Just on a purely personal observation, I have a whole raft of students who are hard core liberals, a few who are self-admitted socialist, and the whole lot are rock solid 2A supporters. Pretty sure they’re not trading in their liberal card for a conservative one based in their 2A stance. They all shoot, most own guns, and some carry. And they declare themselves pro 2A. I work with a couple folks who are also of the same stripe.
I’m good with them being pro-gun liberals. They’re good with being pro-gun liberals. None of us care if they don’t match the statistics. Any of them would take exception to being characterized as anti-2A because they’re liberals.
I’ve got a few acquaintances who would consider themselves religious-based conservatives and they are anti-gun.
General statistics don’t apply to individuals. All liberals, or all conservatives for that matter, sort into issue specific views without giving up their claim to the larger group.
Gun love / gun hate is an issue-specific thing and doesn’t map uniformly on to any other group. Not liberal/conservative, not gender, not race, not city/country, not state, not age. To blanket assign any issue-position to any unrelated grouping is always going to misrepresent many members of that group.
This conversation is about being respectful to the individuals who are present here. They are not defined by those gross generalizations. “Groups” in the statistical sense don’t read posts, individual people do. When you make generalizations that are not issue-specific about people, the individuals you made generalizations about may take exception.
That’s the disrespect part I think we’re talking about. Once you get up people’s noses that way, there really isn’t much incentive for them to listen to anything else you say.
The issue is requiring someone to submit their children to something they oppose. Guns, religion, sexual preference. All of these items represent subjects that, for their own personal reasons, people are opposed too. If we, gun owners, believe we can require any class regarding guns, to ANYONE, then they can require classes we don’t agree with. And, your idea doesn’t restrict gun ownership, it restricts the completion of a public education. Required classes implies, no class, no diploma. It borders on fascism.
Your comment is true yet, there is a difference between Liberals and Leftist. Leftist are decidedly anti gun as they have been since Karl Marx. Leftist are statist and need a Police State to force their world view on others. Liberals are quite different as liberty is their foundational belief. Further more you are right to infer we should not alienate those that disagree but, try to win them over with patients and truth. Thanks for broaching this issue.
Exactly my strategy too. Welcome to the community @KED. Do check out the other topics, most aren’t as contentious as this one, and there’s a ton of good info here.
Unfortunately the true liberal is pretty well extinct in the democratic party these days. A pro 2nd Amendment candidate running today would be a pariah in their own party.
The true liberals seem to have either left the party and become independents, drifted over to the Libertarian Party, or have become republicans.
We saw a similar huge split in the party in the 70’s over gun control and Jimmy Carter’s policies that amounted to a massacre of the family farm and blue collar working people.
Texas was so solidly democratic in those days most counties never even had a republican primary until 84. The most common refrain you’d here from people in that era who were migrating was, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the party left me”.
The purge of reasonable, middle of the road democrats who remained, the so called “blue dog democrats” began again in about 92-94 and was pretty well complete by 2012 over the issue of Obamacare.
Since then the party has simply become more and more extreme. I agree we need to stop calling them liberals because there’s simply nothing “liberal” about them anymore, they have become rabid extremists.
You can always find exceptions among individual voters who for whatever reason simply cannot bring themselves to vote republican for any reason but the purge among candidates and office holders is pretty well complete.
Age restrictions define who is and isn’t an adult. Personally I think there’s a serious constitutional incompatibility with an 18yo being considered a legal adult and restricted from buying handguns or handgun ammunition.
If we as a society agree they are not responsible enough to own a handgun or ammunition for it until they reach age 21 then the voting age should be raised as well.
@WildRose, actually state laws define the age of majority or who is an adult. If we are talking purely Constitutional Amendments, then the 26th Amendment grants voting rights to 18 year olds. Age restrictions in this particular case are just that, restrictions enacted by law to stop anyone under the specified age from either purchasing, or owning a pistol or ammo.
That doesn’t address whether your views on “21 being the lowest reasonable age for carry,” is gun control and anti 2nd amendment or not?
You emphatically state that those of us who entertain the idea of or want some restrictions cannot be pro 2nd Amendment and that we are “pro carry anti 2nd Amendment” while at the same time having restrictive ideals yourself. By your very own definition one can say you are “pro carry anti 2nd Amendment” as well.
I like Scalia’s opinion in Heller. Can you cite perhaps a better source?
Juveniles have never been afforded full constitutional rights because they cannot be fully held accountable for their actions until reaching the age of Majority.
@Dawn – thank you for naming this import topic! I live in a deep blue state and on most issues tend in that direction myself. But how I feel about tariffs or the environment has nothing whatsoever to do with my views on my right to carry. As the comments here point out, the most productive way to approach these issues is respectfully and in a nuanced way. On guns, I even think “pro- or anti- gun” or "pro- or anti-“2nd ammendment” is too broad a brush. I have people I love and respect on all sides of these issues, and I think all consider themselves “pro-safety.” Even in my deep blue bubble, no one I know wants to take everyone’s guns away, and everyone I know across the spectrum wants to keep them out of the hands of people who are homocidal or suicidal. The question then becomes how to do that while protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens? To have that conversation requires just the type of approach (mostly) advocated across the USCCA community. Brava, Dawn, for furthering the conversation!
There’s a lot of back and forth on this topic, but here’s where the line is going to be drawn. Respectful conversation does not include generalizations. Those generalizations alienate those who are trying to learn or may have a different opinion than others here.
I will not allow the bashing/hate of Liberals, Democrats, Anti-Gun, Pro-Gun, or any individual. I don’t think anyone wants bashing/hate/anger associated with responsibly armed Americans when others generalize us.
Is that a double standard? Maybe, but I cannot control what others think or say about us. I can make sure we’re doing our best to represent the reason we carry - we want to protect ourselves and our families. We’re not out to hurt or attack anyone - and our words need to match our actions and our intent.
Great points Dawn. As diverse as people are the one thing I would hope people could come together on is the individual freedom to choose for ourselves our parameters. As long as we do not infringe on others freedoms to believe the way they want . Or, to advocate the control or freedoms of other people by force of Government. Freedoms once lost are near impossible to get back. We need to accept that on many issues, especially Firearms, we will not all agree but we must agree to respect each others opinions.
Well said Dawn! I have friends that are Liberals who have their carry permits. I have gone to the range with them, rode with them for funeral escorts and many of them are vets. I also know Conservatives who are anti-gun, anti-biker and really, anti everything.
Exactly the way I’m thinking, @KED! I don’t have to agree with someone who wants to say you can’t carry on their property - but it’s their property and I will respect their decision/opinion about their property. That’s their right and it’s my right to not go there.
Correct. Thank you. We have lost the art of debate in this country.
Today we have the “my way or the hwy” mentality. It’s OK to differ in our opinions and say what we believe and say it in a civil way!!!