This one calls itself Shooting Liberally. From the Times Argus (VT):
Sherman is the founding member of New York’s chapter of Shooting Liberally, one of three chapters nationally that encourage liberals to enjoy gun play without shame. Traditionally, conservatives have defended the Constitutional right to bear arms. But the three-month-old movement challenges the idea that fun with guns is the preserve of the political and social right — and offers liberals a new way to connect and share their ideas.
“This shoots to hell the theory about guns and liberals,” said Sherman, a maker of theatrical masks in his 50s who said he has been heavily involved in liberal politics for most of his adult life. The group has no official position on gun control, but the majority appears to take a progressive stance on the issue.
Uh huh. A “progressive” stance on gun control? That usually means more gun control. In fact, from the Shooting Liberally website:
. . .Which brings up an interesting issue - all of our Shooting Liberals are no slouches to the second word in the name. These are real lefties, and that includes believing in sensible gun control as well as responsible gun ownership. . .
. . . It’s also a way of challenging stereotypes around the country, where progressives – who believe in safe and responsible use of firearms – are often portrayed as opposing guns themselves.
“Sensible gun control.” Interpretation: We support guns, but only the ones we say are okay to have. Nothing scary looking like popular semi-automatics such as an AK-47 or an AR-15. No magazines that hold more than ten rounds. No concealed carry permits for anyone except movie stars and politicians. Blah-blah-blah.
And of course, they will vote for either Hillary or Obama regardless of the fact that both would take away most of the rights they supposedly support.
All of us support safe gun handling and personal responsibility. The difference is that “a right” should never be subject to the whims of government.
More hypocrites.
24 Responses to “Another Fake, Phony Gun Group”
on 18 May 2008 at 9:13 am # Kevin P.
I looked at their web site and to be fair to them, I could not find anything at all about semi-autos. Perhaps we should clarify what “sensible gun control” means.
on 18 May 2008 at 9:14 am # Kevin P.
And unlike AHSA, they seem to be actually conducting shoots and inviting shooters.
on 18 May 2008 at 9:46 am # Jeff Soyer
According to Clinton and Obama, “sensible gun control” means renewing the “assault weapons ban.” According to Clinton, it means national handgun registration and licensing. According to Obama, when he was an Illinois senator, it means banning all handguns and semi-automatic rifles.
on 18 May 2008 at 10:40 am # Daniel
I say it is time to ban all politicians that think that way.
on 18 May 2008 at 4:13 pm # Mattexian
Could someone explain why the Democrats became so anti-gun? Was it the GCA of ‘68? The shootings of JFK, MLK, and RFK? Some platform of the Communist Manifesto and/or the UN Declaration of Human Rights? I know down here in Texas, it used to be that you couldn’t get elected if your platform included anti-gun ownership positions, but since the national level has gained influence, it’s becoming more apparent that local candidates are silent or neutral on the topic.
on 18 May 2008 at 4:59 pm # htom
I’ll blame the shootings of JFK, Tibbet, and Oswald. Up until then, the New York ideas of gun control stopped at the borders of NYC and Albany. After, they couldn’t blame the guns enough, especially when Oswald was discovered to be a non-Republican.
on 18 May 2008 at 5:03 pm # Phillep
Oh, I’m all for sensible gun control. Everyone should be able to control their own firearms.
Eh? That’s not what they mean?
Imagine that.
on 18 May 2008 at 5:09 pm # WepSpinner
Um, the democrat party became supportive of gun-control legislation after the successful infiltration of the party leadership by 60s radicals. Leftist elements and supporters control most of the new media and educational institutions - they control the message and the means of indoctrination.
All leftists (communists, socialists, maoists, leninists, stalinists, facists, nazis, etc.) believe that strong central government and control of the means of production will lead to utopia and can better serve the “needs” of “the people”. To remove resistance to “changes” that “need to be made for the common good”, the ability of the populace to resist should be reduced, hence “control” of guns.
One of the first things the nazis did after coming to power was to go through the lists of registered firearms and confiscate those they could find in private ownership. This facilitated the central government’s ability to do things “for the common good”, like shipping unarmed citizens to the concentration camps.
Ya know, one could argue that the democrats losing congress in 1996 was a direct response to Clinton’s efforts at gun control. Folks had a real fear that 2nd ammendment rights were in serious jeopardy. A lot of folks I know purchased and learned to use firearms of all types because they feared that, with the Clintons in office, they might lose the chance soon. Every american citizen should seriously think about the consequences of a radicalized leftist congress and a leftist White House. My god, in the face of the highest oil prices on record, they still refuse to permit drilling and refinery construction. How much will they be able to push through if they don’t fear a veto?
on 18 May 2008 at 5:12 pm # Bizarro Democrat
Although I am personally opposed to private firearms ownership, I would never interfere with a woman’s right to choose whether or not to own and/or carry a gun for self-protection.
on 18 May 2008 at 5:20 pm # Smarty
Post Civil War, When the Democrats founded the KKK, they used gun laws to keep blacks disarmed. Sort of how the Nazi’s disarmed Jews.
Then when it became obvious that you could no longer discriminate that way, the Democrat party, now dominated by hard-core socialists (driven underground by McCarthy), saw gun control as a way to weaken us for the advance of both the police state and the Soviet Union.
Modern liberals are right there too. They see an armed populace as an impediment to their socialist dreams.
on 18 May 2008 at 5:48 pm # kev
Actually, the modern (’60’s era) gun control advocates had their roots in the 1950’s, when gun manufacturers like Colt and S&W began lobbying Congress to restrict mail-order sales of WW II surplus firearms. The issue was largely economic, because the cheap guns were threatening jobs in Massachusetts and Connecticut. I remember reading an article in the Saturday Evening Post by Harlan Carter (yes, that one) explaining how his four year-old daughter became the proud owner of a Mauser 98 just by sending in a mail order for fifteen bucks.
Then, of course, after JFK was killed by someone using a mail-order rifle, the floodgates opened. Mail order sales were banned in 1964, and then the anti-firearm crowd began to look around for bigger targets.
on 18 May 2008 at 5:51 pm # Sterling
To echo WepSpinner but hopefully be a bit more succinct - armed, financially self-sufficient, thinking citizens are obstacles to any utopian social engineer. In the Anglo tradition we often refer to such independent citizens as “yeomen” - the Russians called them “kulaks” and the “progressive” Bolsheviks exterminated or deported most of them within 15 years of seizing control of the country.
on 18 May 2008 at 6:01 pm # Letalis Maximus, Esq.
Left-wing radicals took over the reigns of power in the Democratic Party a long time before the 1960’s or the 1950’s. Take a good look at the guys that Roosevelt brought into government during the “New Deal” and you won’t go far before you start running into socialists and communists a-plenty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
Then take a look at the so-called National Recover Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Act
Corresponds nicely with the National Firearms Act, don’t it?
on 18 May 2008 at 6:08 pm # TomHynes
A bunch of liberals gets together and shoots guns for fun.
That seems to me a good thing.
on 18 May 2008 at 6:22 pm # Jason
“All leftists (communists, socialists, maoists, leninists, stalinists, facists, nazis, etc.) believe that strong central government and control of the means of production will lead to utopia and can better serve the “needs” of “the people”. To remove resistance to “changes” that “need to be made for the common good”, the ability of the populace to resist should be reduced, hence “control” of guns.”
Actually, I’ve always thought that the reason the lefties hated guns had little to do with resisting the government. After all, in a utopia, no one needs to resist.
It’s simply that said utopia also (presumably) is populated by peaceful citizens, who neither need nor want guns. So, since people are obviously unable to form such a utopia themselves, it’s the job of government to help people along by removing the temptation for violence. Hence, no guns.
Of course, it’s all moronic hogwash based on a misunderstanding of human motivations and the inner workings of society, but that’s the idea at least.
The concentration camps come later, once they realize that their preliminary measures to form utopia aren’t working.
on 18 May 2008 at 6:57 pm # romney marsh
Chicago’s gun ban ordinance was introduced by Alderman Fred Roti, a made member of the Mafia. The right to defend your home with a gun posed a hardship on the burglary crews.
on 18 May 2008 at 10:27 pm # John Hickey
As a conservative, gay, right wing gun owner, I would never vote for anyone who even suggested that my right to bear arms is in question. Obama and Hillary are both lying about their support of gun ownership and I have my doubts about John McCain. I own a gun for my personal defense, not to attack anyone, but as an out of the closet gay man in a very liberal area of the country, I have to fear for my own safety. The so called progressives in SF and the bay area are frauds, and since there anti-semitism is now becoming obvious, their true anti-gay bias will soon be revealed. Also, I have a severe back injury and a cardiac condition that no longer allows me to defend myself without a gun. Take it out my cold dead hands, to paraphrase my hero, Charlton Heston.
on 19 May 2008 at 6:17 am # Jeff Soyer
I guess my problem with this group is not that they are liberals having fun with guns but rather that they spout the exact same phrase, “sensible gun control” that we hear constantly from the VPC and the Brady Bunch. Both those groups claim they support the Second Amendment but if it were left to them, the only arms we’d be bearing would be our own bare arms.
We have plenty of photos of John Kerry bearing a shotgun though he had a perfect record of voting for every single gun control law that passed his Senate desk.
Now Hillary makes the same claims.
Shooting Liberally might be a gun club but with friends like them, who needs enemies? They’re no different that the phony ASHA group.
on 19 May 2008 at 7:24 am # Bob in Georgia
Et tu, Brutus?
on 19 May 2008 at 9:37 am # Keith
The old Soviet Union had a lot of very intelligent people thinking very hard about ways of creating the sort of chaos around the rest of the world which would allow puppet communist Govts to sieze and hold power.
They also had a lot of “useful Idiots”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
Working for the downfall of their own countries, all in the hope of the “greater good”
Actually filtering out what was home grown stupidity and what were ideas sown by various apologists in the hope of establishing a puppet to the criminal dictatorship in Moscow, is probably impossible now.
The “useful idiots” got to very high level.
Peter Wright alleged in “Spy catcher” that he suspected but never proved that a former head of MI5 was a spy.
What he could state clearly was that several in MI5 thought that British Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson was to much under Moscow’s influence, and suspected a high level civil servant of being a spy.
Perhaps the left’s love of Gun Control is another of those left over steps paving the way for dictatorship to take hold and keep a hold?
I don’t know.
Keith
on 19 May 2008 at 12:42 pm # Cactus Jack
“A bunch of liberals gets together and shoots guns for fun.”
So they say. I find that as believeable as a vegetarian claiming to like a Big Mac.
on 19 May 2008 at 1:07 pm # Rich Rostrom
The Democrats are anti-gun for several reasons.
First, they are an overwhelmingly urban party. In the past there was a rural Southern wing of the Democrats, but it has withered. City people don’t hunt or shoot much. New York’s Sullivan Act was passed in 1911.
Second, possibly, the influence of Jews. Seriously: as an article in the Forward pointed out, Jews lived for centuries at the mercy of Cossacks in the Ukraine, where armed resistance to Cossack abuse risked provoking extermination. To survive, they had to internalize an ethic that said “violence is always wrong, even fighting back”. Their descendants now occupy a vast array of influential positions (all earned, to be sure) in academia, media, business, and politics (mainly the Democrat side). Many subconsciously retain that ethic.
Third, feminization. Gun sports and self-defense are primarily (not exclusively, but primarily) masculine avocations. The Democrats for various reasons are the feminist party, and therefore feminized.
Fourth, of course, is liberalism generally. Vegetarians and pacifists are nearly all liberals; of course they dislike guns.
on 19 May 2008 at 1:31 pm # Wendy Weinbaum
As a Jewess in the US, I fully support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. And America wasn’t won with a registered gun! That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
(PS: The Shooting Liberals should join up with the Pink Pistols.)
on 19 May 2008 at 5:49 pm # Lyle
Democrats become interested in gun control right after the civil war. Jim Crow, anyone? FDR’s NFA
They’ve expanded on it only as far as possible, politically.
Gun laws and socialism go hand in hand. If you’re goal is control, an armed populace is an obstacle to that goal.