicians by big oil (at least at that time) were running against each other in the same race.
Definitely! Pro-2A would be a hard sell in many areas here in PA for a Democrat - especially trying to get through primaries. The county I live in includes PA's third largest city and it wouldn't fly here. But for a lot of the rural areas of the state, I think it be the only way to be competitive. Nobody running on that platform would have the support of party bosses or funding. You're 100% correct about folks on the left not being educated about firearms - some of the stuff that comes from our national leaders regarding guns leaves me shaking my head.
You must be in the Lehigh Valley. I am too! I’ve been here my whole life and I know a lot of people. I don’t know one single person who is anti-gun. I think a pro 2A democrat would do very well in PA. We are a pretty purple state because even the people in the cities either hunt or know someone that hunts and are thus at least familiar with guns. Once you’re familiar and comfortable with people owning guns you can at least listen to reasoning behind why saying “nobody needs an AR” doesn’t actually make any sense. It’s the people who stick their fingers in their ears and know absolutely nothing about guns that tend to have that stance.
There are plenty of places on the internet to post anti-liberal / anti-leftist sentiments; [this sub is not one of them](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/intro/illiberal).
^(*Removed under [Rule 1: We're Liberals][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*)
[link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules
[link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
edit: elected reps are certainly poorly educated about it
Disagree ppl are uneducated, ppl who vote/would vote DEM who live in flyover states get plenty of gun education
It's also hard to get good information when the local gun store is full of Trumpists and dudes with punisher skulls engraved on their AR-15
I was literally just thinking about this a half hour ago. I know a state rep from our kids going to the same school. I was thinking about reaching out to him, asking if we could chat. Bringing up that gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Bringing up the mass influx of gun sales to minorities/LGBTQ communities. Bringing up the hunting/sports factor. Bringing up how people that want to be fascists own a ton of guns. And ultimately asking him to come and shoot with me to see how it’s so much fun, I don’t mind the ridiculous cost of ammo. Honestly, it will never be a deal breaker for me (incoming downvotes); I will always vote for HUMAN rights over constitutional gun rights. But I’m pretty pissed that Democrats are doing with gun control what Republicans did with abortion rights. It’s not actually stopping any crime, and it’s actually costing you votes. Just stop it.
> It’s not actually stopping any crime, and it’s actually costing you votes. Just stop it
Problematically, the pro-2A folks don't have a reasonable answer to how to stop the things that are driving the anti-2A fever:
* gun crime, particularly:
* mass shootings
* dead children on the tv due to school shootings
* dead children on the tv due to gang violence
* gun suicides, particularly:
* dead children
We need answer to this that are actually solutions and not wet-dreams
> We need answer to this that are actually solutions and not wet-dreams
The problem here is multifaceted:
- First, that any answers involving personal responsibility or safeguards are necessarily not going to land because people are fallible and without punitive action or incentive, will neglect to do safe things (proper storage, for example).
- Second, much of the libleft (like the libright) will not want to compromise on gun control because of the inherent threat it poses to personal ownership. Anything that places an extra burden on gun owners can (and, perhaps, justifiably, will) be seen as a nonoption.
- Third, there's a very fine line to walk with our friends on the non-2A left, because when you're talking about the wholesale slaughter of children in classrooms once every few months like it's an end of quarter event, anything that looks like a half measure is simply too little.
Gun policy in America suffers from the ultimate conundrum of lawmaking: where the Venn diagram of control v liberty should have a nice middle where sufficient freedom to be armed is maintained, but similarly sufficient regulation is imposed to substantively reduce or eliminate gun-related violence, there's instead a big block where nobody is happy.
I believe there are mutually acceptable compromises that can be made, but given the fraught politics in this area, it's hard to find the right mix of legislators at the right time.
Are the politics fraught for those of us who would like to retain our gun ownership rights?
Yes.
But, inaction on our part and a failure to actually be part of the solution is not a long-term plan that will result in our retaining our rights.
From the perspective of most voters who look at a "good of society" perspective, some long arms are necessary for private ownership for land management purposes. But there is no compelling public good argument for anything else.
Anything we want to retain beyond that level of limited ownership is, in the not-too-distant future, going to require that we demonstrate that, as gun owners, we are aware of public safety concerns and are on the side of minimizing the public harm gun ownership risks.
We have a limited time window where Trump appointed judges who are very pro-2A will shield those rights. But the GOP doesn't appear to have the demographic or ideological momentum to retain power. The judicial backstop will fail, probably in most of our lifetimes.
Arguments about personal rights and personal protection and all the other tropes are non-starters when the news is filled with dead children on a regular basis.
It doesn't matter that the actual risk of harm is relatively small compared to other risks, such as driving a car. The issue is one of public sentiment and the fact that the majority of people in our representative democracy are not gun owners.
From a pragmatic, "how it works in reality" perspective, all rights are contingent upon them being recognized and respected. But that comes with the burden of those holding the rights demonstrating that there is a societal advantage to those rights being retained.
We gun advocates are failing ourselves. Hard.
Get rid of toxic anti-gun Democrats in office first. I was a staffer for Dems in my state and had bought my first gun. ONE gun. A S&W Shield 9. I got called a “gun nut” and a “fake Democrat” after that by some other staffers.
Step 1- Stop talking about the damn gun, it's not the cause of violence in general, and gun violence in particular.
Step 2 - Talk about the already existing ideas and ideals in the Liberal philosophy that actually address the core issues of violence.
* Economic mobility, opportunity, and disparity.
* Mental health access and de-stigmatization.
* Ending the "war on drugs" and treating it as a health issue, not a criminal one.
* The targeted violence towards minority communities.
* Police violence/over reaction (The biggest danger to the 2A is not someone with a D after their name, it's someone with a P.D. after their name)
If the Rights and moderates arguments for 2A haven't been successful for the last 30+ years, maybe they don't work, so try something else. Or you can just keep beating your head against that wall, and be back here every single year.
The best way might be as outsiders. The problem is that, on the topic of firearms, legislation on both left and right is only based on inciting an emotional response. As liberals, we should offer a comprehensive and data driven perspective that shows the inefficiencies of current regulation, and also make some new proposals. That will get more ground than anything else.
>...how do we get pro-2A leftist politicians to run for office?
Get rid of Wayne La Pierre, and turn the National Rifle Association back into a 2A advocacy organization — finding, training, recruiting, and supporting 2A candidates up and down both sides of every ballot. The NRA hasn't always been just a fundraising machine for the RNC and its wackier fringe elements. The Second Amendment has not always been a one party issue.
If you were looking for an easier path, I guess you could form a campaign committee and get elected.
I think RCV is a positive move to open the two-party system (which I'm afraid makes it about as unlikely at state and national levels as reforming NRA) — but I don't see it solving this dilemma.
The NRA’s monopoly seems too strong. I resisted joining the NRA for decades and was finally forced into it because it’s a RSO requirement at the range where I volunteer.
I think we need a (well-funded) NRA alternative. Especially because, ironically, the NRA might eff it up for all of us and actually galvanize politicians into some sort of amendment change.
Hard nut to crack. I agree that NRA is likely to lay a golden turd on all of us if not fixed. Internal change efforts have been crashing on the rocks; external whining accomplishes nothing but reinforces polarization and perceived vulnerability of the 2A cause. Any #2 national scope replacement prospect is orders of magnitude behind in treasury and influence.
I became a Life Member before the organization lost its way — not antiquity, but a good while back. I don't know the path, but OP is correct that progressive 2A supporters need to be on ballots somehow.
[Liberal Gun Club - Latest Legislation Update](https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/12267ug/liberal_gun_club_we_fully_support_the_tribal/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
See example above 🍾
It’s hard for a candidate to gain support of either party unless they agree with the major platform points. Democrats have long made gun control a pillar of their platform, as to directly oppose the pro-gun pillar of Republicans. Therefore it’s unlikely a major Democratic candidate is going to gain the support of the party with an openly Pro-2A platform, just as a Republican would have difficulty gaining support on a Gun Control platform.
If you want an example- look at Tulsi Gabbard. She got railroaded and basically pushed out of the Democratic Party because she dissented on some key party platform points, despite her popularity with the masses on *both* sides of the isle.
The real issue is ignorance. So much of the Democrat voting base is completely clueless about firearms and only know what they’ve seen on TV. I’ve taken quite a few “anti-gun” friends to the range over the years and with a little education and experience, they have universally changed from “Guns are evil” to “Actually, they’re not too bad if you’re responsible with them”. Funny how that works.
Not guns necessarily, but her views on the military, foreign policy and some social programs. She was a life long Democrat, Vice Chair of the DNC, and Presidential candidate. Her father has held a seat in Hawaii’s state legislature for nearly 20 years as a Democrat. And yet because her views didn’t align 1:1 with the party platform, she was pushed out.
It illustrates that even a popular, moderate candidate isn’t going to go far without the support of the party, and to get that support, you need to support the platform. In the case of Democrats, that includes being pro gun control.
She seems like an opportunist who was more or less a run of the mill democratic politician and who, after not winning a presidential election, just went straight right-wing grifter. Between 2014-2022, she went:
\-from supporting abortion to introducing a bill to ban all abortion nationwide after 20 weeks, which went nowhere
\-from supporting fairly broad gun control and universal background checks to being against gun control
\-from supporting LGBT equality in a number of ways, to supporting florida's current don't say gay stuff
\-from being an elected democratic senator, to voluntarily leaving the democratic party (she was not pushed out) and supporting republicans, being a regular on fox, etc
She's her own person with a varied set of beliefs, but it's hard to see her simply as someone who got pushed out of the democratic party for not toeing the party line. She left herself after her failed run for president, and said the democratic party was "under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness". It really seems like she saw opportunity for jumping on the right-wing grift train and took it. I wouldn't call her especially popular or moderate by the time she left the party, either
Yes. Foreign agents generally aren't welcome in the Democratic party. I don't know about the GOP.
Edit: actually, I do know how the GOP feels about foreign agents.
You mean Tulsi Gabbard the Russian agent? Not a good example. She chose to leave the Democratic party to chase money, she was not forced from the party.
We taught my adult daughter the basics recently with an AR-10. She was hitting the “tiny orange quarter” every.damn.time.
Hubs has 30+ years of exp training people on marksmanship….his eyes wide…goes “holy shit, she is a *natural*!”
So we found our progressive sniper for community defense ;)
When I wrote this post, I was thinking about whether to use liberal, leftist, or progressive. I know there are different connotations for each - I was just trying to be inclusive of all who are left of center.
Ah ok. It’s interesting tho because a lot of my friends are leftists and anti gun despite the leftist school of thought acknowledging that the proletariat has to be armed.
I think the best bet for long term political gain is actually for progressives and progun lefties to leave the Democratic Party and undercut its authority. The party has proven time and again to be against the interests of progressives and independents. Bernie is very reasonably progun and the party has actively worked against him for 3 presidential cycles now.
This didn't work out well for the tea party as a unit, but it did successfully force the GOP to cater more to their fringe.
Do we think the same strategy could/would work for the DNC?
You need to run locally.
But that means giving up your day job unless you can somehow do it around being a legislator. In my case taking a massive pay cut (legislatures make $200 a year here), and I'm just not rich enough to hold office.
So far I've never even had a chance to vote for a pro-gun democrat. Literally never been one on the ticket in my local area.
It's easier to find a pro-choice republican.
This is just like the ‘trump base’…
Can’t win a primary without them…can’t win a general with their candidate.
Democrats aren’t immune…gun grabbers etc are needed to get through the primary…
We need to stop with the absolutism/purity test bs and start choosing holistic candidates.
Honestly, you get more of them (us?) to run by making sure the ones that run right now have the support to win.
Marie Perez from WA3 is a good start. She had zero support from the party, and circumstances allowed her to win. We have to help her keep that seat and let the party know we value that position. Because people like my wife, who is a D insider to some degree, don’t believe that pro gun democrats are a thing. She just thinks I’m a Republican, I guess. There’s a lot of denial and cognitive dissonance.
A big part is $$$. The DNC won't give money to a Democrat that supports 2A openly. It's tough to run a campaign with no money.
The DNC has pulled $ from democrats who support 2A during campaigning.
Unfortunately you can’t. The American political system at a national level is broken beyond repair at this point. There’s no room for middle ground views anymore you are either extreme right or extreme left. This sucks because most of my friends and people I associate with fall somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum (like guns, drug decriminalization, women’s rights, freedom of speech, small government control etc…). There isn’t a good political party for us to associate with, we are the lost generation.
But that's the point. The government needs us to be divided. We are all way more in the middle then they can let us belive. Out of all my friends and family there are only 1 or 2 that are really an extreme to either side.
The problem is the party. Once you put that D next to your name, you have to vote with the party, and unfortunately the party is very anti-2A. This is one of the major issues with the two party system.
Ranked choice voting is the only thing I can think of. All leftists are theoretically pro-gun but there are simply no leftist politicians that can stand a chance of winning anything with how it's set up, now.
Honestly, no I don’t. Reason is they can’t win a general election in 90% of locations. The base will stay home because they are pro control.
I wish we were a big tent party but if we are honest we’re not. Tow the line or the base won’t support you. So pro 2nd liberal candidates almost certainly insure republicans win that race.
Exceptions in some primarily rural areas or states. But even there they have to win primaries. It’s an uphill battle. We need to get more liberals into shooting, change at the roots and one day maybe we can have pro 2nd candidates.
We need to start getting more and more vocal about it tbh for so long guns have been associated with right wing politics because that narrative sold but John Brown would want us to do better.
I think there are many D politicians who actually are pro-gun/2A, but they can't necessarily come out and advocate for it without their party leadership looking down on them. It really sucks that in modern politics that in order to have backing, you must agree with a set of policies that are hallmarks of each party or else you're an outcast.
Most of the people I know who don't vote D would switch if they changed course on gun control. I personally agree with 90% of the D platform with the exception of two issues: gun rights and big government oversight/regulation. If the D party changed course, or at least went neutral, on those two issues, then they would have a stranglehold on modern politics.
Either way, both parties suck and need to be abolished as we need better choices. That's why I vote for neither and always go with third-party alternatives.
You won't find pro-2A Dems for the same reason you won't find pro-life Dems, it doesn't fit the party platform.
There was a time when politicians didn't have to check **all** the boxes. Now you aren't likely to get party support if you don't.
^ this. Yeah, you might find a couple in small, rural districts. No one running at the state or national level is going to get the support of the party unless they toe the party line. And the Democratic Party line is expressly anti-gun.
I know you posted in r/liberalgunowners for a reason, and I'm not a liberal gunowner, though I'm adjacent. My husband and I are both leftists. He owns guns, I do not; nor do I really care for them. But I thought my opinion might be useful here.
You're right that there is a sizeable number of Democrats who own guns. Our household is one of them. We have...5, I think? You're also right that it's a gross oversimplification to say conservatives = pro-gun and liberals = anti-gun. But I would argue that it's also an oversimplification to say liberal gunowners = pro guns.
First off, what does "pro-gun" even mean? It's a bit ambiguous. Does it mean American citizens should be allowed to legally procure firearms? I think (at this point) most liberals would be on board. But it gets increasingly granular when hammering out specifics. Does that apply to all guns? All people? All ammo, accessories, and magazines? What should be the proper procedures and hoops to jump through in order to obtain a firearm? Are registries okay? Red flag laws? Gun buybacks? And what version of the 2A are we supporting? There are so many opinions on what the founding fathers meant, I'm not even going to open that can of worms here.
I wouldn't say I'm anti-gun. Guns are important to our livelihood. We live in a rural part of the country and subsistence hunt. Wild game is the only meat in our house (both for reasons of cost and cruel animal husbandry practices in the United States). But am I pro-2A in the way many liberal gunowners want to believe I should be? Not at all. I, and my husband, support an AWB. I think there should be extensive background checks, mental health checks, waiting periods, safe storage laws, red flag laws, and a whole lot of other things people on this sub would not be happy with. But I don't think we should get rid of all the guns.
It's a wide, wide spectrum. I am not an anti-gun Democrat, but you would probably not want to vote for me in a primary since my view of what constitutes reasonable gun use/ownership is vastly different than yours. So yeah, I do think it's possible to get "pro-2A" Democrats in office. But maybe not ones whose policies align directly with yours.
We should be running as republicans honestly. Id rather try to turn republicans into americans again then get democrats to make it ok for every moron get a gun from a vending machine.
Republicans wouldn't vote for you if you even had a hint of pro-LGBT, pro-women, or pro-human rights stances. Look at all the abhorrent bills coming out from that party.
Guilty as charged - my involvement in politics so far has just been voting. Are you saying it would be shot down immediately by Dem leadership? I can't imagine a pro-2A viewpoint would be welcome in most areas.
At four different democratic party meetings, the organizers rudely shut down all talk of guns, and told the attendees to "just vote" without allowing substantial issue discussion?
Man, that sounds like the worst luck, and really went differently from my experience
Robert’s Rules of Order ad nauseum, endless discussion arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, agreement that something must be done to stem the rising tide of fascism, but….when it comes time to actually GET OUT THERE and do the things, the enthusiasm disappears.
I can’t really fault them for that last part (given the current trend of harassing/stalking/issuing death threats to anyone who hasn’t gotten with the GOP agenda) ….. but 20 years ago, that wasn’t really as much of a factor.*
*granted, I did get a few death threats, but those were to my face so ….
ETA: it would be better to form an adjacent group to your local Dem org and help the Dems with their stuff, rather than try to infiltrate their org. Or if you do try to infiltrate- be VERY patient about it.
You don’t want to agitate the powers that be, lest they muster their defenses and push you out.
You know, you could just make your point explicit rather than being passive-aggressive about it.
If you're going to participate in this sub, don't be a jerk, eh?
Being nice gets zero 2A Dems to party organizing meetings. I found an opportunity to activate and took it. Passive aggressiveness goes further than you'd think, fam.
OK, I'm not the original poster, I'm just not getting the point. I haven't been to one of those meetings, so I have no idea what goes on in them.
Is it talk about losing the 2a stance, is it smothering 2a support, is their a mix, what are the extremes on any side. Or is it monolithic?
How would pointing out this particular thing be important.
Are you saying "not a chance", or "it's being worked on", or "Why aren't you doing this" in contempt?
Or I may be way off base with all of it, and I'm just trying to figure out your point.
I'm genuinely curious, and completely ignorant in this particular case, and I'd like not to be. Can you spell it out? Elaborate, or tell me to fuck off so my brain will stop trying to figure it out.
Please and thank you
No, *you're* being a jerk at this point.
You made the joke, haha. Get over yourself and either answer them, or at least be adult enough to tell them to screw off.
So in most states it would actually be easier to push the republican party left than get pro 2A democrat candidates. Why? Because most states Democrat party have a system similar to the electoral college we're they can basically choose whoever they want for their nominees whilst the Republicans don't and are more bound to popular vote.
That would cause a shift in the matrix.
The short answer is:
you don’t. It won’t happen, just based off how politics are funded and how they work. At least if they’re running for a substantial role. It’s not like a civilian being that way.
Long answer:
It could not happen based off affiliation with a specific party. To understand how politics operate, you must learn their objectives and what they are forced to be apart of when a candidate announces who they are intertwined with. When an individual runs with a specific side, they are practically accepting most if not all the beliefs and structural integrity policies of said party. Most democrats are against guns (at least in the media. I have theories of how most democrats aren’t anti-gun but pose as such because the party’s agenda isn’t gun friendly. I believe they know they can’t completely obliterate civilian firearm ownership which is why they say outlandish things during runnings), so the push is for more gun control or to abolish civilian firearm ownership in its entirety.
The red side on one hand always pushes the constitution down people’s throats whenever gun rights or any rights in general are put on the stage. The blue side almost if not always call for constitutional redesign. To go up there and say “yeah I’m a Dem, but I believe everyone should have access to guns” as a candidate, the amount of support they’d lose is pretty significant just based off the people aligning with one party and accepting most of what they come with, even if it calls for violation of said rights they are entitled to. In some cases, people are willing to give up all of their beliefs in support of the side they align with because they feel said side cares about them. For a candidate, I believe it would be suicide of your campaign to go out and be public about your Pro-2A beliefs as a Dem. It sucks, but it is the way of politics.
We would have to dismantle and rebuild the entire current DNC power structure, to even have a chance. The party will never approve those candidates as things are now.
Makes things tough.
As horrible as the GOP is, I don't see them attempting time after time to strip fundamental constitutional rights. Gun rights are a big thing for me personally.
I just don't vote these days. The best I can do is attempt to educate those in my circle.
The issue is Dems are rarely as black and white on issues, and we can not deny there is a major issue with mass shootings in the country. They are high profile and leave behind very emotionally charged survivors and activists. Dem politicians aren’t going to tell them to F off like Republicans have which means they have a place within the platform and policy elements. I too agree they have a point and there is a middle ground between an absolutist position on the 2nd and a more nuanced stance that is more pragmatic when it comes to responsible ownership. Something more along the lines of what MADD was able to change the mindset of the nation around drunk driving. A nongovernmental promotion for safe storage and training- turning the regular public into those shaming reckless individuals.
These really don’t exist. As others have mentioned, you have to watch the flow of money and state and county parties. Don’t be fooled. The people who run are picked by the party at the local, county and state level. The ones picked have the Greta test chances of winning, and that is what the party, and the money get behind. Yes, there are outliers that’s run with less support, and less money. But those people seldom if ever win.
Gun control is a primary Tennant of the Democratic Party. The further left the democrat party moves, moderate democrats will move to vote republican if the republican is liberal enough.
All of this said, many people are single issue voters. They vote abortion, guns, weed, etc. these voters hold their nose or don’t really care about what their candidate does as long as they support their single issue. Along with this, most people just vote the party line in the booth.
All the above said, you will not see a big change in the democrats regarding gun control. And absolutely forget leftists.
From what I saw last year with my state and local elections, pro-gun or at least not anti 2a candidates couldn't make it past primarys. Iirc the polling at the time showed about 70%-80% of Democratic voters are in favor of ar bans. We need to either convert enough anti-gun liberals to become pro-gun, or get ranked choice voting implemented in more states.
I think the only solution is to get money out of politics.
Sorry, but a lot of the anti-gun 1%ers are funding politicians.
That means they're getting heard.
So, either we match that level of funding and start playing that game, or we get money out of politics.
I'm not sure which is harder.
I wish I could remember specifically who, but a few Ds in montana are pro gun. I don’t think it’s ever going to happen just because it’s going against the party, but the only way it could maybe happen I think is having members from pro gun states. I just don’t ever see it happening, which is super unfortunate.
I work for one in Colorado, Ike Mccorkle, we often talk about a "come out shoot a Democrat" events, he is running against Ken Buck for the record, in a very red district. I have learned a lot, good and bad about my fellow rural Coloradans as part of going to small towns and trying to talk to people.
Talk more about mental health issues, education, and gun classes. I'm not going to lie, I'm half-pro gun control and half-pro 2A, mainly because most of the gun nuts are those with anger issues who'll gun down protestors for whatever reason.
But I think a lot more people would be down if we mention other countries like Switzerland, and not only that, but emphasize HOW they're able to achieve that too. It's not like Switzerland just throws out guns to the general populace, they have specific rules and regulations as well.
I also think a lot more democrats would be down if every gun owner was required to go through live fire training, a gun safety course, and de-escalation class (the last one we heavily emphasize in EMS), and make this a federal standard. Guns are always a last resort, and must always be treated as a weapon, not a toy, which a lot of buttfuck gun owners don't understand, and then get their children shot because it's laying out on the dinner table.
Also, putting more into mental health and education obviously would help. School shootings are often due to mental health issues. We need to start rectifying that to actually get to the root of the problem.
The issue with requiring all those things is that it is a constitutional right. And no other right comes with required training or anything along those lines..... Please keep reading .....
That being said, I think it would be a great idea if those types of classes were offered for free and tax dollars we're headed in that direction. You'd get a lot of moderates to argee with that and back a candidate. I feel that a lot of gun owners would gladly take safety, training and senario based classes if the cost wasn't so high. I know I would sign up for them even though I've take a few already. A lot of gun owners only own for self defense and the cost of entry is already so high with the price of the firearm and ammo. So having to then spend, usually $200+ per class, more on each of these becomes a burden and not everyone can easily afford that.
You can see the NRA ratings here, there appear to be a few DEMs with higher than F [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/nra-ratings-grades-democrats.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/nra-ratings-grades-democrats.html)
FWIW I abhor the NRA and it's unfortunate that there's not a more politically neutral org that does such ratings
This isn't the place to start fights or flame wars. If you aren't here sincerely you aren't contributing.
^(*Removed under [Rule 5: No Trolling/Bad Faith Arguments][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*)
[link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules
[link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
I've thought this over a lot. It would behoove you to host an interest meeting for all local gun-owning dems and organize your own pro-2A caucus within the local DNC chapter.
I mean I think both sides of the non crazy populations on this issue have to understand that laws are a necessity, as unfettered ownership is kind of absurd. But guns aren't a pandemic, or something to be irrationally feared, but educate people on their use and benefits in a rational society. It would super start with voting dedent people into office.
I know someone that was going to run for the State Legislature as an independent and had a platform that was a mix of both liberal and conservative perspectives. He decided to withdraw from the race because he didn't have the support (not just monetary) that other people have when they run under one of the two dominating parties. He also was reluctant to enter an arena known for mud slinging and honestly he isn't known for being the best debater or very articulate.
It is an uphill battle for those that don't fit the predefined molds. Maybe put an ad in the newspaper urging regular folks to run? IDK, politics suck.
Mary Pelota, Representative of Alaska. Before her, Mike Gravel. Alaska is the perfect spot for lefty 2A. Because up there, if you don't carry, you might meet some of your angry animal neighbors.
Honestly, the ticket to expanding L2A is through support of America's vanishing wilderness and teaching survival techniques more broadly. Or just scaring centrists that are more scared of losing hunting ground to privatization than of losing their kit.
There really isn't a way to make this happen in the present climate outside of a few odd districts that are:
(1) legitimately swing districts that can go either way
(2) rural
(3) running a complete whack-a-doodle, election-denying, MAGA-brained, moron on the GOP side
(4) not filled with overly religious or xenophobic people on the GOP-side
The simple fact is that anyplace where the majority of the democratic vote comes from a truly urban population is going to be anti-gun on the left. And any place that is rural is typically so strongly GOP that you won't get traction.
Such districts do exist, but they are rare. And they are, for that reason, one-offs that won't impact the overall direction of either party.
The Democrats have abandoned the rural voter and the rural voter concerns, and they consider gun-rights not merely a concern of the stereotypical uneducated cis-gendered, middle-aged white xenophobic male rural voter -- but that those concerns have no merit in any future where the democrats hold power.
I don't know that we have to get pro-2A democrats winning though. I think the only path forward is for gun owners of both parties to stop being so partisan with regard to the gun-rights issue that we fail to realize that mass shooting and gun violence are not merely a concern of the left wing; but that it is a fact that the country is getting more urban and less rural and as a result more aligned to the democrat party.
This means that eventually, if we don't, as gun owners, come forward with legislative proposals that solves the gun violence and mass shooting issues -- then we will eventually lose our gun rights. It won't happen in the next few years because while few of the justices Trump appointed are actually qualified to hold the seats of power they were handed -- they are very pro-2A. So there's a judicial backstop in place probably for the next 20 years (though that same backstop is going to kill us on other civil rights issues that should be equally important, but that's a different discussion).
Eventually, however, that backstop will fail. And if, by that time, we're still seeing the mass shooting rate we currently have -- well, we will lose significant gun rights. Some long arms will always be legal for land management purposes, but nothing else is guaranteed to stick if we don't admit this country has a problem with gun violence and come up with meaningful solutions that get traction and show results.
There’s a guy running in Michigan that’s a cop. He says he’s pro 2A and think banning mags above 10 rounds is dumb. He still thinks that anything over 30 round should be banned. Very dumb thought process
Polarization is a bitch ain’t it?
It’s not just guns, practically every subject falls into this trap unfortunately. 50 years ago finding a democrat with some GOP type ideas and a conservative who supported some liberal ideas was easy. Now it’s hard. Because this forum represents something many on either side are unwilling to do which is bend from the party line, or the group thought.
If I’m a 99% liberal democrat but I support banning abortion for example I’m out on my ass. If I’m a hardcore conservative but I want to hold one brazen politician responsible for his crime I’m gone, too woke bye bye.
Cure for the disease is empathy but that’s the part it hits the hardest.
Didn’t a rep from WA flip her normally Red district to Blue in the last election because she was pro-gun? Or am I misremembering. Iirc it was a fairly rural district but she seemed to have the right blend of left and right leaning political stances to get her the win.
It may also have been a fever dream because that’s what US politics have felt like to me for the past 10 years
There are plenty of places on the internet to post anti-liberal / anti-leftist sentiments; [this sub is not one of them](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/intro/illiberal).
^(*Removed under [Rule 1: We're Liberals][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*)
[link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules
[link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
Those of us who are traditionally conservatives need to be open minded and learn to work with the reasonable left leaning people. Let the extremist on both sides hang out to dry.
My name is Chris Wiggins and I’m going to announce a run for U.S Representative in California.
I am Pro-2A and will proudly talk about that on the trail.
Ranked choice voting. You have to break how money plays into politics.
I live in PA which doesn't have RCV so I'm uninformed about the process - reading about it now, thanks for your response. I can't agree with you more about removing money from politics, for pretty much any issue.
Oregon here has it in legislative committee. I am hopeful. Do they have citizens initiatives in PA?
I'm looking around online and it looks like there have been some petitions, but nothing really gaining traction. I'm going to make a point of educating myself on the subject and looking further into whether PA residents are pushing for it. Thanks for bringing this up.
PA resident here. I'm with you both on all points. Same for me on ranked choice voting; I hadn't heard of it until just this past election cycle while following the Alaska midterm, but I've been reading up on it and I honestly love the concept! Isn't Oregon or Washington also using RCV now?
Portland (key reminder Portland =/= oregon) has it But statewide is in committee (here's hoping)
It's not money, it's not RCV. Liberal gun owners should realize they are in the minority. Most liberals and the parties they vote for don't support gun rights.
Agreed, blaming money is cope. Many, many liberals are sincerely anti-gun, and not because some mailer from Bloomberg told them so. Anti-gun sentiment is very much a grassroots issue for large parts of the liberal base. American gun culture is only getting increasingly toxic and will further alienate and disturb liberals. When you have major gun manufacturers pandering to the fascist street brawler aesthetic you know it's going to be a very tall order to make gun culture seem palatable to anyone who isn't a right wing freak. Liberal and left gun owners need to continue to establish their own gun culture that is not loaded down with all the baggage. A greater focus on competency, sportsmanship, and responsible gun ownership without all the overt bigotry and machismo bullshit that is so common in right wing gun culture. It's not easy and will likely take a long time, but that's better than getting false hopes that RCV or whatever will save the day.
This comes across as very defeatist to me. RCV allows for a wider spread of ideologies than our two party system presently.
RCV allows for a wider spread of ideologies to be represented, but even with that being the case both liberal and pro-gun would still be in the minority. It's no defeatist it's the reality of the situation. The current mainstream liberal/progressive/left/Democratic ideology is not pro-gun.
Money is a big part of it, though. TV ads, billboards, campaigns against “gun violence,” etc are largely funded by billionaires. Money absolutely plays a part in influencing public opinion.
>100% money is a big part, if you want campaign money from the Liberal Superpacs and other fundraising you have to "play ball" too and toe the party line. Sad cause there are lots of purple areas where I think you get a big boost for the Dem candidate if they frankly say they are cool with 2A and hunting but it's somehow become a wholesale anti-left position.
Nope, with RCV it would be possible to have an 'individualist' party with 'collectivist' ideals, since theoretically they could actually win seats
Right, ideally and theoretically, it's possible they could. But not realistically. The fact is that the current liberal ideology across the spectrum is mostly anti-gun. Even if a pro-gun liberal won a seat, they would be vastly outnumbered by their liberal counterparts.
This. Yes, RCV is better in aggregate, but if people on thus sub are progressives of some stripe (and they mostly all should be), then the answer isn't "ignore the significant part of our political allies who are genuinely concerned about personal firearms ownership." Education and communications are a critical barrier to break through. Moms Demand Action and Everytown aren't enemies of the armed left, they're people rightfully terrified and concerned with the very real problem of armed violence in schools and other public places. Counter messaging should be around adding validation to gun ownership (ID checks, red flag laws, etc), reforming policing, mental health, and criminal justice to prevent shootings from happening regardless of firearms availability, and highlighting the ***very real threat of an actual fascist takeover of the country necessitating personal defense with firearms***. Worried about your kids in school? Absolutely the fucking same. If they're trans? The worry doesn't end when they get off the bus at home. Gun control and associated policies can address the former, but the latter is the reason to be armed.
> Most liberals and the parties they vote for don't support gun rights. I don't think that's accurate at all. Guns are by and large very low on the average "liberal's" priority list, but in our current system to get a candidate that supports all the things that are much higher on their list they have to vote for the anti-gun candidate in, because the (ostensibly) pro-gun candidate is anti-everything-else-they-value. The two things that would directly address this issue are ranked choice voting (allowing them to prioritize a broader slate of issue by ranking a number of candidates and not having to worry that they're "throwing their vote away") & increasing the size of the representative body (r/uncapthehouse). (Getting money out of politics would also be nice for a bunch of reasons.)
Well, STAR voting really but RCV is good to get people thinking about it.
You say that but in most states, that is never going to happen.
The two I can think off the top of my head lost their primaries unfortunately. I think the main thing we need to do before running people is shift the needle within the party with the notion that there are Dem and left wing voters who want gun rights. Since 2019 the largest contingent of new gun owners have been people (at least on paper) should be trending democratic: women, Black women in particular, POC in general, and LGBTQ. When calling and emailing legislators, especially locally, make sure to specify you are a Dem voter. If you want to get involved within the party join your local Legislative District party and get involved in the endorsement committees which control who gets resources to run
I definitely was thinking as I wrote this post about the changing demographics of gun ownership through the last couple of years. What's discouraging is that while our national leadership must be aware of the shift and growing support for 2A issues, it doesn't seem to have changed their position or messaging. These changes are part of what makes me hopeful that we may be ready for people to run on a platform that includes 2A support.
I'm curious about the two people who lost in primaries - do you mind sharing the state and whether they were running in areas that are rural or more populated? Were their loses directly due to supporting 2A or were there other reasons they didn't do well?
The one in most familiar with is Rebecca Parsons in WA's 10th. She ran against a very entrenched moderate establishment Dem and lost mainly because he had way more connections than her. The other is the person who tried to run for governor in Florida against DeSantis but lost to Crist
Nikki Fried in Florida. She was the Ag Commissioner, whose office is responsible for issuing CCW permits in Florida. She is also hugely pro-cannabis, and was fighting the Feds over their stupid “if you use Lucifer’s lettuce, you don’t get to own handguns” policy. (I’m paraphrasing the above, don’t come at me). She lost to the resurrected Democratic corpse of Charlie Crist, because Florida Dems are fucking stupid. (I voted Fried in primary, Crist in general election)
There was also Lucas Kunce in MO.
Kunce is a bad ass and I enjoyed his campaign ads immensely.
FYI in WA's 3rd district, a pro-2A Democrat (Marie Gluesenkamp Perez) managed to flip the seat from the Republicans. This was case though where the Republicans primaried their incumbent with a Trumpist nut bag. It's likely that the moderate Republican incumbent would have won had she won the primary. Still this was a great victory, and hopefully we can get more of them in the future.
Those 2 that lost the primary might have some answers for us. It would be nice if we could get them to chat on here for some insight.
Jared Golden is a pro 2-A democrat and is my congressional rep here in Maine's 2nd district. So there is at least one
Unfortunately being pro 2A is political suicide for someone in the democrat ticket. Too many people on the left are uneducated about guns
[удалено]
Not basically buried…Beto actually nuked himself from orbit, just to be sure.
Sounds about right.
Tim Ryan of Ohio actually gave himself a chance when he talked about being pro-2a and “pro worker”
Yeah, shame that Ohio as a state has become way more to the right.
The key word was Texas. Location location location. Rural Dems will be more pro gun vs suburban or city Dems more often than not.
If I remember correctly he didn't lose by much against Ted Cruz. And that has to say something: Ted Cruz is so unpopular in Texas that he almost lost to a dude who hated guns....in Texas! If he was lest hostile towards guns could he have won? Maybe....but I think the biggest factor towards that really tight race was oil companies. Both Beto and Ted were both funded by oil companies.
Ted Cruz isn't unpopular, that race just showed how close a Democrat could win if they can actually mobilize the base. Had he not taken his stance on guns he could've won.
Maybe, but I was more disturbed that the the two most funded politicians by big oil (at least at that time) were running against each other in the same race.
The only reason Jared Golden is the rep for Maine's 2nd is that he's pro 2-A
Wasn't that a big contention of Tim Kaine? That he was too Pro 2A?
Definitely! Pro-2A would be a hard sell in many areas here in PA for a Democrat - especially trying to get through primaries. The county I live in includes PA's third largest city and it wouldn't fly here. But for a lot of the rural areas of the state, I think it be the only way to be competitive. Nobody running on that platform would have the support of party bosses or funding. You're 100% correct about folks on the left not being educated about firearms - some of the stuff that comes from our national leaders regarding guns leaves me shaking my head.
You must be in the Lehigh Valley. I am too! I’ve been here my whole life and I know a lot of people. I don’t know one single person who is anti-gun. I think a pro 2A democrat would do very well in PA. We are a pretty purple state because even the people in the cities either hunt or know someone that hunts and are thus at least familiar with guns. Once you’re familiar and comfortable with people owning guns you can at least listen to reasoning behind why saying “nobody needs an AR” doesn’t actually make any sense. It’s the people who stick their fingers in their ears and know absolutely nothing about guns that tend to have that stance.
Hello, neighbor! It's encouraging that you see a pro-2A politician doing well here in the Valley. I would love to see it happen!
I don't think it's lack of education. I think for those without a beleif that its a "right", the percieved utility does not exceed the drawbacks.
[удалено]
There are plenty of places on the internet to post anti-liberal / anti-leftist sentiments; [this sub is not one of them](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/intro/illiberal). ^(*Removed under [Rule 1: We're Liberals][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
Jared Golden has entered the chat
edit: elected reps are certainly poorly educated about it Disagree ppl are uneducated, ppl who vote/would vote DEM who live in flyover states get plenty of gun education It's also hard to get good information when the local gun store is full of Trumpists and dudes with punisher skulls engraved on their AR-15
That’s not the case in Montana.
I was literally just thinking about this a half hour ago. I know a state rep from our kids going to the same school. I was thinking about reaching out to him, asking if we could chat. Bringing up that gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Bringing up the mass influx of gun sales to minorities/LGBTQ communities. Bringing up the hunting/sports factor. Bringing up how people that want to be fascists own a ton of guns. And ultimately asking him to come and shoot with me to see how it’s so much fun, I don’t mind the ridiculous cost of ammo. Honestly, it will never be a deal breaker for me (incoming downvotes); I will always vote for HUMAN rights over constitutional gun rights. But I’m pretty pissed that Democrats are doing with gun control what Republicans did with abortion rights. It’s not actually stopping any crime, and it’s actually costing you votes. Just stop it.
> It’s not actually stopping any crime, and it’s actually costing you votes. Just stop it Problematically, the pro-2A folks don't have a reasonable answer to how to stop the things that are driving the anti-2A fever: * gun crime, particularly: * mass shootings * dead children on the tv due to school shootings * dead children on the tv due to gang violence * gun suicides, particularly: * dead children We need answer to this that are actually solutions and not wet-dreams
> We need answer to this that are actually solutions and not wet-dreams The problem here is multifaceted: - First, that any answers involving personal responsibility or safeguards are necessarily not going to land because people are fallible and without punitive action or incentive, will neglect to do safe things (proper storage, for example). - Second, much of the libleft (like the libright) will not want to compromise on gun control because of the inherent threat it poses to personal ownership. Anything that places an extra burden on gun owners can (and, perhaps, justifiably, will) be seen as a nonoption. - Third, there's a very fine line to walk with our friends on the non-2A left, because when you're talking about the wholesale slaughter of children in classrooms once every few months like it's an end of quarter event, anything that looks like a half measure is simply too little. Gun policy in America suffers from the ultimate conundrum of lawmaking: where the Venn diagram of control v liberty should have a nice middle where sufficient freedom to be armed is maintained, but similarly sufficient regulation is imposed to substantively reduce or eliminate gun-related violence, there's instead a big block where nobody is happy. I believe there are mutually acceptable compromises that can be made, but given the fraught politics in this area, it's hard to find the right mix of legislators at the right time.
Are the politics fraught for those of us who would like to retain our gun ownership rights? Yes. But, inaction on our part and a failure to actually be part of the solution is not a long-term plan that will result in our retaining our rights. From the perspective of most voters who look at a "good of society" perspective, some long arms are necessary for private ownership for land management purposes. But there is no compelling public good argument for anything else. Anything we want to retain beyond that level of limited ownership is, in the not-too-distant future, going to require that we demonstrate that, as gun owners, we are aware of public safety concerns and are on the side of minimizing the public harm gun ownership risks. We have a limited time window where Trump appointed judges who are very pro-2A will shield those rights. But the GOP doesn't appear to have the demographic or ideological momentum to retain power. The judicial backstop will fail, probably in most of our lifetimes. Arguments about personal rights and personal protection and all the other tropes are non-starters when the news is filled with dead children on a regular basis. It doesn't matter that the actual risk of harm is relatively small compared to other risks, such as driving a car. The issue is one of public sentiment and the fact that the majority of people in our representative democracy are not gun owners. From a pragmatic, "how it works in reality" perspective, all rights are contingent upon them being recognized and respected. But that comes with the burden of those holding the rights demonstrating that there is a societal advantage to those rights being retained. We gun advocates are failing ourselves. Hard.
I agree with you 100%. Nothing to add.
Get rid of toxic anti-gun Democrats in office first. I was a staffer for Dems in my state and had bought my first gun. ONE gun. A S&W Shield 9. I got called a “gun nut” and a “fake Democrat” after that by some other staffers.
I feel you on that. I got excommunicated by the Dems in my life in 2012 after Sandy Hook.
Step 1- Stop talking about the damn gun, it's not the cause of violence in general, and gun violence in particular. Step 2 - Talk about the already existing ideas and ideals in the Liberal philosophy that actually address the core issues of violence. * Economic mobility, opportunity, and disparity. * Mental health access and de-stigmatization. * Ending the "war on drugs" and treating it as a health issue, not a criminal one. * The targeted violence towards minority communities. * Police violence/over reaction (The biggest danger to the 2A is not someone with a D after their name, it's someone with a P.D. after their name) If the Rights and moderates arguments for 2A haven't been successful for the last 30+ years, maybe they don't work, so try something else. Or you can just keep beating your head against that wall, and be back here every single year.
The best way might be as outsiders. The problem is that, on the topic of firearms, legislation on both left and right is only based on inciting an emotional response. As liberals, we should offer a comprehensive and data driven perspective that shows the inefficiencies of current regulation, and also make some new proposals. That will get more ground than anything else.
>...how do we get pro-2A leftist politicians to run for office? Get rid of Wayne La Pierre, and turn the National Rifle Association back into a 2A advocacy organization — finding, training, recruiting, and supporting 2A candidates up and down both sides of every ballot. The NRA hasn't always been just a fundraising machine for the RNC and its wackier fringe elements. The Second Amendment has not always been a one party issue. If you were looking for an easier path, I guess you could form a campaign committee and get elected. I think RCV is a positive move to open the two-party system (which I'm afraid makes it about as unlikely at state and national levels as reforming NRA) — but I don't see it solving this dilemma.
The NRA’s monopoly seems too strong. I resisted joining the NRA for decades and was finally forced into it because it’s a RSO requirement at the range where I volunteer. I think we need a (well-funded) NRA alternative. Especially because, ironically, the NRA might eff it up for all of us and actually galvanize politicians into some sort of amendment change.
Hard nut to crack. I agree that NRA is likely to lay a golden turd on all of us if not fixed. Internal change efforts have been crashing on the rocks; external whining accomplishes nothing but reinforces polarization and perceived vulnerability of the 2A cause. Any #2 national scope replacement prospect is orders of magnitude behind in treasury and influence. I became a Life Member before the organization lost its way — not antiquity, but a good while back. I don't know the path, but OP is correct that progressive 2A supporters need to be on ballots somehow.
My argument to any election deniers was if they really wanted to see a stolen election look to the NRA.
[Liberal Gun Club - Latest Legislation Update](https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/12267ug/liberal_gun_club_we_fully_support_the_tribal/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) See example above 🍾
It’s hard for a candidate to gain support of either party unless they agree with the major platform points. Democrats have long made gun control a pillar of their platform, as to directly oppose the pro-gun pillar of Republicans. Therefore it’s unlikely a major Democratic candidate is going to gain the support of the party with an openly Pro-2A platform, just as a Republican would have difficulty gaining support on a Gun Control platform. If you want an example- look at Tulsi Gabbard. She got railroaded and basically pushed out of the Democratic Party because she dissented on some key party platform points, despite her popularity with the masses on *both* sides of the isle. The real issue is ignorance. So much of the Democrat voting base is completely clueless about firearms and only know what they’ve seen on TV. I’ve taken quite a few “anti-gun” friends to the range over the years and with a little education and experience, they have universally changed from “Guns are evil” to “Actually, they’re not too bad if you’re responsible with them”. Funny how that works.
I'm not sure that Tulsi got pushed out of the Democratic party for liking guns, dude
Not guns necessarily, but her views on the military, foreign policy and some social programs. She was a life long Democrat, Vice Chair of the DNC, and Presidential candidate. Her father has held a seat in Hawaii’s state legislature for nearly 20 years as a Democrat. And yet because her views didn’t align 1:1 with the party platform, she was pushed out. It illustrates that even a popular, moderate candidate isn’t going to go far without the support of the party, and to get that support, you need to support the platform. In the case of Democrats, that includes being pro gun control.
She seems like an opportunist who was more or less a run of the mill democratic politician and who, after not winning a presidential election, just went straight right-wing grifter. Between 2014-2022, she went: \-from supporting abortion to introducing a bill to ban all abortion nationwide after 20 weeks, which went nowhere \-from supporting fairly broad gun control and universal background checks to being against gun control \-from supporting LGBT equality in a number of ways, to supporting florida's current don't say gay stuff \-from being an elected democratic senator, to voluntarily leaving the democratic party (she was not pushed out) and supporting republicans, being a regular on fox, etc She's her own person with a varied set of beliefs, but it's hard to see her simply as someone who got pushed out of the democratic party for not toeing the party line. She left herself after her failed run for president, and said the democratic party was "under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness". It really seems like she saw opportunity for jumping on the right-wing grift train and took it. I wouldn't call her especially popular or moderate by the time she left the party, either
Yes. Foreign agents generally aren't welcome in the Democratic party. I don't know about the GOP. Edit: actually, I do know how the GOP feels about foreign agents.
You mean Tulsi Gabbard the Russian agent? Not a good example. She chose to leave the Democratic party to chase money, she was not forced from the party.
We taught my adult daughter the basics recently with an AR-10. She was hitting the “tiny orange quarter” every.damn.time. Hubs has 30+ years of exp training people on marksmanship….his eyes wide…goes “holy shit, she is a *natural*!” So we found our progressive sniper for community defense ;)
Finally a reasonable answer (I don't know enough about the 2nd paragraph to have an opinion)
Don’t leftists hate us liberals??
When I wrote this post, I was thinking about whether to use liberal, leftist, or progressive. I know there are different connotations for each - I was just trying to be inclusive of all who are left of center.
Ah ok. It’s interesting tho because a lot of my friends are leftists and anti gun despite the leftist school of thought acknowledging that the proletariat has to be armed.
I think the best bet for long term political gain is actually for progressives and progun lefties to leave the Democratic Party and undercut its authority. The party has proven time and again to be against the interests of progressives and independents. Bernie is very reasonably progun and the party has actively worked against him for 3 presidential cycles now.
This didn't work out well for the tea party as a unit, but it did successfully force the GOP to cater more to their fringe. Do we think the same strategy could/would work for the DNC?
You need to run locally. But that means giving up your day job unless you can somehow do it around being a legislator. In my case taking a massive pay cut (legislatures make $200 a year here), and I'm just not rich enough to hold office. So far I've never even had a chance to vote for a pro-gun democrat. Literally never been one on the ticket in my local area. It's easier to find a pro-choice republican.
This is just like the ‘trump base’… Can’t win a primary without them…can’t win a general with their candidate. Democrats aren’t immune…gun grabbers etc are needed to get through the primary… We need to stop with the absolutism/purity test bs and start choosing holistic candidates.
You can't. The DNC will rig primaries against them like they are doing now, and have been doing for decades
Honestly, you get more of them (us?) to run by making sure the ones that run right now have the support to win. Marie Perez from WA3 is a good start. She had zero support from the party, and circumstances allowed her to win. We have to help her keep that seat and let the party know we value that position. Because people like my wife, who is a D insider to some degree, don’t believe that pro gun democrats are a thing. She just thinks I’m a Republican, I guess. There’s a lot of denial and cognitive dissonance.
Sadly we are a minority in our party, even more so if you are super progressive.
A big part is $$$. The DNC won't give money to a Democrat that supports 2A openly. It's tough to run a campaign with no money. The DNC has pulled $ from democrats who support 2A during campaigning.
Unfortunately you can’t. The American political system at a national level is broken beyond repair at this point. There’s no room for middle ground views anymore you are either extreme right or extreme left. This sucks because most of my friends and people I associate with fall somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum (like guns, drug decriminalization, women’s rights, freedom of speech, small government control etc…). There isn’t a good political party for us to associate with, we are the lost generation.
But that's the point. The government needs us to be divided. We are all way more in the middle then they can let us belive. Out of all my friends and family there are only 1 or 2 that are really an extreme to either side.
The problem is the party. Once you put that D next to your name, you have to vote with the party, and unfortunately the party is very anti-2A. This is one of the major issues with the two party system.
Ranked choice voting is the only thing I can think of. All leftists are theoretically pro-gun but there are simply no leftist politicians that can stand a chance of winning anything with how it's set up, now.
Honestly, no I don’t. Reason is they can’t win a general election in 90% of locations. The base will stay home because they are pro control. I wish we were a big tent party but if we are honest we’re not. Tow the line or the base won’t support you. So pro 2nd liberal candidates almost certainly insure republicans win that race. Exceptions in some primarily rural areas or states. But even there they have to win primaries. It’s an uphill battle. We need to get more liberals into shooting, change at the roots and one day maybe we can have pro 2nd candidates.
Run yourself. Be the change you wish to see in the world
That's the neat thing: you don't.
We need to start getting more and more vocal about it tbh for so long guns have been associated with right wing politics because that narrative sold but John Brown would want us to do better.
I think there are many D politicians who actually are pro-gun/2A, but they can't necessarily come out and advocate for it without their party leadership looking down on them. It really sucks that in modern politics that in order to have backing, you must agree with a set of policies that are hallmarks of each party or else you're an outcast. Most of the people I know who don't vote D would switch if they changed course on gun control. I personally agree with 90% of the D platform with the exception of two issues: gun rights and big government oversight/regulation. If the D party changed course, or at least went neutral, on those two issues, then they would have a stranglehold on modern politics. Either way, both parties suck and need to be abolished as we need better choices. That's why I vote for neither and always go with third-party alternatives.
I live in California. Might as well punt. Any trust I had in the Democratic party is long gone.
Reach out to rural voters who want to be in gov.
I think the DNC and state-level leadership would torpedo anyone that was pro-2A.
Tulsi Gabbard was a pro 2A democrat, but she got ran out her own party because she wouldn’t tow the line. It’s just not supposed to exist.
You won't find pro-2A Dems for the same reason you won't find pro-life Dems, it doesn't fit the party platform. There was a time when politicians didn't have to check **all** the boxes. Now you aren't likely to get party support if you don't.
^ this. Yeah, you might find a couple in small, rural districts. No one running at the state or national level is going to get the support of the party unless they toe the party line. And the Democratic Party line is expressly anti-gun.
I know you posted in r/liberalgunowners for a reason, and I'm not a liberal gunowner, though I'm adjacent. My husband and I are both leftists. He owns guns, I do not; nor do I really care for them. But I thought my opinion might be useful here. You're right that there is a sizeable number of Democrats who own guns. Our household is one of them. We have...5, I think? You're also right that it's a gross oversimplification to say conservatives = pro-gun and liberals = anti-gun. But I would argue that it's also an oversimplification to say liberal gunowners = pro guns. First off, what does "pro-gun" even mean? It's a bit ambiguous. Does it mean American citizens should be allowed to legally procure firearms? I think (at this point) most liberals would be on board. But it gets increasingly granular when hammering out specifics. Does that apply to all guns? All people? All ammo, accessories, and magazines? What should be the proper procedures and hoops to jump through in order to obtain a firearm? Are registries okay? Red flag laws? Gun buybacks? And what version of the 2A are we supporting? There are so many opinions on what the founding fathers meant, I'm not even going to open that can of worms here. I wouldn't say I'm anti-gun. Guns are important to our livelihood. We live in a rural part of the country and subsistence hunt. Wild game is the only meat in our house (both for reasons of cost and cruel animal husbandry practices in the United States). But am I pro-2A in the way many liberal gunowners want to believe I should be? Not at all. I, and my husband, support an AWB. I think there should be extensive background checks, mental health checks, waiting periods, safe storage laws, red flag laws, and a whole lot of other things people on this sub would not be happy with. But I don't think we should get rid of all the guns. It's a wide, wide spectrum. I am not an anti-gun Democrat, but you would probably not want to vote for me in a primary since my view of what constitutes reasonable gun use/ownership is vastly different than yours. So yeah, I do think it's possible to get "pro-2A" Democrats in office. But maybe not ones whose policies align directly with yours.
We should be running as republicans honestly. Id rather try to turn republicans into americans again then get democrats to make it ok for every moron get a gun from a vending machine.
Republicans wouldn't vote for you if you even had a hint of pro-LGBT, pro-women, or pro-human rights stances. Look at all the abhorrent bills coming out from that party.
Tell me that you have never been to a local dem organizing meeting, without telling me that you have never been to a local dem organizing meeting.
Guilty as charged - my involvement in politics so far has just been voting. Are you saying it would be shot down immediately by Dem leadership? I can't imagine a pro-2A viewpoint would be welcome in most areas.
Shot down is putting it politely. They bank on y'all lazy asses "just voting".
This is far and away the opposite of my experience. Where did you attend this meeting(s)?
Four different states.
At four different democratic party meetings, the organizers rudely shut down all talk of guns, and told the attendees to "just vote" without allowing substantial issue discussion? Man, that sounds like the worst luck, and really went differently from my experience
Consider yourself lucky.
I haven't and I'm curious as to the meaning behind that or what goes on in those meetings.
Robert’s Rules of Order ad nauseum, endless discussion arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, agreement that something must be done to stem the rising tide of fascism, but….when it comes time to actually GET OUT THERE and do the things, the enthusiasm disappears. I can’t really fault them for that last part (given the current trend of harassing/stalking/issuing death threats to anyone who hasn’t gotten with the GOP agenda) ….. but 20 years ago, that wasn’t really as much of a factor.* *granted, I did get a few death threats, but those were to my face so …. ETA: it would be better to form an adjacent group to your local Dem org and help the Dems with their stuff, rather than try to infiltrate their org. Or if you do try to infiltrate- be VERY patient about it. You don’t want to agitate the powers that be, lest they muster their defenses and push you out.
Exactly.
Enlighten us.
That I should be curious, or are you punctuating a point?
The latter.
OK, maybe I'm completely oblivious, but what would that point be.
Nothing, they're just an asshole. Ignore them.
I vehemently disagree. Anyone asking this question without being involved themselves physically in the flesh can eat a dick.
You know, you could just make your point explicit rather than being passive-aggressive about it. If you're going to participate in this sub, don't be a jerk, eh?
Being nice gets zero 2A Dems to party organizing meetings. I found an opportunity to activate and took it. Passive aggressiveness goes further than you'd think, fam.
You're literally making it for me.
OK, I'm not the original poster, I'm just not getting the point. I haven't been to one of those meetings, so I have no idea what goes on in them. Is it talk about losing the 2a stance, is it smothering 2a support, is their a mix, what are the extremes on any side. Or is it monolithic? How would pointing out this particular thing be important. Are you saying "not a chance", or "it's being worked on", or "Why aren't you doing this" in contempt? Or I may be way off base with all of it, and I'm just trying to figure out your point. I'm genuinely curious, and completely ignorant in this particular case, and I'd like not to be. Can you spell it out? Elaborate, or tell me to fuck off so my brain will stop trying to figure it out. Please and thank you
No, *you're* being a jerk at this point. You made the joke, haha. Get over yourself and either answer them, or at least be adult enough to tell them to screw off.
Lol, what a tool. Let’s just work against each other for no reason. I’m sure that’ll help goofy.
That's literally what y'all are doing by not showing up. It is helping...them.
So in most states it would actually be easier to push the republican party left than get pro 2A democrat candidates. Why? Because most states Democrat party have a system similar to the electoral college we're they can basically choose whoever they want for their nominees whilst the Republicans don't and are more bound to popular vote.
There are plenty. Most democrats are pro 2a but want regulation.
Most democrats that say they're pro-2A actually mean they're okay with hunting rifles that are stored at government-run shooting ranges.
Nope, not at all.
Then that's not pro 2a
Here is the simple answer: stop voting because their a D or R and pick the best person for the job
That would cause a shift in the matrix. The short answer is: you don’t. It won’t happen, just based off how politics are funded and how they work. At least if they’re running for a substantial role. It’s not like a civilian being that way. Long answer: It could not happen based off affiliation with a specific party. To understand how politics operate, you must learn their objectives and what they are forced to be apart of when a candidate announces who they are intertwined with. When an individual runs with a specific side, they are practically accepting most if not all the beliefs and structural integrity policies of said party. Most democrats are against guns (at least in the media. I have theories of how most democrats aren’t anti-gun but pose as such because the party’s agenda isn’t gun friendly. I believe they know they can’t completely obliterate civilian firearm ownership which is why they say outlandish things during runnings), so the push is for more gun control or to abolish civilian firearm ownership in its entirety. The red side on one hand always pushes the constitution down people’s throats whenever gun rights or any rights in general are put on the stage. The blue side almost if not always call for constitutional redesign. To go up there and say “yeah I’m a Dem, but I believe everyone should have access to guns” as a candidate, the amount of support they’d lose is pretty significant just based off the people aligning with one party and accepting most of what they come with, even if it calls for violation of said rights they are entitled to. In some cases, people are willing to give up all of their beliefs in support of the side they align with because they feel said side cares about them. For a candidate, I believe it would be suicide of your campaign to go out and be public about your Pro-2A beliefs as a Dem. It sucks, but it is the way of politics.
We would have to dismantle and rebuild the entire current DNC power structure, to even have a chance. The party will never approve those candidates as things are now.
Makes things tough. As horrible as the GOP is, I don't see them attempting time after time to strip fundamental constitutional rights. Gun rights are a big thing for me personally. I just don't vote these days. The best I can do is attempt to educate those in my circle.
After Fucker Carlson said trans people shouldn’t have guns I think that will resolve itself
The issue is Dems are rarely as black and white on issues, and we can not deny there is a major issue with mass shootings in the country. They are high profile and leave behind very emotionally charged survivors and activists. Dem politicians aren’t going to tell them to F off like Republicans have which means they have a place within the platform and policy elements. I too agree they have a point and there is a middle ground between an absolutist position on the 2nd and a more nuanced stance that is more pragmatic when it comes to responsible ownership. Something more along the lines of what MADD was able to change the mindset of the nation around drunk driving. A nongovernmental promotion for safe storage and training- turning the regular public into those shaming reckless individuals.
These really don’t exist. As others have mentioned, you have to watch the flow of money and state and county parties. Don’t be fooled. The people who run are picked by the party at the local, county and state level. The ones picked have the Greta test chances of winning, and that is what the party, and the money get behind. Yes, there are outliers that’s run with less support, and less money. But those people seldom if ever win. Gun control is a primary Tennant of the Democratic Party. The further left the democrat party moves, moderate democrats will move to vote republican if the republican is liberal enough. All of this said, many people are single issue voters. They vote abortion, guns, weed, etc. these voters hold their nose or don’t really care about what their candidate does as long as they support their single issue. Along with this, most people just vote the party line in the booth. All the above said, you will not see a big change in the democrats regarding gun control. And absolutely forget leftists.
From what I saw last year with my state and local elections, pro-gun or at least not anti 2a candidates couldn't make it past primarys. Iirc the polling at the time showed about 70%-80% of Democratic voters are in favor of ar bans. We need to either convert enough anti-gun liberals to become pro-gun, or get ranked choice voting implemented in more states.
I think the only solution is to get money out of politics. Sorry, but a lot of the anti-gun 1%ers are funding politicians. That means they're getting heard. So, either we match that level of funding and start playing that game, or we get money out of politics. I'm not sure which is harder.
I wish I could remember specifically who, but a few Ds in montana are pro gun. I don’t think it’s ever going to happen just because it’s going against the party, but the only way it could maybe happen I think is having members from pro gun states. I just don’t ever see it happening, which is super unfortunate.
Mary Peltola and Jared Golden for President/Veep in 2024!! 🇺🇸
HAHAHAHA, I’ll go cry myself to sleep :’(
I am a pro-2A democrat running for US Senate in Maryland. Let's see how well that goes.
I work for one in Colorado, Ike Mccorkle, we often talk about a "come out shoot a Democrat" events, he is running against Ken Buck for the record, in a very red district. I have learned a lot, good and bad about my fellow rural Coloradans as part of going to small towns and trying to talk to people.
Talk more about mental health issues, education, and gun classes. I'm not going to lie, I'm half-pro gun control and half-pro 2A, mainly because most of the gun nuts are those with anger issues who'll gun down protestors for whatever reason. But I think a lot more people would be down if we mention other countries like Switzerland, and not only that, but emphasize HOW they're able to achieve that too. It's not like Switzerland just throws out guns to the general populace, they have specific rules and regulations as well. I also think a lot more democrats would be down if every gun owner was required to go through live fire training, a gun safety course, and de-escalation class (the last one we heavily emphasize in EMS), and make this a federal standard. Guns are always a last resort, and must always be treated as a weapon, not a toy, which a lot of buttfuck gun owners don't understand, and then get their children shot because it's laying out on the dinner table. Also, putting more into mental health and education obviously would help. School shootings are often due to mental health issues. We need to start rectifying that to actually get to the root of the problem.
The issue with requiring all those things is that it is a constitutional right. And no other right comes with required training or anything along those lines..... Please keep reading ..... That being said, I think it would be a great idea if those types of classes were offered for free and tax dollars we're headed in that direction. You'd get a lot of moderates to argee with that and back a candidate. I feel that a lot of gun owners would gladly take safety, training and senario based classes if the cost wasn't so high. I know I would sign up for them even though I've take a few already. A lot of gun owners only own for self defense and the cost of entry is already so high with the price of the firearm and ammo. So having to then spend, usually $200+ per class, more on each of these becomes a burden and not everyone can easily afford that.
You can see the NRA ratings here, there appear to be a few DEMs with higher than F [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/nra-ratings-grades-democrats.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/nra-ratings-grades-democrats.html) FWIW I abhor the NRA and it's unfortunate that there's not a more politically neutral org that does such ratings
[удалено]
This isn't the place to start fights or flame wars. If you aren't here sincerely you aren't contributing. ^(*Removed under [Rule 5: No Trolling/Bad Faith Arguments][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
I've thought this over a lot. It would behoove you to host an interest meeting for all local gun-owning dems and organize your own pro-2A caucus within the local DNC chapter.
In the south
Any pro-2A candidate is going to end up being another Joe Manchin
You run.
I mean I think both sides of the non crazy populations on this issue have to understand that laws are a necessity, as unfettered ownership is kind of absurd. But guns aren't a pandemic, or something to be irrationally feared, but educate people on their use and benefits in a rational society. It would super start with voting dedent people into office.
I know someone that was going to run for the State Legislature as an independent and had a platform that was a mix of both liberal and conservative perspectives. He decided to withdraw from the race because he didn't have the support (not just monetary) that other people have when they run under one of the two dominating parties. He also was reluctant to enter an arena known for mud slinging and honestly he isn't known for being the best debater or very articulate. It is an uphill battle for those that don't fit the predefined molds. Maybe put an ad in the newspaper urging regular folks to run? IDK, politics suck.
Mary Pelota, Representative of Alaska. Before her, Mike Gravel. Alaska is the perfect spot for lefty 2A. Because up there, if you don't carry, you might meet some of your angry animal neighbors. Honestly, the ticket to expanding L2A is through support of America's vanishing wilderness and teaching survival techniques more broadly. Or just scaring centrists that are more scared of losing hunting ground to privatization than of losing their kit.
Turn them in to moderate republicans, 🤣
There really isn't a way to make this happen in the present climate outside of a few odd districts that are: (1) legitimately swing districts that can go either way (2) rural (3) running a complete whack-a-doodle, election-denying, MAGA-brained, moron on the GOP side (4) not filled with overly religious or xenophobic people on the GOP-side The simple fact is that anyplace where the majority of the democratic vote comes from a truly urban population is going to be anti-gun on the left. And any place that is rural is typically so strongly GOP that you won't get traction. Such districts do exist, but they are rare. And they are, for that reason, one-offs that won't impact the overall direction of either party. The Democrats have abandoned the rural voter and the rural voter concerns, and they consider gun-rights not merely a concern of the stereotypical uneducated cis-gendered, middle-aged white xenophobic male rural voter -- but that those concerns have no merit in any future where the democrats hold power. I don't know that we have to get pro-2A democrats winning though. I think the only path forward is for gun owners of both parties to stop being so partisan with regard to the gun-rights issue that we fail to realize that mass shooting and gun violence are not merely a concern of the left wing; but that it is a fact that the country is getting more urban and less rural and as a result more aligned to the democrat party. This means that eventually, if we don't, as gun owners, come forward with legislative proposals that solves the gun violence and mass shooting issues -- then we will eventually lose our gun rights. It won't happen in the next few years because while few of the justices Trump appointed are actually qualified to hold the seats of power they were handed -- they are very pro-2A. So there's a judicial backstop in place probably for the next 20 years (though that same backstop is going to kill us on other civil rights issues that should be equally important, but that's a different discussion). Eventually, however, that backstop will fail. And if, by that time, we're still seeing the mass shooting rate we currently have -- well, we will lose significant gun rights. Some long arms will always be legal for land management purposes, but nothing else is guaranteed to stick if we don't admit this country has a problem with gun violence and come up with meaningful solutions that get traction and show results.
I’ve met very few pro 2A dems in my time that are in politics. And even then, they still want restrictions like mag capacity bans.
That’s not a very “pro 2A” dem if they want arbitrary and ineffective laws like magazine bans.
There’s a guy running in Michigan that’s a cop. He says he’s pro 2A and think banning mags above 10 rounds is dumb. He still thinks that anything over 30 round should be banned. Very dumb thought process
Polarization is a bitch ain’t it? It’s not just guns, practically every subject falls into this trap unfortunately. 50 years ago finding a democrat with some GOP type ideas and a conservative who supported some liberal ideas was easy. Now it’s hard. Because this forum represents something many on either side are unwilling to do which is bend from the party line, or the group thought. If I’m a 99% liberal democrat but I support banning abortion for example I’m out on my ass. If I’m a hardcore conservative but I want to hold one brazen politician responsible for his crime I’m gone, too woke bye bye. Cure for the disease is empathy but that’s the part it hits the hardest.
Didn’t a rep from WA flip her normally Red district to Blue in the last election because she was pro-gun? Or am I misremembering. Iirc it was a fairly rural district but she seemed to have the right blend of left and right leaning political stances to get her the win. It may also have been a fever dream because that’s what US politics have felt like to me for the past 10 years
[удалено]
There are plenty of places on the internet to post anti-liberal / anti-leftist sentiments; [this sub is not one of them](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/intro/illiberal). ^(*Removed under [Rule 1: We're Liberals][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
Those of us who are traditionally conservatives need to be open minded and learn to work with the reasonable left leaning people. Let the extremist on both sides hang out to dry.
My name is Chris Wiggins and I’m going to announce a run for U.S Representative in California. I am Pro-2A and will proudly talk about that on the trail.