Welcome aboard, @Jon38, and I’m glad to hear you have combat and martial arts training, especially as you out yourself as a liberal
Like you, I’m a liberal combat vet, although well before your time, and ardent CCW advocate. While we’re definitely the minority here, the vast majority of folks here are civil and engaged and there are some great conversations across our many divides. From time to time you may be called a communist who is intent on destroying America, but it’s all in good fun…
If you want to get a sense of the place, head on over to this thread:
Another leftie vet outed himself last week and, well, see for yourself. As I say, about 90% is civil and thoughtful, which is saying a lot in this day and age.
I was concerned as i began reading through this topic. The fear was that an overwhelming concern for avoiding any and all possibility of offending would stifle conversation to the point of effective uselessness. I feel that as part of natural human discussion, some allowance must be made for people to express in a less than ideal manner without a a demand for perfection in wording or strict observance of a particular list of banned things like generalization. This because i firmly believe that polite, and respectful are attitudes that are evident when they are present, and equally evident when they are not, regardless of other potential errors. Is it not the polite and respectful exchange of thoughts and ideas that we want, and hope to learn from?
I agree that generalization is problematic, I can see where I have done it, and as I believe was said, it was not accurate to the degree I would wish. I have learned that it is something I want to avoid for almost exactly the reasons stated against it. Yet I have felt that the key to the success of this forum has been that the the only requirement to participate has been the expectation that ones input or opinion must be delivered in a polite and respectful manner to the best of our ability.
It truly is not a “Liberal” vs " Conservative" thing. I see that a bit more clearly after reading all this. However I caution against setting too many rules against such things as generalizations because, though they may be in error for just the reasons given, they may also be innocently undertaken with no affect upon the subject or point being attempted, and not everyone with an opinion or observation worth hearing will be able, I believe, to navigate around all such error along the way. Polite and respectful is good and workable and allows each their own level of skill with words and levels of particular understanding.
In regards to the topic at hand. I am a U.S citizen, I am a register Voter in California. and I am a member of a political party. I am not one to be judge mental in any affairs. But I will State my voice. Who is anyone to say who are the bad guys. People my have a concealed weapon carry permit, and have been to the gun ranges many times. For me, that shows that your itching to lock your target in and fire. For myself self. Self-defense, is a humbling action for me. I would rather use a self-defense pocket knife, and save my slugs, bullets ammo for a really bad situation. Life or death situation. People tend to talk and protest against law inforcment. Police. Alright! Sometimes it’s there fault., Put yourself in there position, dealing with local citizen people breaking laws, or being part of, or around iligal activity. Who is really the bad guys…
I completely agree, @Jon38. No two people are identical and we can learn from everyone when there’s respectful conversation.
Here’s where the issue is with generalizations. Not all liberals or conservatives believe the same thing. I know I don’t agree 100% with either platform.
There can definitely be too many rules. The majority of the time your point will be strengthened by using specifics instead of generalizations which is part of the reasons I caution people against relying on generalizations.
I will have to disagree with you on that one, @Anthony91. If you’re carrying a firearm on a daily basis and going to the range, you’re showing that you want to be as safe as possible with your firearm. Shooting is a perishable skill. Going to the range keeps you as accurate as possible if you ever have to physically defend yourself with your firearm. There are multiple ways to defend yourself in any given situations and we all do our best to train to avoid any situation where we have to defend ourselves in any manner (which in itself is a form of self-defense).
Well, I’m slightly to the right of Attila the Hun on the Constitution, and our military. That said I’m pretty liberal. But I usually vote Libertarian or as I did in 2016 I wrote in my candidates.
I don’t care about your sexuality, your ethnicity, your religion, or lack of one. All I care about is how you treat those around you. So call me liberal, conservative, just don’t call me Sue
There really is no need to argue about the left / liberal / democrat positions on 2A. It’s public knowledge announced on the party website, and now on their convention agenda
Maybe for an encore there are some practicing Catholics among us who can defend Catholicism while they advocate for abortion and birth control.
We all vote on the topics that are most important to us. For some, the topic is the Second Amendment, for others, it’s a different topic that affects their day-to-day life more.
I do not know one person who 100% agrees with everything on a political party’s platform.
Alienating those who support the Second Amendment because they have different views than you do on other topics will serve to divide gun owners. Infighting does not help promote a pro-Second Amendment or our right to own firearms to those who are against firearms.
So let’s use the right verbiage in our conversations - those who are pro-Second Amendment and those who are anti-Second Amendment. It is NOT a “Liberal” vs “Conservative” thing.
