A Progressive Case for Gun Rights

[cpgrad08]

where I live the majority of democrats in the state house have A ratings from the NRA.....

and the majority of republicans are willing to support our social services, labor protections, and public employees.

I've voted for candidates from both parties.

Did you vote for Inslee? Also City of Seattle has been known to vote for gun grabbers like your guys last Mayor that wanted to get ride of State Premeditation so he could make his own gun laws. One of the reason why I try to avoid Seattle unless for sporting events.

Loved your article.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Did you vote for Inslee? Also City of Seattle has been known to vote for gun grabbers like your guys last Mayor that wanted to get ride of State Premeditation so he could make his own gun laws. One of the reason why I try to avoid Seattle unless for sporting events.

Loved your article.

I did not vote for Inslee.....

Seattle has had mayors like that for a long time. I don't think seattle has had a truly "progressive" mayor for some time, Seattle has had leftist mayors, and there is a difference, leftists and progressives often come down together and certain issues, but the two are not the same. I think of myself as a Roosevelt progressive, I'm a believer in "the square deal" not simply taking everything from the rich and distributing it.... but I believe strongly in worker protection laws, regulations, environmental laws, social services, public owned utilities ect.

I don't actually live in seattle itself, I live close, but not inside the actual city limits. I put that as my location because 1) I was born in the city 2) It's the closest major city to me 3) I identify myself with the city as "home" due to said proximitiy.

but the overarching goal, is protection of society, not running people out of business. that is the dividing line i see...

 

[cpgrad08]

I did not vote for Inslee.....

Seattle has had mayors like that for a long time. I don't think seattle has had a truly "progressive" mayor for some time, Seattle has had leftist mayors, and there is a difference, leftists and progressives often come down together and certain issues, but the two are not the same. I think of myself as a Roosevelt progressive, I'm a believer in "the square deal" not simply taking everything from the rich and distributing it.... but I believe strongly in worker protection laws, regulations, environmental laws, social services, public owned utilities ect.

I don't actually live in seattle itself, I live close, but not inside the actual city limits. I put that as my location because 1) I was born in the city 2) It's the closest major city to me 3) I identify myself with the city as "home" due to said proximitiy.

but the overarching goal, is protection of society, not running people out of business. that is the dividing line i see...

As a whole Roosevelt Progressive have not exist in a very long time. If I lived during TR time ( He is my fav, President) I would been a progressive, but as time as gone on Progressive have become the extreme end of the liberal side of ideology.

At least you didn't vote for Inslee but the rest of king county did since that is that is really the only county you need to win up here.

So do you carry? and if you do, do you CC or OC? What is your though on the gun free businesses movement up in Seattle?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

As a whole Roosevelt Progressive have not exist in a very long time. If I lived during TR time ( He is my fav, President) I would been a progressive, but as time as gone on Progressive have become the extreme end of the liberal side of ideology.

At least you didn't vote for Inslee but the rest of king county did since that is that is really the only county you need to win up here.

So do you carry? and if you do, do you CC or OC? What is your though on the gun free businesses movement up in Seattle?

I've done both, I normally carry a glock 9mm concealed.

but I've been known to open carry my .38 revolver, even in downtown seattle I've openly carried.

I don't care, if a business takes the time to tell me i'm not welcome then I don't want to spend my money there anyway. plenty of businesses in seattle just don't care.

 

[Slyhunter]

To ease your mind about that, most people who would revolt in this country effectively would be people that were pushed to the absolute limit and want to return to the constitutional republic that upholds liberty. We aren't there yet as a country nor do I see us getting there any time soon, but honestly a revolt would be against politicians and not the U.S. itself, it would be along the lines of Jefferson's "tree of liberty" writings. The only way I see a full citizen insurrection is if the voting booth failed, the government went all out against the people, and the political class tried to completely upend the rights of the citizens.

It's true that many revolutions have backfired on the people, like Cuba, many of the South American countries, the Iranian revolution that deposed the Shah, etc. but you roll the dice at that time.

You mean kinda like what Obama is doing now.

 

[cpgrad08]

I've done both, I normally carry a glock 9mm concealed.

but I've been known to open carry my .38 revolver, even in downtown seattle I've openly carried.

I don't care, if a business takes the time to tell me i'm not welcome then I don't want to spend my money there anyway. plenty of businesses in seattle just don't care.

Are you on Waguns or Open Carry Washington?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Are you on Waguns or Open Carry Washington?

I'm on several gun forums

I don't post often on opencarry anymore, I got into a few arguments with the more libertarian wing of users....... and then into another kerfuffle with one of the more "respected" members on that forum....... I post once every few days or so on minor things, but not really into it anymore, opencarry.org has just descended into the same group of 6 or 7 people always fighting...

 

[LaMidRighter]

You mean kinda like what Obama is doing now.

He is doing a lot of damage, but even members of his own party are raising concerns and we can undo it.

 

[cpgrad08]

I'm on several gun forums

I don't post often on opencarry anymore, I got into a few arguments with the more libertarian wing of users....... and then into another kerfuffle with one of the more "respected" members on that forum....... I post once every few days or so on minor things, but not really into it anymore, opencarry.org has just descended into the same group of 6 or 7 people always fighting...

I know what you mean. I don't post on Opencarry I just lurked their know because of those 7 people.

 

[Joe1991]

I think the vast majority of Americans, both lib and conservative, are for gun rights.

The serious debates are over types, sales, and licenses.

And the "revolution" argument doesn't hold water. No amount of small arms is gonna beat tanks, apache helis, and F-35s.

Luckily, our military is made up of our family and neighbors, somehow I doubt they would fire on aunt Mildred in Ohio.

 

[Krystov]

Words cannot express how much even the HINT of "we have the right to overthrow our government" has scared me away from supporting gun rights. Like, you have no idea. History is littered with examples of violent revolutions that have gone horribly, horribly wrong. Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that our federal government is indeed tyrannical and indeed needed to be replaced, what on earth would stop the new government from being a hundred times worse? Russians had to learn that the hard way nearly a century ago.

Overthrow does not necessarily mean civil war or revolution. Today, that is most evident in our ability to vote people out of office, but if need be an invasion of public office may be necessary to remove corrupt individuals from a position to inflict damage on the nation in the name of something else. National security is a a perfect example of this. The fact that our authoritative figures 1) don't know the laws that protect we citizens, 2) ignore the laws that protect we citizens, or 3) actively attempt to undermine the laws that protect we citizens is unprecedented, nor accounted for by the people being afflicted. All of this stems from misinformation from our government and the mainstream political news outlets that both run as businesses with self interests. Unfortunately, we are all unwilling "employees" of the business that is our government. You can bet that there are groups of politicians in our system that will happily undermine the Bill of Rights, the laws set forth by the Constitution, and the general principles of governmental conduct set forth by the Declaration of Independence, and that they are banking on groups of ignorant sheep living among the rest of us who will believe their lies. And in this argument they make for the actions they wish to take, they will claim it is in the interests of "National Security" or some other ambiguous outlet of excuses for illicit behavior. The extension of our government's reach, and indeed hold, over the populace of this nation is what should frighten you most, not what may come to bear regardless of the truth. War is inevitable. Only what is being fought for is what matters. Personally, I'd rather fight to instate a government who is responsible and accountable for their actions in the interests of the Constitution and the rights of its citizens, than to fight to protect politicians' seats in office, their paychecks, and their precious power over all of us.

 

[Krystov]

Luckily, our military is made up of our family and neighbors, somehow I doubt they would fire on aunt Mildred in Ohio.

This is the case for most of the country. And I'd like to believe that our military is smart enough to question the order to fire on United States citizens. In the event of a revolution, the vast majority of the military will be more likely to side with their family than the bureaucrats giving the ridiculous orders.

 

[Phys251]

Overthrow does not necessarily mean civil war or revolution. Today, that is most evident in our ability to vote people out of office, but if need be an invasion of public office may be necessary to remove corrupt individuals from a position to inflict damage on the nation in the name of something else. National security is a a perfect example of this. The fact that our authoritative figures 1) don't know the laws that protect we citizens, 2) ignore the laws that protect we citizens, or 3) actively attempt to undermine the laws that protect we citizens is unprecedented, nor accounted for by the people being afflicted. All of this stems from misinformation from our government and the mainstream political news outlets that both run as businesses with self interests. Unfortunately, we are all unwilling "employees" of the business that is our government. You can bet that there are groups of politicians in our system that will happily undermine the Bill of Rights, the laws set forth by the Constitution, and the general principles of governmental conduct set forth by the Declaration of Independence, and that they are banking on groups of ignorant sheep living among the rest of us who will believe their lies. And in this argument they make for the actions they wish to take, they will claim it is in the interests of "National Security" or some other ambiguous outlet of excuses for illicit behavior. The extension of our government's reach, and indeed hold, over the populace of this nation is what should frighten you most, not what may come to bear regardless of the truth. War is inevitable. Only what is being fought for is what matters. Personally, I'd rather fight to instate a government who is responsible and accountable for their actions in the interests of the Constitution and the rights of its citizens, than to fight to protect politicians' seats in office, their paychecks, and their precious power over all of us.

Politicians' careers are disposable, yes, but I'm afraid that's about as far as we can agree. One must remember another problem with revolutions: Rarely is the entire public on board. Heck, not everybody was on board when we parted ways with the British. My point? An untold number of people, given such a revolution as you describe, would side with the federal government as the lesser of two evils. And assuming the US Armed Forces didn't put down the insurrection with swift force--which they would--utter chaos would break out. Of course, by this point, we're talking about hypotheticals of hypotheticals...

 

[LaMidRighter]

Politicians' careers are disposable, yes, but I'm afraid that's about as far as we can agree. One must remember another problem with revolutions: Rarely is the entire public on board. Heck, not everybody was on board when we parted ways with the British. My point? An untold number of people, given such a revolution as you describe, would side with the federal government as the lesser of two evils. And assuming the US Armed Forces didn't put down the insurrection with swift force--which they would--utter chaos would break out. Of course, by this point, we're talking about hypotheticals of hypotheticals...

There were actually more loyalists at the time of the American revolution, but I think that we are better off that people with something to lose felt forced to act. Whether a tyranny is popular or not isn't the biggest question, it's whether it's right or wrong IMO.

That said, I don't think we are close to a tyranny yet, however I don't like the statist nature of either party right now.

 

[Phys251]

There were actually more loyalists at the time of the American revolution, but I think that we are better off that people with something to lose felt forced to act. Whether a tyranny is popular or not isn't the biggest question, it's whether it's right or wrong IMO.

That said, I don't think we are close to a tyranny yet, however I don't like the statist nature of either party right now.

Any time a group intends to start any kind of movement above and beyond peaceful, political protests, they need to ask themselves the following questions:


(1) Are our positions well-defined?
(2) Do our positions stand up to rigorous scrutiny?
(3) Is our movement unquestionably needed to bring about the changes we desire?
(4) Does our movement do anything to endanger the physical safety of those not participating in the movement?
(5) If successful, will the long-term benefits of our movement significantly outweigh any temporary inconveniences or disruptions that we may cause?

If the answer to all five questions is Yes, then the movement may be justified. Otherwise it needs to be reconsidered. It is vitally important for anyone, when challenging the status quo, to fully ensure that they understand who they are, they understand the opposition, and they realize the mess that they are about to get themselves into. This is part of why MLK and Gandhi were spectacular agents of change. But on the other end of the spectrum, I have noticed in some people who condone the idea of another American revolution--including some politicians--a marked unwillingness to denounce violence. Maybe that is a small group of people here, but I feel that they need to be called out by those who are willing and able.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Any time a group intends to start any kind of movement above and beyond peaceful, political protests, they need to ask themselves the following questions:


(1) Are our positions well-defined?
(2) Do our positions stand up to rigorous scrutiny?
(3) Is our movement unquestionably needed to bring about the changes we desire?
(4) Does our movement do anything to endanger the physical safety of those not participating in the movement?
(5) If successful, will the long-term benefits of our movement significantly outweigh any temporary inconveniences or disruptions that we may cause?

If the answer to all five questions is Yes, then the movement may be justified. Otherwise it needs to be reconsidered. It is vitally important for anyone, when challenging the status quo, to fully ensure that they understand who they are, they understand the opposition, and they realize the mess that they are about to get themselves into. This is part of why MLK and Gandhi were spectacular agents of change. But on the other end of the spectrum, I have noticed in some people who condone the idea of another American revolution--including some politicians--a marked unwillingness to denounce violence. Maybe that is a small group of people here, but I feel that they need to be called out by those who are willing and able.

Agree on all points, in fact, years ago I came up with a similar test in my own observations.

EDIT - One thing I forgot to address. Violence is sometimes necessary, but only as a last resort which literally means that aggression has been instigated and there is a fight for life established. I detest real violence, I can't say that enough, but understand that once it's become necessary to use force it must be done however distasteful, I hope we never get to that point in our country and that we can right the ship before that time. I don't mind competitive violence, sparring, martial arts, sporting events, etc. but that is controlled and has rules.

Many don't see(as evidenced by people who engage in aggression towards others like street fighting, talk of harming others) the end result of violence. I was cut years ago by a coworker who was out of control, he didn't do a lot of damage but he caught me off guard as I thought he was joking, no doubt he would have done more had I not threatened to break his neck next time he put the blade to me. Real violence has no rules, but a lot of consequence so it is not something to be used lightly.

 

[Eric7216]

I agree. I have never owned a gun and don't have much use for them but I understand why there is a 2nd amendment. 2nd!!!
And it is not to protect duck hunters or sportsmen. Or target shooters. Or even to protect oneself against criminals. The primary person is for protection against an overzealous government.
Society tells us that guns are needed. They tell us by heavily arming, and increasingly militarizing, the police, county sheriffs, state police, and all departments of the Federal Government. They tell us by providing armed escorts for celebrities and politicians. This is not UK where even much of the police are unarmed. We have one of the most heavily armed law enforcement in the world. And then they have the gall to tell us that we don't need guns for ourselves?
Democide, the killing of citizens by their own government, has killed over 100 million in the 20th century. We have been fortunate not to have any real threat of a police state in the US but it could happen. Police kill about 750 a year, some justified but many are not. Rogue cops and ex-cops, such as Stacey Peterson and Chris Dorner have killed. (Two of the biggest mass murderers in history were cops although one was in Columbia and one in S. Korea-both killed over 50 people)

There is something un-American with saying that a politician gets armed police protection but the single woman with the ex-boyfriend is own her own. There is something wrong when NYC Mayor Bloomberg needs his armed protection when he visits gun-free Bermuda.