The Agony of the Liberal Gun Lover

[Kabloosh]

This is just great.

Go ahead and drive another 2A supporter away by badgering them about stuff that is, frankly, none of your business. Keep it up....pretty soon every moderate voter in this country will be against us because they don't want to associate with the rabid, frothing, hyperbolic conservatives that see a reason for revolution around every corner.

I don't care who you voted for, but I will say that anyone who cast a vote for Romney ought not cast aspersions against any Obama supporter. While Obama may have had gun control in his platform, Romney had a history of signing an actual ban into law.

You tell me who is worse; the guy that might ban guns or the guy that did ban guns?

Thanks for the support, but I won't let some pettiness from some guy on the internet turn me into a spiteful person. I know I'm better than that, and will stick to my beliefs no matter how hard he tries to drive me away. He is entitled to his opinion, even said opinion is negative towards me. It would do no one any good for me to being all "anti-gun" and start joining anti-gunners just because there is a small handful of bullies out to discredit me. They certainly do not represent the overwhelmingly more positive people that populate the gun community that come from all different sides of the political spectrum.

[Bang]

Oh war some power
The gift t'gee us
t'see oursilves
as uthers see us

[arjohnson]

Thanks for the support, but I won't let some pettiness from some guy on the internet turn me into a spiteful person. I know I'm better than that, and will stick to my beliefs no matter how hard he tries to drive me away. He is entitled to his opinion, even said opinion is negative towards me. It would do no one any good for me to being all "anti-gun" and start joining anti-gunners just because there is a small handful of bullies out to discredit me. They certainly do not represent the overwhelmingly more positive people that populate the gun community that come from all different sides of the political spectrum.

It's really encouraging to know that we as strong supporters of the 2nd amendment have the support of liberals such as yourself, that is until it's time to vote.

[bigandy1966]

and again its because we only have 2 viable flavors of political parties.
Every election year I say the same damn thing:
Elections are for deciding what color tie the politician who is going to be lying to you for the next 4 years will be wearing.

We need to get over Republicrats and Democans. we need to get our government back under control of the people, not the power hungry wealthy elites or the liberty destroying socialists. We need a multi party system, a truly representative congress that votes based on limits of government powers as defined in The Constitution. Our supreme court judges need to have term limits, as congress does.
All Judges need to have more than a glimmer of understanding on how the constitution is meant to be employed as a limit test on government over reach of authority.
We the People are too stupid, lazy and apathetic to change these things.

[win67]

and again its because we only have 2 viable flavors of political parties.
Every election year I say the same damn thing:
Elections are for deciding what color tie the politician who is going to be lying to you for the next 4 years will be wearing.

We need to get over Republicrats and Democans. we need to get our government back under control of the people, not the power hungry wealthy elites or the liberty destroying socialists. We need a multi party system, a truly representative congress that votes based on limits of government powers as defined in The Constitution. Our supreme court judges need to have term limits, as congress does.
All Judges need to have more than a glimmer of understanding on how the constitution is meant to be employed as a limit test on government over reach of authority.
We the People are too stupid, lazy and apathetic to change these things.

I respectfully disagree. The problem is not that there are two parties, or any particular number for that matter. Two parties is the natural outcome of our winner-takes-all election system, and that isn't necessarily bad. The problem is that, somewhat coincidentally, neither of these two parties is held accountable by its voter base. Suggesting that people not buy into the system by supporting either of these parties, helps to create a vicious feedback cycle that ends with no citizens actively seeking to influence government. Term limits would not help, because a) people voted into office aren't the people actually making the decisions anyway, and, more importantly, b) reducing the choices available to voters does not increase the people's power over government.

[bigandy1966]

I respectfully disagree. The problem is not that there are two parties, or any particular number for that matter. Two parties is the natural outcome of our winner-takes-all election system, and that isn't necessarily bad. The problem is that, somewhat coincidentally, neither of these two parties is held accountable by its voter base. Suggesting that people not buy into the system by supporting either of these parties, helps to create a vicious feedback cycle that ends with no citizens actively seeking to influence government. Term limits would not help, because a) people voted into office aren't the people actually making the decisions anyway, and, more importantly, b) reducing the choices available to voters does not increase the people's power over government.

Excellent post,
Voter apathy is an issue, it really feels like there is no difference between D-R at the end of the day, If there were a viable 3rd party that would force these other 2 to make good on campaign promises I think would bring more voters back to the voting booth. It would force a re evaluation of what the American People expect their government to do.
Term limits would remove the entrenched party line members, enable removal of those non performers and corrupt life long career politicians and the party bosses that make the decisions. Stagnation does not happen in a flowing river, only where water stops flowing.
There would not be a reduction of choices, for the voter every cycle would see at least 1/2 of the offices opened up from term limits. And I suggest making election day a national holiday so "I had to work" would not be an excuse

[rhemmers]

Voter apathy is an issue, it really feels like there is no difference between D-R at the end of the day, If there were a viable 3rd party that would force these other 2 to make good on campaign promises I think would bring more voters back to the voting booth. It would force a re evaluation of what the American People expect their government to do.
Term limits would remove the entrenched party line members, enable removal of those non performers and corrupt life long career politicians and the party bosses that make the decisions. Stagnation does not happen in a flowing river, only where water stops flowing.
There would not be a reduction of choices, for the voter every cycle would see at least 1/2 of the offices opened up from term limits. And I suggest making election day a national holiday so "I had to work" would not be an excuse
__________________


These are good points.

But another issue is re-districting. The way it works now is that whichever party is in power in a particular state gets to draw the districts and gerrymander them so that their incumbents win. I forgot what the figure is but there is a ridiculously small number of congressional districts that are actually competitive.

Re-districting has to be done by a non-partial commission and based on logic and the good of the people rather than the needs of party.

[Diecha]

There is no differents between the two parties! The Gop leadership hates the Tea party as much as Democratic do. So if you think real conservatives are right wing nuts I guess you think our Founding Fathers where right wing nuts.

[win67]

But another issue is re-districting. The way it works now is that whichever party is in power in a particular state gets to draw the districts and gerrymander them so that their incumbents win. I forgot what the figure is but there is a ridiculously small number of congressional districts that are actually competitive.

Re-districting has to be done by a non-partial commission and based on logic and the good of the people rather than the needs of party.

That's another good point. As a kid I always wondered why election districts weren't drawn up by geometrists or surveyors, rather than politicians. If you look at the maps it's ridiculous. There are some districts in CA (and other places I'm sure) that aren't even contiguous. The most ironic thing is when the border is moved such that the Congressman representing the district no longer lives in it. In that case, how can they possibly claim to represent the people who live around them?

In most cases, I think electing Congressmen on an at-large basis would help. But I'm not really sure.

[markshere2]

There is no differents between the two parties! The Gop leadership hates the Tea party as much as Democratic do. So if you think real conservatives are right wing nuts I guess you think our Founding Fathers where right wing nuts.

Incorrect. there are huge differences between the R and D parties.

The D party can somehow reconcile their stance that killing a convicted murdering rapist is bad, but somehow killing an innocent unborn baby is OK.

Leaving aside the labels R and D... and getting back to the "agony of the liberal gun owner"...

Observing Liberal actions over the last 40 years, I see that they consistently reward failure and punish success.

Won't work? No problem, .gov will pay you

Work hard and make money? We'll tax the hell out of you.

And exactly what do they expect to see more of? Success or failure?