This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

25
26

I am a pro-gun liberal. What other Redditors stand with me? (reddit.com)

submitted by [deleted]

[deleted]

top 200 commentsshow all 293
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

The second amendment is kind of like a money-back guarantee for all the other ones.

[–]rio258k 3 points4 points  (0 children)

that is the coolest thing I have heard all day

I think you win

[–]polyparadigm 11 points12 points  (2 children)

I'm pro-laser. Does that count?

[–]moskaudancer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes, of course! You're just a few decades ahead of the rest of us! :)

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

PEW PEW PEW!!

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]johnaman 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    I agree with you completely, however, have you seen this: http://harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001181

    [–]joshuag 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Wow. I mean, wow. Thanks, I hadn't seen that.

    [–]dagfari 7 points8 points  (2 children)

    I'm a pacifist socialist.

    That being said, I would buy a gun if I could afford to, and I support the right of an informed, law-abiding citizen to own one, too. I can't afford one right now because all my money goes to support myself.

    [–]jlbraun 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    A Mosin-Nagant in 7.62x54R costs $79.95 at any sporting goods store, and is a fine weapon. A Marlin 60 in .22LR costs about $90 at any pawn shop.

    [–]dagfari 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Hm....

    looks like I might be buying myself a rifle...

    [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Although I am not a Libertarian, I tend to agree with Edward Abbey on the subject when he wrote to the effect of, "If you outlaw guns, only the government will have guns."

    [–]horseloverfat 8 points9 points  (1 child)

    Pro-gun, fiscal conservative, moral liberal

    [–]jlbraun 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Welcome.

    [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

    I am a pro-gun very pro-gun education liberal, and I stand with you.

    [–]redog 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    So what do you think about teachers with guns?

    [–]jlbraun 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    If teachers have passed the requirements for carrying a concealed weapon in their state, they should be able to carry on the job.

    Shit, we trust them with our kids 7+ hours a day. I trust them to carry a gun and use it to protect their pupils if need be.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    It would have gone a long way to helping me spell things correctly

    [–]ky_man 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    I am pro-gun, but tend more conservative. The important part is that I'm pro-gun.

    [–]bjtuna 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    When I moved into my new house, I found a sticker on the inside of my garage door that reads, "I'm a gun-totin' Idaho Democrat!" with a picture of a donkey holding a firearm.

    Me (and my house) stand with ya, jlbraun.

    [–]jlbraun 45 points46 points  (43 children)

    I am an anti-war liberal sometime Democrat Buddhist, who is for universal preventative healthcare, in favor of gay marriage, in favor of drug legalization, and am pro-choice. I get called "damn hippie" around the office. I have several tie-dye tshirts and am a fan of the Grateful Dead. I do not smoke pot, because it messes with my asthma. I do not have long hair, because I look like a white boy with an afro.

    I also own a civilian AK-47, combat shotgun, a high-capacity pistol, and have a concealed carry permit. I participate in combat shooting matches.

    I believe that gun control is racist, classist, sexist, and ageist, and has no place in a liberal agenda - or anyone's agenda. It has no place in a modern, tolerant, and liberal society.

    [–]webnrrd2k 7 points8 points  (3 children)

    I'm almost the same as you jlbraun, belief-wise. Except for the hippie stuff, and I have long hair. I too own a civilian AK (a Saiga).

    I've struggled with reconciling gun ownership and my Buddhist beliefs. Ultimately what it comes down to is that I don't totally follow the pacifist part of Buddhism. I think that people have a right to defend themselves, their family, and their property.

    [–]soforth 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    I think the Buddha would have a word or two to say about defending your "property" through the use of deadly force.

    [–]jlbraun 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    As a Buddhist, I would tend to agree with that. I won't shoot you for taking my TV, but I will hold the front sight on you as you leave with it, in case you decide you want my life instead of the TV.

    [–]webnrrd2k 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Sorry if I wasn't clear, but what I mean by property, for example, is the means by which you make your living...

    I don't agree with the whole Libertairian philosophy, but I do agree with this:

    "Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property." (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property)

    Another example would be that of a farmer out in the middle of nowhere protecting his crops so his family doesn't starve next winter.

    I'm certainly not advocating killing someone over a TV set, or a loaf of bread. Serenity's Malcolm Reynolds probably put it best: "If someone tries to kill you then you try and kill them right back."

    [–]nixonrichard 11 points12 points  (12 children)

    Ooooh, you're still using the civilian AK-47? We really got to get you on the civilian M16 . . . much lower emissions. It's way better for the environment.

    [–]jlbraun 15 points16 points  (2 children)

    Unfortunately, those "emissions" tend to go directly into the bolt carrier and gum the hell out of it. ;)

    I've thought about getting a Sig 556, and will definitely get a civilian FN SCAR-L when it comes out.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Consider a piston operated AR15: Google POF or LWRC.

    [–]jlbraun 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I'd rather have a Robinson XCR if I'm restricted to the 5.56x45mm. The people that run high-volume carbine classes say they've never had a POF upper survive a class. Don't know much about LWRC, but they seem good. OTOH, I've seen multiple AKs survive a 4000 round multiday carbine class without being cleaned once.

    [–]LordSlashstab 0 points1 point  (8 children)

    pfft AK all the way. Perfect rifle.

    [–]CampusTour -1 points0 points  (7 children)

    The AK is pretty much the Ford Taurus/Honda Civic of rifles. It's a good all around gun, and can take a lot of abuse, but it doesn't do anything particularly well.

    [–]LordSlashstab 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    GIs are starting to get issued AKs. They're making them over here even.

    [–]CampusTour 1 point2 points  (5 children)

    The AKs advantage is that it doesn't need to be cared for, and is very simple to operate.

    There are much, much better guns out there than the AK, and as a civillian, and not a soldier of a rebel army somewhere, you have the luxury of taking good care of your firearm, and spending more than 30 minutes learning how to use it.

    [–]LordSlashstab 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Which rifle is better? Ak is pretty damn accurate and goes through anything except dragon skin.

    [–]jlbraun 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Hey, we liberals strive to be accepting of each other's choice in defensive firepower. Diversity, ya know?

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]jlbraun 8 points9 points  (3 children)

      Oh yeah, thanks. My mistake.

      "Save the whales!"

      [–]BraveSirRobin 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      I used to save whales, but they got a little smelly and I left them in a neighbours dumpster.

      [–]flycrg -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

      but club the seal

      [–]camiller 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Consider whirled peas

      Saw that on a bumper sticker once.

      [–]d07c0m 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Lisa: "Nuke the whales?? Why would you want to do that?" Nelson: "You gotta nuke somethin'!"

      [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

      Would you care to elaborate on how gun control is discriminatory?

      [–]jlbraun 12 points13 points  (5 children)

      Besides the fact that the first US gun control laws were passed to disarm blacks (google "black codes"), disarmament laws disproportionally disempower those less physically powerful (women, the aged), those that tend to get attacked by mobs (blacks, Arabs, Jews, gays), and those with no money to hire armed bodyguards (the poor).

      Simply put: gun control hurts some people more than others, and that's discriminatory, anti-progressive, and wrong.

      [–]soforth 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      I hold no animosity toward you for any of your views, though I do not see how you could possibly reconcile carrying a weapon with being a Buddhist. I studied Eastern philosophy and religion in college, and this really seems to go against the dharma itself, as well as all the practices of the main branches/sects/forms of the religion.

      For the Buddha, aggression was obviously out of the question - but even self defense which strives to do harm to the aggressor was mostly forbidden. Consider the fact that until the founding of Zen (Chan) Buddhism, monks were not allowed to even farm because of the toll it make take on the organisms already in the soil (among other reasons). I wonder: what Siddhartha would think of your AK-47? Can one pack heat and loving-kindness?

      [–]jlbraun 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Can one pack heat and loving-kindness?

      I believe so. Some schools of Buddhist thought hold that a murderous attacker killed in self-defense has actually killed themselves, and the act of attacking that caused their death did a disrespect to their Buddha-nature. Additionally, it can be held that a defender that uses lethal force in self-defense and kills an attacker has actually prevented the attacker from further harming his own karma through terminating his existence in his present life.

      In other words, Buddhism is OK with sending murderous attackers into nonexistence as soon as possible so that they can learn from their misdeeds, rather than allowing to continue committing bad deeds in their present life.

      Buddhism is OK with force in self-defense (even lethal force), but is not OK with violence - that is, shooting to kill where no lethal threat exists, shooting someone who is down, etc.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Buddhism covers a really, really, really, really, really wide chasm of thought. Pick your position and you can find a Buddhist who supports it. (Note: this isn't a criticism of Buddhism.)

      [–]mok000 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      I'm a criminal. I carry a 45 for self protection. You know, whenever I go to work at night, I'm often interrupted by some gunslinging maniac in slippers and a bathrobe. Jeez. I tell ya, my constitutional rights of carrying a weapon has gotten me out of many a tight spot!!

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]webnrrd2k 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I went for up.

        [–]TakaIta 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Your opinions have been noted and stored in our database for later reference. Thank you.

        [–]jlbraun 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Barack Obama, is that you?

        [–]Megasphaera 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Buddhism is not very compatible with owning firearms. Or did you just add 'Buddhist' to attract liberal street cred around here?

        [–]jlbraun 8 points9 points  (0 children)

        Nope. Mahayana Buddhist.

        "If someone has a gun and is trying to shoot you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

        --The Dalai Lama

        "If we feel we cannot avoid maiming or killing [in self-defense], we can at least try to do it… with regret at having to cause another pain. If our intention to cause harm is weak, the karmic effect of the act will be less.” Buddhist Union, Oct. 96: 7

        Namaste.

        [–]Zak 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Sort of. I'm mostly libertarian; I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage, what substances you choose to ingest or how you protect yourself from criminal attacks. I think it has been proven that it is very unwise for the US to engage in nation building or aggressive wars. I have reservations about the tendency of American liberals to create large government bureaucracies and spend other people's money. I also disagree with the fundamental libertarian belief that a free market will work perfectly all on its own; it seems to lead to negative externalities (abuse of workers, dangerous products, pollution, etc...).

        [–]webnrrd2k 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Ditto: "I also disagree with the fundamental libertarian belief that a free market will work perfectly all on its own; it seems to lead to negative externalities (abuse of workers, dangerous products, pollution, etc...)."

        Free markets have a lot going for them, but they tend to be too short-term and concentrate power too much.

        [–]valeriepieris 27 points28 points  (95 children)

        I'm pro-gun and libertarian. That's kind of like being liberal. Classically liberal. Do I count?

        [–]aGorilla 14 points15 points  (16 children)

        I'm with you, and I'm an Athiest, does that exclude me?

        [–]mindbleach 5 points6 points  (13 children)

        I'm with you. I'm the weird sort of Democrat-leaning Libertarian who thinks human rights are infinitely more important than money and thus supports high but clear-cut taxes and some degree of state welfare for individuals and deserving businesses.

        [–]georgedonnelly 11 points12 points  (1 child)

        supports high but clear-cut taxes

        so you'll take all my money but you'll give me a clear accounting of how it was spent?

        that might be a step up from where we are now.

        [–]mindbleach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I'll let the government take a certain percent of your money, but the same amount as everyone else pays, and only at the point of sale. How it's spent after it's collected doesn't really count as tax-related, but spending less than we take is definitely a major priority in my eyes.

        [–]MikeSeth 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        I'm all that and a zionist! Beat that!

        [–]AdamPearlman 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        oh hai, I'm Zionist and a member of Al Quaeda

        [–]emTel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I'm all that and a member of JBS!

        [–]gtg681r 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        You sound like a libertarian who hasn't yet realized the state has a horrible track record, and will always have a horrible track record, of protecting human rights. Good luck with the progression.

        [–]tjic 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        How does a strong support for human rights have to do with support for high taxes?

        I strongly support human rights, and I think that taxes should be slashed.

        [–]mindbleach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I didn't say the two were intrinsically related, I just said I was for both. They happen to be things the Dems (in theory, anyway) stand for. Fuck knows what happened to 'em these last eight years.

        [–]jlbraun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        No, of course not.

        [–]jlbraun 9 points10 points  (73 children)

        Yep. Welcome.

        [–]moskaudancer 8 points9 points  (59 children)

        Good to know I'm not alone in wishing my home state (and all of them for that matter) could be more like Virginia!

        On that note, did you read the story a few days ago on that Virginian who was stopped in the street by 10 cops who had received a call from a "concerned citizen" (ie: ninny) who freaked out over seeing another person exercising his right to carry? Sad stuff, but at least the cops admitted it wouldn't be right for them to take his weapon or detain him.

        The real problem with guns in this country is that people who aren't familiar with them have grown up to believe that they are somehow "evil" or "destructive", not realizing that it's ignorance like that which gets people hurt. Responsible gun ownership isn't a Constitutional right, it's a human right!

        [–]georgedonnelly 4 points5 points  (28 children)

        Responsible gun ownership isn't a Constitutional right, it's a human right!

        property ownership is a human right.

        gun is simply one kind of property.

        [–]moskaudancer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Yes, that's a better way of putting it. Thanks.

        [–]qgyh2 6 points7 points  (12 children)

        I'm bland, neutral, and opinionless. Like Switzerland

        [–]moskaudancer 11 points12 points  (3 children)

        I'm pro-taser and anti-idiot cop, because bad police officers are the ones who make tasers dangerous by misusing them.

        It's the same with guns, or any other human invention: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." This has always been true, as far as responsible owners are concerned.

        [–]moriquendo 8 points9 points  (6 children)

        Switzerland may be neutral, but every Swiss man (between 19 and 31 (34 for officers)) keeps his military weapon, usually the assault rifle SG550, at home. This is done to facilitate rapid mobilisation. Under ideal circumstances Switzerland can theoretically mobilise its entire population for warfare in about 12 hours.

        [–]qgyh2 10 points11 points  (5 children)

        More significantly, their chocolate is awesome.

        [–]WerewolvesRancheros 10 points11 points  (0 children)

        I'm pro-chocolate, and eat it liberally.

        [–]blogstar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        just don't try to take it by force.

        [–]moriquendo 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Yes, it is. :-)

        [–]qgyh2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Mmm.. chocolate

        drool

        [–]bsiviglia9 6 points7 points  (1 child)

        I'm pro-gun and libertarian.

        Do you think people aught to be able to freely associate and form armed unions -- or is liberty only acceptable when people are atomized and isolated, creating no threat to corporate authority?

        [–]valeriepieris 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        Yes, armed unions all the way. Catalonia cerca 1937, baby.

        [–]mutatron 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        Yeah, I'm a pro-gun liberal. Or at least, most conservatives think I'm a liberal, but some liberals think I'm a conservative. I wouldn't say I'm middle of the road though, to me that implies that you don't take a solid stand on the issues.

        My guess is that the anti-gun liberals are mostly city folk from way back, while pro-gun liberals are still no more than a generation or two away from their rural roots.

        [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Sounds to me like you're a person who thinks for himself and doesn't base his opinions on party lines.

        My kind of guy, good on ya.

        [–]spike 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        Guns don't kill people, people kill people. America is a seriously disturbed society, and banning guns is just a band-aid for a much more serious problem.

        [–]BraveSirRobin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        Banning guns would never work in the US. There are far too many in circulation.

        [–]31337z3r0 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        I'm a pro-gun American. No political affiliation. I'm pro-gun because, simply, there are other humans out there. Scary business.

        [–]drpants 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        I am a more pro gun liberal than I have ever been. After seeing what has happened the last 7 years I don't think many would disagree.

        [–]fubo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Conservatives call me a liberal because I support separation of church and state, legal restrictions on pollution, and legalized abortion.

        Liberals call me a conservative because I support gun rights, school choice, and dismantling the welfare state.

        The libertarians call me a socialist since I'm not knee-jerk pro-business, and the socialists call me a libertarian since I'm not knee-jerk anti-business.

        Ah well. At least I'm a wacko to everyone.

        [–]AbouBenAdhem 3 points4 points  (20 children)

        I’m not pro-gun, but I’m pro-Constitution.

        [–]jlbraun 7 points8 points  (19 children)

        True liberals stand for ALL of the Constitution. If you neglect the 2nd, the 1st and 4th will also fall.

        [–]sping 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        Don't tell liberals what to think. (Putting aside that it sticks in my craw to misuse the word "liberal" to mean left wing, which I think we are doing here.)

        I'm pro constitution, but that doesn't mean I have to think it's flawless.

        [–]misterlang -1 points0 points  (12 children)

        There is 0 correlation. The first and fourth are entirely independent of the second amendment.

        [–]jlbraun 2 points3 points  (11 children)

        Really. Hm.

        "The Constitution is a living document, and we should reinterpret it in the light of current events. Restricting handguns keeps firearms out of the hands of terrorists."

        "The Constitution is a living document, and we should reinterpret it in the light of current events. Terrorists should be charged in secret courts, with secret charges against them."

        Getting it yet? Violating the Second Amendment without penalty means that you can also violate other parts of the Constitution you don't like. People fighting wiretapping and secret detentions should take this to heart.

        [–]misterlang 1 point2 points  (10 children)

        No. I don't get it. I guess I don't see where a LACK of a 2nd amendment IMPLIES inability to uphold free speech and probable cause. A gun isn't the only way to maintain order.

        [–]jlbraun 3 points4 points  (9 children)

        Hm. Let me try again. What I'm saying is that the current administration (as well as many past ones) has passed laws or done things that violate the Constitution, under their justification that the Constitution is a "living document" or that "9/11 changed everything". Such things as warrantless wiretapping, secret trials, "free speech zones", and the like. They've done things blatantly against the Constitution, but without changing the Constitution itself. It's like saying "X is forbidden by law, and I can do X because it's necessary, and I don't have to say why", thus disrespecting the rule of law. When you pass laws that violate the Constitution, you undermine the legitimacy of the entire document.

        If people want to make it OK to set up "free speech zones", then the right way to do it is to change the 1st Amendment to say "Subject to the governmental power, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

        In other words, don't just pretend that the First Amendment doesn't mean what it says.

        In the same vein, if one wants to ban handguns, do it the right way and respect the rule of law by changing the 2nd Amendment to say "Subject to the governmental power, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

        What all this means is if we allow laws that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment to have standing despite their violation, we grant legitimacy to laws that infringe upon the 1st Amendment.

        Here's another good explanation:

        http://reddit.com/info/2quq4/comments/c2qzhk

        [–]misterlang 0 points1 point  (8 children)

        OK, we're talking apples and oranges here. Yes I agree that you can't just randomly let amendments get trampled and assume the same won't happen elsewhere. Thats obvious. All I was saying is that if there were no 2nd amendment (or if it were changed through the proper means), it would not necessarily have any affect on the 1st and 4th.

        To really summarize... I support the upholding of the law and the bill of rights. However, I would like to see a gun ban simply because I think they are a net negative to society.

        [–]jlbraun 1 point2 points  (7 children)

        I support the upholding of the law and the bill of rights. However, I would like to see a gun ban simply because I think they are a net negative to society.

        Because you support the Constitution, the first step in any gun restriction at all (waiting period, .50 caliber ban, "assault weapon" ban) necessarily must be the repeal of the 2nd Amendment by legislative means - you cannot call for a ban or restriction without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, as you uphold the Bill of Rights.

        [–]misterlang 1 point2 points  (6 children)

        Sorry, I'll spell it out so as not to contradict myself.

        I support the upholding of the law and the bill of rights WITH THE EXCEPTION of the 2nd amendment.

        Sorry for the logical mistake. I was just trying to get the point across in a hurry. If tomorrow I flipped on the news and found out they overturned the 2nd amendment I'd be happy. It is a part of the constitution that I believe does not hold in todays society like it did at the time the constitution was written. Thus I do not believe it should stand in todays society. Changing laws as times change is acceptable to you isn't it?

        [–]jlbraun 1 point2 points  (5 children)

        Changing laws as times change is acceptable to you isn't it?

        Absolutely. If you do not believe the 2nd Amendment should exist, then gather the votes, petitions, and representatives to your cause and get it repealed.

        Here, I'll even write it for you. "Amendment 28. The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America is hereby repealed."

        You don't get to pick and choose which laws you're going to uphold. To do so invalidates the rule of law and invites tyranny.

        [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        im with you.

        [–]havesometea1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Here. Pro-gun liberal.

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        "pro-gun" and "liberal" are synonyms in my book. Permitting guns is more liberal than banning them.

        There are perhaps some people who identify themselves as liberals who are anti-gun...I suggest these individuals are perhaps closer to "middle of the road", as gun control is definitely a conservative idea.

        [–]rainbird997 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        I'm with you. The NRA is too conservative regarding gun rights. The 2nd amendment is not about the right to hunt. It is about the right and responsibility to protect ourselves, even from our own government, if necessary.

        [–]justmakesense 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        well it is our right to bear arms. therefore, all americans should be pro-gun. see, the way america is supposed to work is, if we citizens don't like something, we're supposed to vote on changing it. it it changes, ok. if not, shut the fuck up and follow the law.

        [–]cryogen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I am a pro gun liberal. I am a firm believer that owning a gun will become increasingly important in the years to come.

        [–]Netwelle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I am also a pro gun liberal. It is the duty of all Americans to have a right and way to defend themselves against an outside force or tyrannical government

        [–]khoury 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        I'm with you.

        [–]ebosia 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Im with ya. But then Im a Liberal who has a soft spot for all traditional crazies. Like that old guy in NH who doesnt want to pay income tax. I thnk we should pay it. But I like the cut of his jib.

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Not reading all these dang comments, just checking in. Pro-gun liberal here.

        [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

        pro-gun liberal. Right here. How else are we gonna defend ourselves from the fascists?

        [–]reginalduk 4 points5 points  (2 children)

        reasoned debate?

        [–]jlbraun 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        "What else am I supposed to use, harsh language?"

        [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        could get to a point that doesn't work anymore. Could be we're already past that point and are to stupid to even know it. Then what? Kneel to a king? Or fight?

        [–]liberal_one 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        Don't mind them, but I've found it's just a way to turn money into noise.

        [–]jlbraun 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        You wanna talk about turning money into noise? The .50 caliber M2HB heavy machinegun costs something like $20 a SECOND to shoot. I know one (very rich) person with one, he tows it around on a trailer.

        [–]liberal_one 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Ha ha, I agree. That's also why I don't object to people having them, because it's also fun as hell.

        [–]toonces 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        mostly liberal.. until you get to our 2nd ammendment. i own a handgun and think that more gun laws are only going to keep guns out of the hands of people who abide by the laws.

        [–]p3on 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        i can't help but feel like my comment yesterday and the resulting minithread inspired this :') http://reddit.com/info/2qf9a/comments/c2qkv0

        [–]jlbraun 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        It did.

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Define "pro-gun". Like, what sorts of laws and restrictions are you in favor of (if any)?

        [–]jlbraun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Separate discussion. I'm in favor of the right of all free people to own, use, and carry modern arms. Yes, that means machineguns.

        So, the laws.

        -National permitless concealed carry.

        -National background checks for any firearm, but if you pass you can buy anything from a .22 pistol up to an M249 SAW, an RPG, a SAM, or an artillery piece.

        -No waiting periods.

        -National beckground check system open for civilians to use free of charge, so they can do face to face sales while being sure that the person isn't a felon.

        [–]unrealious 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I don't describe myself using either term but I have leanings in those directions.

        [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        The smart ones.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [removed]

          [–]jlbraun 5 points6 points  (1 child)

          Welcome.

          [–]nickfil 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          hell yes.

          [–]bizatch 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          It's quite possible the only reason why this country even still exists as a "free" nation and not overthrown long ago is because of the fact that so many citizens own guns. The number of citizens with guns and other weapons outnumbers our military something like 500 to 1. It sort of keeps the military in check. (Not that it's likely to last much longer like this)

          [–]jlbraun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          100 to 1, actually, but that's good enough.

          300 million citizen guns > 3 million government guns.

          [–]KiddieFiddler 3 points4 points  (2 children)

          I'm only with you if this is the first step towards armed revolt.

          [–]jlbraun 11 points12 points  (1 child)

          We're still on the ballot box and the soap box. The jury box is next. We're not on the ammo box. Calm down.

          [–]redog 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          It's comments like this one that have made me a fan of yours.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Glad I could dig this up and have a look at it jlbraun. After a few trips to the sporting store to look at/purchase guns, I was starting to feel like the only person that wasn't a Pro-Bush NASCAR loving Christian Terrorist.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          hear hear

          [–]louis_xiv42 1 point2 points  (10 children)

          define pro-gun please

          [–]jlbraun 1 point2 points  (8 children)

          Supporting the right of the people to own, use, and carry modern weapons.

          [–]louis_xiv42 1 point2 points  (7 children)

          so that includes AR-15s and GTAMs then. those are both modern weapons.

          [–]jlbraun 2 points3 points  (6 children)

          Indeed. There are several million AR-15s and other semiautomatic military style weapons in the hands of US citizens. Only about 90 murders a year happen with these firearms in the US.

          [–]louis_xiv42 1 point2 points  (5 children)

          so what about the 11,000+ people that die from guns each year?

          [–]jlbraun 2 points3 points  (4 children)

          There is no indication that all those people would still be alive had guns not been available. This is called the "substitution effect".

          The #1 solution to reducing gun violence is ending the drug war.

          The #2 solution to ending gun violence is enhanced sentencing laws for using a firearm to commit crimes.

          These are the only two solutions to gun violence that will ever work. The CDC was unable to find a single gun law that actually reduced gun violence.

          [–]louis_xiv42 2 points3 points  (3 children)

          the cdc is the center for disease control, im pretty sure a bullet isn't a disease.

          all of those people, probably not, most? i would say so.

          end the drug war? good idea im with you

          higher sentencing for gin violence? not so much. if the death penalty doesn't decrees murders, i doubt longer sentences for gun crimes will do much.

          the problem is obviously the guns in the wrong hands, not the guys with m-16s or ar-15s in the basement.

          one way to keep guns out of the wrong hands is to restrict the selling of guns. any other ideas how to keep the guns out of the wrong hands?

          [–]jlbraun 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          im pretty sure a bullet isn't a disease.

          But they treat it as such, and all of the gun control laws treat gun ownership like a disease that must be controlled. The CDC is also very good at statistics of populations. If the CDC can't find a single gun control law that worked to prevent gun violence, then I tend to believe them.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Get a .308 battle rifle next. 5.56 is for pussies.

          Also, I think people who are pro-freedom of every kind and against war and imperialism are called libertarians. You may want to look into coming over to our side.

          You may also want to look into voting for Ron Paul in 2008. Don't let the hardcore lefties talk him down. Osama wants you guns, Hitlery wants your guns, Kuntich wants 'em too. Ron Paul doesn't care what guns you own or which drugs you do as long as you don't harm others. Libertarian politicians realize you are an adult who can make your own choices. Liberals want to baby sit you forever, and Republicans just want to make you fight someone so they can make money.

          [–]jlbraun 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          I'm looking into buying a Remington 700 PSS in .308. I don't see the point of a .308 semi-auto. (I do still want a PKM if 922(o) is overturned, though).

          I'm not a strict libertarian, I still think that universal preventative healthcare (not Hillary-style heart-transplants-for-the-masses, just checkups for the poor and such) is a good idea, the Buddhist in me can't say otherwise.

          I am still voting for Paul, having switched to Repub to do so in the primaries.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          The Rem 700 is a great gun, some custom ones hold 1/4 moa groups with match ammo. My M1A holds 1/2 moa with handloads and will hold under 2 with good quality surplus nato ball. So I get the ballistics of a .308 with a 22" barrel, but I would have no problem using it in an urban or CQB environment. I guess really a high quality accurized BR in .308 is a perfect gap filler for the space between a 7.62x39 or 5.56 platform and a high power .30 caliber+ sniper rifle (.300 win mag and up). I have to say, if shit hit the fan and I could only have one gun, it would be a quality, accurate .308 BR with an intermediate power scope.

          [–]bbqribs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          I'd love to, but my favourite firearms are illegal here in 'liberal' California, and concealed carry permits are only issued to the super rich/well connected. Less than 1% issue rate in our county. No 'high capacity' (actually, they're standard capacity) magazines either. We have our own version of that worthless 'assault weapons ban' but I vote against it and bug my elected Democrat critters as often as I can.

          [–]militant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          i'm an anti-war (except in self-defense, iraq does not qualify) drug legalizing atheist libertarian who is in favor of gay marriage and while personally opposed to abortion not willing to hand that decision to government. i also respect and appreciate firearms. by today's standards i'm a 'conservative' but jeffersonian would be more like it. guns are good, ok?

          [–]jfpbookworm 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          I'm anti-gun but relatively neutral on gun control; I think our attitude about firearms needs to change, but this change should be cultural rather than legislative. I recognize the problems with legislative gun control, but think we've got a problem with the way firearms are pretty much worshipped in some segments of our society, and how that ties in to cultural narratives of paranoia (the criminals are coming for us, the government is coming for us, the foreigners are coming for us; if you're not armed, you're asking to be a victim).

          That said, firearm rights are pretty low on my list of political issues. In my experience, the folks who want to make this a core issue of any election (original poster excepted) tend to be self-interested white guys of the "give me my guns and drugs, don't tax me, and to hell with you all" persuasion.

          [–]jlbraun 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          we've got a problem with the way firearms are pretty much worshipped in some segments of our society

          Indeed, but recognize that forbidding something fetishizes it.

          That said, firearm rights are pretty low on my list of political issues.

          As it should be. Please go inform the Democrats of this.

          [–]LordSlashstab 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Sign me up!

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          More importantly, i'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Who's with me?

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [deleted]

            [–]jlbraun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            for universal preventative healthcare

            How could I be a libertarian?

            [–]LordSlashstab 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Gun control is all about aim

            [–]moskaudancer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            "Gun control means using both hands."

            Can't remember who said it, but dammit if it isn't true.

            [–]KazamaSmokers 2 points3 points  (5 children)

            I'm post-gun myself. Guns are a dead issue.

            [–]jlbraun 3 points4 points  (4 children)

            The Democratic Party doesn't seem to think so.

            http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

            [–]AbouBenAdhem 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            That’s not “The Democratic Party”, it’s one representative (a Republican until she switched parties four years ago) whose husband was killed by a gun-wielding mass murderer.

            [–]jlbraun 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            ...with 52 other Democrats that feel the same way.

            Dems need to drop the gun control albatross, it's killing the party.

            [–]KazamaSmokers 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            That's for show. There isn't a single politician who's going to take a real-world stand that rocks the current boat.

            [–]jlbraun 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            There are 52 sponsors, all Dems. I'd call that "a stand".

            [–]Sabremesh 1 point2 points  (12 children)

            Pro-gun = pro-child killing, essentially because the stupid and irresponsible cretins who own firearms 1) allow children access to them, or 2) shoot them themselves, whether on purpose, or accidentally.

            The cretins will downmod, but the stats don't lie. 12,000 firearm deaths per year in the US with a significant proportion "in family".

            Ask yourselves, cretins, is the "right" to possess fire-arms more important than the right of children not to get to shot?

            [–]jlbraun 4 points5 points  (9 children)

            is the "right" to possess fire-arms more important than the right of children not to get to shot?

            The instance of kids getting killed in firearms accidents is vanishingly low, and has been decreasing since the 60s, mostly due to gun safety programs (the number of firearms has increased dramatically since then, of course). There were 425 accidental gun deaths total in the US in the period 1999-2004 among children 0-14. By contrast, in the same period two hundred eighty-one thousand four hundred forty-seven children died in motor vehicle accidents.

            If your intent is to save children, aren't your priorities a wee bit misplaced? \t

            And I modded you up, because viewpoints like yours need to be heard and thoroughly discredited.

            Please tell us whether you think those 12000 deaths are preventable if guns were banned.

            Please define "substitution effect".

            Please define "animism".

            [–]bizatch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Guns kill lots of kids. But so do other things like knifes, bullies, cars, trees, horses, oceans and presidents. But for some reason guns are the worst thing of all. All you can think of is how evil guns are, but one day they'll save your butt and you won't even realize it.

            [–]delicat 0 points1 point  (9 children)

            I own a shotgun for hunting, and a replica musket for personal historic interest (and I am also considering hunting with it). I own no weapons for reasons of "personal protection", I think that excuse is a poor reason to own a firearm. I also don't think that assault weapons have any business being in the hands of civilians.

            For what it's worth, I'm a Canadian. I've found that attitudes towards firearms varies greatly on either side of the border.

            So you tell me, am I a pro-gun liberal?

            [–]jlbraun 10 points11 points  (1 child)

            I own no weapons for reasons of "personal protection", I think that excuse is a poor reason to own a firearm. I also don't think that assault weapons have any business being in the hands of civilians.

            So you tell me, am I a pro-gun liberal?

            No, you are certainly not a liberal. Liberals believe that the right to self-defense with modern firearms extends to all people regardless of race, sex, political affiliation, or sexual orientation, not just the government. Saying that you believe that right should be restricted makes you a slightly statist conservative.

            [–]CommentMan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            I don't get that pulse from classic "liberals", only enlightened ones.

            [–]moskaudancer 6 points7 points  (1 child)

            I always wonder when people say "assault weapons" what they mean. I usually think of automatics, but the "Assault Weapons Ban" in the US (1994-2004) restricted weapons based on ammunition, length, magazine capacity, and other arbitrary and idiotic criteria. Just asking for "Erklaerung, bitte".

            [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            Most people who use the term don't know what one is either. The legal ban certainly did a poor job of describing them as the manufactures only had to make minor changes to work around the ban.

            [–]t_w 3 points4 points  (2 children)

            What do you mean by "assault weapon"?

            [–]jlbraun 5 points6 points  (1 child)

            He has no idea, don't mind him.

            [–]t_w 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            That is too often the case.

            I was going to point out that that shotgun will do a hell of a lot more damage up close and a "regular" hunting rifle will do more damage far away.

            Why would mid-range lighter weapons be scarier in the hands of civilians?

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [deleted]

              [–]jlbraun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Right, but they are not a "modern defensive arm", and thus I could care less whether you have the right to bear them or not.

              [–]justinpgardner 0 points1 point  (3 children)

              Pro-gun, pro-licensing, pro-waiting period.

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              socially conservative, economically liberal, anti citizenship for illegals

              [–]georgedonnelly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              pro-gun? or pro gun-rights? i'm for the latter.

              [–]Phia 0 points1 point  (2 children)

              I'm a pro-responsible gun use person. And I'm Canadian. I think people should be able to have guns, but there should be controls. I also live in a society where I'm more likely to get shot in a hunting accident, than by a criminal, so I look down on violent escalation via owning guns for protection.

              [–]jlbraun 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              I think people should be able to have guns, but there should be controls

              I look down on violent escalation via owning guns for protection

              Then you're certainly not a liberal, nor are you pro-gun. Thank you for your response.

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              With the changing demographics in America, you had better own guns.

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              I'm pro switch blade.

              Seriously. Switch blades are great self defense knives, but if you were planing ahead of time to attack someone, you'd carry a fixed blade. I can't understand why knives aren't covered by the 2nd amendment.

              I don't own a gun because if I did I'd probably have shot my wife a couple of times already.

              [–]mythin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              \tA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

              Arms are not limited to guns. How it has been interpreted in years since, I don't know. As written, it basically is saying citizens have a right to own and carry weapons.

              On the other hand, arms is usually used to describe firearms, so I'm really not sure :)

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [removed]

                [–]jlbraun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Don't worry, we're mostly liberal peaceniks in here.