Jeremiah Wrote:
Dick Unger wrote:

She sort of did it to herself.


Indeed. If she'd stick to representing her district, and not spend time yammering on about whatever ultra-Christian/ultra-right-wing kick she's on at the moment, she might make a passable Congresswoman. As it is, she's a bit of a joke."




Maybe she is representing her district. I think she is a joke. But I am not all together convinced that she isn't representing her constituents. I can't say too much, I am not one of her constituents.

The statement I just made sounds a little stronger than I intended it to be.

The odds are pretty good that the democrats are going to win some major elections. Rather than falling into the rhetoric of the RNC (friend of domestic terrorists, nutty, foreign, elitest, etc.) What are we going to do to work with what we have starting in January.

My personal hope, as a gun toting liberal, is to find a way to convince other liberals that we have much better fish to fry that taking away second amendment rights.

Yep, that's what has the rest of us worried. Taking away our guns is just step 5 or 6 in the 20+ point plan to "change" America.

Some tracks you might try:
Getting them interested in firearms (teach them safety, how firearms work, take them to the range).
Respecting the Constitution. (Many benefits come from this one)
Convert them to Norm Coleman Liberals (likes guns and spending your money for you!)

Of them the first option appears to be the most effective and fun.

Many 2A activists are constantly mixing or confusing "conservative" politics and/or conspiracy theories with 2A issues. That's what's killing us.

Most of the people in the United States don't care about or don't like conservative ideaology, and the idea that there is a conspiracy like a "liberal agenda" or a "20 point plan" something they kind of, well, ........ anyway, they don't support such stuff.

Many politicians lump us all together, and they've given up on trying to please what they charitably call "NRA members". We're seen as reliable stooges of the Republicans and nothing more. Dems will tell you we're not winnable, and tell each other that it's just just pandering to Republicans to support 2A issues.

Sarah Palin's persona doesn't help. She provides another caricature of a gunny as a many-issue extremist who can easily be dismissed by the mainstream of America.

As long as pro-gun activists accept and even repeat the attack messages of the Republican National Committee, we'll lose, because pro-gun Democrats will lose interest in us.

+ a whole damn bunch.

It gets old, frankly, hearing the "Democrat bad. Republican good" BS that certain folks around here tend to bleat. Reminds me of something I read by some guy named Orwell.

If you want to keep your Second Amendment rights, folks, you're going to have to figure out that the world comes in many, many shades of gray. Portraying each and every liberal who isn't PRO-gun/pro-life/pro-"traditional" American values (whatever in heck that means) isn't going to get you anything but an ulcer. Working with those who can be worked with, and against those who can't, will. (Hint: most people can be worked with; some, like Wes Skoglund, can't...)

Obama doesn't like the way America is. He wants to change it. He has a list of things that he wants to change. He isn't telling the public what that is. Removing firearms from the subjects is somewhere on that list of things to change.


When one sits down and explains what a conservative is, people tend to agree with it. What most people don't like are these miss labeled neo-cons. There is nothing conservative about a neo-con.

I agree with that. Everyone has their own list of things they want to change.

The trick is not to attach the opposition to Obama's probable gun position to his other probable positions.

Nobody agrees with a candidate 100%. It does not help if a 2A supporter goes off on a tangent about "socialism", or "un-Americanism" or "Muslim parentage" or some such.

If a gunnie is a liberal, a conservative, a "neo con" or just an independent thinker, great. Don't piss him off.

How about:

Democrat bad. Republican bad.

Like how the carry law was passed in this state? We got it, we understand. And those out state Democrats seem to be half way sane, unlike the metro democrats.



Portraying them as what?

Each and every politician that isn't pro-gun (2nd) does not stand for what this country was founded on (the Constitution), and should not be elected. The same for politicians that support warrentless wiretapping (4th amendment) or restriction of free speech (McCain-Feingold, 1st), or if they think they can detain American citizens absent any due process protections (Guantanamo Bay, 6th, 8th).



And that is what I was going after.

!!!DING DING DING!!!
We Have a Winner!


AMEN to that.

Dick, I agree with you on the "Muslim parentage" part, but disagree with the rest of it. Let's look at the facts, shall we?

First, let's start with socialism. Many people do not seem to have a clue what socialism is, or how it applies in the case of Obama. Obama supporters hear "socialism", and they immediately go into spin mode and claim that their patriotism is being questioned or that the questioner is racist for daring to question The One. So, to set that straight, let's look at the definition of socialism. From that fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia, we find that:



Now that sounds an awful lot like Obama when he says that he wants to make things "fair" in the tax code, or when he wants to redistribute money from those who have worked hard to get it to those who haven't. That's a socialist view of society. Calling Obama a socialist or claiming that his policies are socialism is only a matter of taking his statements at face value and doing some analysis of them. If you don't like it, then you need to have a talk with your candidate about these policies that he is proposing.

As to the "un-American" charge, it's fairly easy to see how people can make that leap. If you understand your history of the US, you know that the country was founded on a free market, capitalist-based system. That has been what has driven our prosperity and success through the history of the nation. Socialism and capitalism cannot exist together, so it you are pushing socialism, you must be pushing the destruction of capitalism. Since capitalism = America, socialism must = not America.

Bottom line, Obama is pushing socialism on the American people, and many voters refuse to see it. I cannot help but be reminded of Benjamin Franklin's answer when asked what kind of government he had given us. He replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Sadly, it seems more and more that we cannot.

Remember, nobody is allowed to ever question NObama’s background or judgment concerning his past associations. You are a bigot if you do. As sigman said she has been “one of our “strongest allies”. She may have been trapped and shouldn’t have been but she has backed us to the hilt in the past and we need to back her now.

I agree the "socialism" as defined by Wki is absolutely a bad deal for America. But most folks don't think Obama fits the socialist definition. But, it's fine if you think so. Maybe you are right. You should tell the world and try to persuade everyone not to vote Obama because he would redistribute the wealth by taxing the very rich. A valid arguement against Obama, IMHO.

But that's not 2A stuff. Obama's not an anti because he is or is not a socialist. We know he's an anti because he supported all manner of anti gun groups when he was a Board Member of the Joyce Foundation. He has never renounced these positions, he said we don't need AK's and supports the assault rifle ban, at least. There's probably lots of other evidence as well.

(I don't know if the Joyce Foundation had Muslims on it's Board at the same time that Obama was a member, just in case people are wondering.)

Anyway, if the subject is guns, and someone immediately starts calling Obama a socialist, or a Rev. Wright style of Christian, or a Muslim, or a friend of terroists, an idiot, or all of the above, the speaker will lose all credibility with most folks, and the gun message will get mixed with the other issues.

That's all I'm saying. I don't defend Obama's world view. Or McCain's either. (I'm not sure Obama even has a "view", except that he should do whatever will get him elected.)

Guns are a real simple issue, unlike socialism. Gun control does not work, has not worked, and won't work. And our forerfathers made it illegal. Even liberals can understand it. Keep it simple, I think.

We agree

My knee-jerk reaction was to blow this off as a load of crap, but I can't because it's true, at least as far as the 'neo-con' stereotype.

The opposite is also true.

Most people don't like, or don't care about, the liberal ideology, either, with their myriad crackpot conspiracies.

Of course, most people are conservative, using a dictionary to define the word, instead of a politician. Most people are comfortable and don't want their lives affected by government. They are used to the status quo and they are prosperous, by any objective measurement.

The people who want the liberal change generally don't think it will apply to them.
"Tax the rich, as long as you leave me loopholes and other methods to avoid being categorized as rich."
"Cap income, but give me a raise."
"Run the lives of everybody....else."
"Give tax money to charity....my choice, other people's money."
"I hope he will change everyone else."