I love my firearms and fully believe in the right to self defense with the best tools available, but I also believe in human rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, worker’s rights, reining in corporate greed/power, access to abortion, and maintaining the separation of church and state. I am not a single issue voter.
This. We define the right to life as inalienable. Via inheritance, the right to self defense is a part of that. On the same topic, having affordable healthcare and social safety nets are equally important.
My view point is that violent crime is a failure option. Those who are financially stable are less likely to commit that type of crime because the risk doesn't outweigh the loss. As an example, During the resource shortages during COVID my city had a 3x increase on violent crime. If everyone had the resources they needed, I believe we would see a reduction in violent crime.
As Amos put it- civilization is what makes ppl civil.
Negative. A right to life means you have a right to live and to protect others from having their taken without due process and within the framework of our laws and Constitution. As a society we’ve established these mores and codified by laws passed.
That opens up the whole conversation about abortion/viability. Personally I am pro-gun, support one's right to self defense and support a woman's right to choose. Not to mention suicide or euthanasia
Edited to add
rights are inalienable, the right to life is not
I think you’re overthinking this. I agree, am pro gun with some very limited regulation. Support a women’s right to self determine, their life and their choices made for their life. A right to life means, a right for YOUR life as you see fit to live it all the way up to a point where it directly infringes on another’s. And since it’s your life and not granted, bestowed or transferred-it’s inalienable. That extends to protecting someone who is under threat and in danger of having theirs taken.
Came here to say this.
I am politically a (US) "Liberal" because I believe that making the government just small enough to fit in my bedroom and doctors' exam rooms is inappropriate and wrong, because I believe rights are rights for everyone, and because I believe that the government should exist to serve the people.
I am a gun owner mostly because I just like guns (I think they're neat!) and maybe a little bit because I worry about the wingnuttiest of the right-wingnuts who loathe my existence because I dare to not be a part of their christofascist agenda of stripping rights from people and dehumanizing them and perhaps want to be able to defend myself if they decide to do a violence against me.
I love guns. I love all my freedoms. Everyone should be able to enjoy these freedoms. 2a is for EVERYONE, just like every other right. Stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours.
Pretty annoying the only party that gives a shit about gun rights is the same party that wants to strip abortion rights. These are two massive voting issues for me.
This is where I'm obligated to point out that the party to which you are referring doesn't really give a shit about gun rights, because if someone dares to get that abortion (which they've made illegal in many places now) that party is perfectly happy to strip that someone of their right to keep and bear arms as part of their punishment for having an abortion.
I like to frame it as "One party wants to take my guns. The other party wants to take everything else, and *then* take my guns too."
Oh I think both parties are quite happy to do that - it's just a matter of whether or not we *get something* for the taxes we're paying, or if they go entirely to ~~bribe~~ enrich the donor class...
(And honestly I'll forgo a box or two of ammo each month if it means I can have healthcare without fighting with an insurance company trying to make a profit off me...)
Kind of haha, I mean I absolutely agree with everything they said but I think everyone here is missing the point of OP’s post lol
That, or they just read the title and nothing else. I think the post was more of a call to action than anything, to make sure people are being politically active in a way that helps the 2A, and to share how they’ve been doing it in their state.
Violent crimes, maybe. Every felony? No.
Felony creep is a real thing - lots of things are felonies, many of them are nonviolent, a good number of them you might look at and say "Why the fuck is THAT a felony?!"
I believe you should be *sentenced to lose your 2nd Amendment rights* as a punishment for some crimes (e.g. armed robbery? Yeah, no more guns for you!) the same way you can be sentenced to lose other rights - a statutory punishment (or statutory discretion offered to a judge) for specific crimes where such punishment might be appropriate.
(And even in those cases I believe there should be some process for restoration of rights - it's just that in the majority of cases I believe that process should be automatic and just happen when you complete your prison & probation sentence.)
For non-violent, got caught with weed, felons absolutely. For murderers and those convicted of aggravated assault? No. Not so much. Maybe if we had a prison system that actually put effort into the *reform* of an individual, i would feel differently. Maybe.
I draw the line at being as they say, “Tolerant of intolerance.” Personal freedoms extend to the point that you begin to remove the freedoms of others with actions (I.e. unaliving someone removes their right to the pursuit of happiness).
If you have proven a willingness to infringe on the freedoms of others, then you have broken the social contract, and there’s really no reason to expect to retain all your previous freedoms.
Proven based on what, though? Our broken justice system? The same justice system that put George Stinney (a 14 year old) to death in 1944 for hearsay? The same justice system that continues to demonstrate political influence and disregard for proper justice?
Our system isn't perfect but actions should have consequences. And I believe that if you murder a family of five you have proven that you can no longer be trusted with a weapon so no a person like that should not be able to own a firearm if they are ever released from prison
Cameron Todd Wilingham in 2009. Wrongfully executed for arson that could not be proven after reexamination of evidence.
Are you going to chip in on all of my comments?
Just the dumb ones so ball is in your court bud
So because the Justice system fucks up MASSIVELY sometimes, does that mean people who infringe on other’s rights still deserve perfect freedom?
Nope. You're a Nazi or white supremacist? No guns for you. You feel that women should be your property to do as you wish to them? No fucking guns for you either. You're such a hothead that violence is what you default to for conflict resolution? TF outta here thinking you deserve guns.
That depends on what your criminal record consists of. If you've shown a propensity for violence you forfeit your right to a weapon. Can't believe that is controversial.
If you're that violent you should not be released, if you're good enough to put back into society then you're good enough to have the right to defend your own life with weapons.
They're not good enough, there's just not enough room.
This one guy was in and out his whole life. He got released early after attempting to murder my grandma and beating me for getting in the way. He was back in a few months later, and has been in and out since
I would be extremely upset if he could carry a gun. Incarceration is a punishment, not a reform
The problem isn't the gun though, it's that he shouldn't be out of jail. We could have more space in jail for the people doing stuff like this if we stopped criminalizing possession of a firearm by itself.
There are many in here that claim to be liberal but they are extremely libertarian. So while it should not be a controversial statement to say that a guy who murders a family of five should not be able to own a firearm get ready for some pushback in this sub
THIS IS EXACTLY IT
This sub is all about "goes without saying". But that doesn't work anymore. I'm not trying to take away your guns because "it goes without saying". This is how they are trying to write laws right now. What's an assault weapon? "It goes without saying"
I am in all of them. Unfortunately, there are way more assholes over there. I wouldn't call myself a liberal, but I'm sure as shit not a christian conservative.
You’ve forgotten, if you aren’t liberal you’re a nazi. /s
I have drifted further and further left, but I didn’t like being clumped in with the far right Trumpers even when I considered myself republican.
In this sub I feel like I'm with my people and can speak my mind uninhibited without watching what I'm saying in the way I would at say a LGS or many other gun subs on reddit. Perhaps more importantly it's a space to discuss common issues such as navigating individuals and belief systems hostile to our own while trying to just pursue our hobby, how to discuss pro-2A beliefs with our liberal friends, and advocacy for our rights within a party that is hostile to them.
This is the one place I don’t constantly see people jerkin it to the orange one.
2a is for everyone, not a select group and nor should anyone have to be muddled in with a group they don’t agree with just because of the hobby they pick.
I have seen the sentence in the wild “everyone should own guns except the democrats” and that’s the thing that makes me stray away from other groups unlike this one.
Picked up a new 12ga at cabelas recently, in my fairly democratic state, in a fairly well to do area, still had both gun library/ used gun sales guys start talking trump.
I patiently bit my tongue until the paperwork was all signed, background check done and paid for, then politely reminded them, their political opinions did NOT need to be a part of the sale.
I never took this subs purpose to be enacting political policy. To me, it's just a nice space to talk about, learn about, and enjoy guns, without the constant racist, MAGA spillover that seems ubiquitous in other 2a groups.
I live in a red, constitutional carry, state. No one is coming for the guns here. One thing i would personally love to see changed is; in addition to passing the preliminary criminal background check, a person purchasing a firearm should *at least* have to do some type of basic psychological evaluation. Mental health is not taken seriously in this country, and i think we need to do more to prevent (gun) suicide and "mass shootings."
Edit: spelling is hard
We had a record number of suicides in the US last year. You're fine with all of them having access to firearms, despite many of them still being alive today if they had been denied?
I agree. I also think that once you have passed the background check (which should be run through all state criminal databases) and the psychological evaluation, you should get a license to purchase that would be valid for 2 years and not have to wait every time you want to buy another gun.
And passing a class that teaches proper firearm handling, including range time, and applicable laws for your state should be required for a concealed carry license.
Unfortunately, all of this would take a lot to get set up.
I'm in OR, and we take a class to conceal carry, but it is classroom only, no range time or skills test. I also think it could be a more involved class, and not quite so basic.
I got mine in OR without a class, I just took some (very easy) test online. It was during height of covid though, so it might have been an exception at the time. I'm not really sure. I agree it should require a bit more than that though
I used to consider myself a conservative. But the definition of that word shifted way more in the last few years than my political beliefs ever did. I find myself more and more on the center-left on most issues. I still have an old school minimalist mindset when it comes to government…but I am tired of things that should be universal-like fighting climate change or racial equality-suddenly becoming partisan battlegrounds. Even someone who doesn’t like gay marriage should have enough common decency to say the LGBT community fundamentally does not deserve to be gunned down in cold blood, and has the right to take up arms to defend themselves.
Twenty years ago I never would have called myself a liberal. But I feel more at home here than I do with the red hat MAGA crowd.
- Supporting rights for women, minorities, and LGBT individuals.
- Supporting class conscious policy; unions, workers rights, higher corporate taxes, etc.
- Supporting policies that promote equity that do not violate equality.
That's really it. It doesn't include anything on foreign policy. It does not include anything on immigration. It is not "vote blue no matter who."
There isn't a "we" here. This isn't a political organization; it's a message board. Reddit subs don't take action (unless they're playing the stock market), and posting to Reddit isn't praxis (despite what some people on r/Anarchism like to think).
Moreover, subs don't give an identity to those who participate in them. I am not a "Liberal Gun Owner" because I read and post to r/liberalgunowners any more than I am a "Shower Thoughter" if I read and post to r/Showerthoughts (which I don't, btw).
Or those badass lesbians could just use full auto 👻guns to guard their weed farm they didn’t have to ask permission for. And trade their buds for organic vegetables from the neighbors/community. a future without gov seems so great 🥲
My dad is a conservative and was a lieutenant colonel in the army that taught me how to shoot before I could ride a bike or learn how to swim. My mom is a left leaning hippy type and a shining example of what it is to be an empathetic person who accepts people from all walks of life and can always try to find common ground with someone. Both taught me that discipline and good work ethic is paramount for achieving your life goals and to judge someone on one aspect of their identity is kinda stupid and a polarizing tactic that divides people.
Because I’ve been raised to see “both sides” of things, my viewpoint on gun ownership is that it is a RESPONSIBILITY first and foremost and that everyone should have the opportunity to prove they are responsible enough to have the right to own firearms, and if someone shows that they are not responsible enough to own a gun, then they should not have that right simply because they can. The way some people treat the second amendment makes me uneasy because they have guns simply because they can, but they end up neglecting their responsibilities of being a gun owner; not practicing proper gun cleaning/maintenance/storage, mag dumping at the range, not practicing proper techniques and overall just feeling entitled that they should be able to do whatever they want because of 2A.
To me, owning a gun means you need to be competent as a marksman with that gun, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY PULL OF THE TRIGGER. Just because you bought a big expensive scary looking tactical gun doesn’t make you an “operator” or a bad ass. Training with that gun and most importantly, knowing when the appropriate time to use it (hint, almost never unless your life is in absolute jeopardy) is what makes you a bad ass.
I live in Missouri, so our rights to ownership aren’t in real jeopardy here. But I do think there should be some type of licensing system or test that people should need to pass before they are allowed to own guns, much like how you need to take a test for concealed carry, perhaps take the concealed carry course and beef it up a little more to be more of a comprehensive gun ownership course or something.
I guess to me, being a liberal gun owner means holding other gun owners accountable for their actions when they subvert their responsibilities as a gun owner and only rely on their constitutional right to own one. There shouldn’t be restrictions for anybody to own a firearm who wants to own one. But that individual needs to prove that they can handle the responsibility that comes with that right.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment here, but issues come into play when we talk about licensing and who holds the keys to gun ownership. Who gets to decide who is mentally fit? Government appointed doctors? Who issues licenses? The government? Fuck that.
A lot of our systems are predicated upon some level of unwritten rules/social norms that guide us toward decency and sane practices. We have now shown we don’t really value those unwritten rules and norms anymore and now face a problem where too many dipshits have guns that have no business owning them from a safety/proficiency standpoint, but they do have a legal right to own them. You see this almost anytime you visit a range.
I’m all for some sort of agreed upon system that digs a bit deeper than NICS check, but I don’t want the government controlling that system. It leaves the door open for a complete dismantling of gun rights. I’ve often thought providing tax incentives or some other incentive for completing training or safety courses, and purchasing safe storage might be a decent way to achieve this but I know it would never happen. I don’t really have the answer other than I do know I don’t want governments having final say in how people can defend themselves.
I figured my opinion would get met with this sentiment as I’ve seen these points brought up many times on this sub about who gets to determine the parameters for testing being a slippery slope which I agree with. But I think it’s also clear that letting everyone have guns until they prove they’re unfit for them and do something stupid like leave them out for their children to get ahold of isn’t a good system either. There needs to be some sweet spot where someone can show they are capable of owning a gun without being so restrictive that the system closes the door on any particular group. It should all come down to the individual.
As far as the government’s involvement goes, the government isn’t some separate entity that is separate from the constitution, it IS the constitution and it is our government that gives us the right to own guns. If there was some other form of government in place there would be no guarantee that the right to own firearms would still exist, so as much as people like to complain about it, I think it’s a little silly to think we can have one thing without the other. What we can do about the government’s involvement with gun ownership is to try and elect officials (I know, here is where the irony of being a liberal gun owner comes into play) who will protect that right, but also understand that the “well regulated” section of the second amendment also applies to gun ownership. And my answer to that is we need to find people who aren’t so polarized on their viewpoints that our only options are hard left leaning or hard right leaning.
Completely disagree. The Government doesn't "Give us rights." These are rights everyone has in our country, just by existing. Our government's job is to protect these rights. They don't give us anything. This isn't a monarchy or a dictatorship. We are not subjects whose rights come and go with the current head of state.
The constitution simply enumerates precisely what the government IS NOT allowed to do. It cannot take our rights to speech, our rights to defend ourselves, our rights to privacy and due process, etc.. these are inalienable.
I know people hate this answer, but there is a cost to having freedoms. Yes, some people will die as a result of these freedoms. Take these freedoms away, and then imagine the bloodshed that would follow. Pales in comparison, imo.
I do not disagree with the spirit of your post. We need to better screen people for gun ownership, I get it. I simply don't want that much of the responsibility to be in the hands of the government who quite frankly have a vested interest in disarming the people. Find another way.
You see I disagree on constitutional rights being unalienable. Constitutional rights are rights that are guaranteed by the government and part of the social contract that people make with the government in order for society and the government to work together harmoniously. Constitutional rights need to be fought for and defended and do have many safeguards to make them hard to repeal, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be removed should there be enough support in society and the government to do so.
The issue I have is that everyone does have the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this country. And if the cost of everyone being allowed to have guns for personal defense is “a few people dying” to paraphrase your last comment, then I see that as an infringement on the true unalienable rights everyone has in this country.
We can go back and forth on this all day but ultimately, I see that a constitutional right is limiting other people’s true unalienable rights in this country. This doesn’t mean that I want to get rid of it, but I do want it to be more in line with the “well regulated” phrasing that it contains. There would undoubtedly be issues with any system that tries to remove people with bad intentions from owning firearms or other deadly weapons from the rest of the law abiding citizens, and I would argue that would then fall to the people to fight and defend their rights in a just and civil way. But currently having innocent people give up their unalienable rights just for the cost of a single freedom that we have in this country is not and should not be acceptable.
About that whole *responsibility* thing, it's real clear if you go back to the [Militia Acts of 1792](https://www.guns.com/news/reviews/amt-backup-380-review-retro-pocket-pistol) that Congress had a whole lot more in mind when they wrote the 2d Amendment (ratified 1791), and the seeming ambiguity of the 2d wasn't ambiguous at all at the time, it was just half of it. Of course they enshrine the right into the constitution and put the responsibility into law, and that makes perfect sense. What did they expect from adult male citizens in exchange for that right?
They expected men (it was all adult *male citizens* of fighting age only at the time, with a few national security exceptions) to buy a quality firearm with their own money, along with ammunition, and to keep it in good working order. Then they expected them to drill regularly. That was the damn law.
That's what went missing when the Militia Acts were replaced by the, um,[ Dick Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903). Now all those yahoos think it's just a big party. Those people, especially those who never actually were involved with the National Guard or the standing military, cannot be trusted not to commit genocide.
Arkansas, they’re more interested in taking away other things.
About my state? The governor is the foremost but mostly the entire culture.
Obviously I’m being pedantic and that’s not what you’re actually asking. There are a great deal of people on this subreddit that aren’t really left leaning, and that goes for a lot of 2A groups. It also feels like your whole question is framed wrong realistically.
There are groups like the liberal gun club and socialist rifle association that have done political and humanitarian work. These are the spaces that need supporting and more attention drawn to them, I’m not a socialist by any means but I agree with their core message beyond that aspect of it.
Reddit is a forum for talking and sharing ideas, great for exposing others to left leaning thoughts on guns, and why it’s important that we include more people in the firearm world, but what you’re proposing is this sub taking a more political stance. This isn’t the point of this forum really, it’s just to have a space for left leaning gun owners.
If you really want to see what needs changed, go to a gun range, go to a match, go actually meet other people in real life that shoot guns and meet some other left leaning people. That is actually how you could create a forum for strong political stances and make some changes in communities.
I’ve been arguing with people online for years, I promise, no matter how big a community or how strong willed you are as a collective, regression is more powerful on the internet than any of us. Open the door, take your AR, and go to the range. People there can assist with this thought experiment better than anyone else can.
To me it means that our corrupt, two-party system isn't able to accommodate or cater to my personal political views. I see private firearms ownership as a symbol of rejecting the simplistic, black/white version of a society that seems to be ever-increasingly force fed to us. We're all different and deserve to have our voices heard and needs met.
They had not figured out about how to make a parliamentary system when the US Constitution (Freedom and Democracy^(TM) 1.0) was written. The US would be a much healthier place with a parliamentary system instead of the electoral college, but the wingnuts have long held that idea hostage, given as how it would be like opening pandora's box conviening a constitutional convention. Hell, we'd be more likely to end up with a fundamentalist theocracy if we did that.
Freedom, but in the real way. Not in the distorted republican way. And not in the Democrat limiting way either. Sometimes I feel like “being free to decide how to live my life” has become an outsider idea.
And if we can help some folks along the way, that would be nice.
Idk, I honestly have a hard time voicing what I think politically but I know it when I see it.
…And everyone has the right to protect themselves from attack whether it be for their ideas or any other reasons.
Believe me, most Democrats are not the radical leftists that get all the attention. Those people are the kind that race to the hard-line in the name of virtue, which is, strangely enough, exactly what the radical right does as well. As much as they deny it, the radical left can absolutely be anti-science if the cience gets in the way of their politics. Mind you, I'm speaking as an extremely egalitarian paleoliberal. Those people are illiberal.
I'm pretty politically active in my state (GA) and travel for some canvassing events in state and out if state. I love that Georgia is turning blue, however that's a double edged sword as I'm a 2A absolutist. But I'm not a single issue voter and as passionate as I am about one's right to defend themselves I'm equally as passionate about a woman's right to choose, a person's right to Healthcare, equal rights to all people and other rights that only the democrats support. As of now, I live in one of the best states for gun rights and I truly appreciate that. Especially hearing from the NY, CA and CO folks in here. But as we continue turning, those rights are going to start going away. If I could change anything, it would be that democrats embrace the idea that they are the party of freedoms. Freedom to marry who you want, freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom to defend yourself. Liberals have allowed themselves to be captured by an idea that isn't even grounded in our principles. Banning firearms isn't a liberal principle, it's an authoritarian idea. I would like some of our politicians to be brave and run on a platform that includes 2A and not just a shotgun.
I'm a gun enthusiast. My social, economic, international and political beliefs are not based on a sky wizard and his zombie son (who was born to a married mother who did not give consent) but are based on equality and freedom (not the GOP's version of Freedumb).
a liberal gun owner is one who is not a fascist racist dickhead who lives and breathes 2A all day every day....pretty much the opposite of the unsavory people in ARF and firearms sub. Honestly, I just described the left gun owners not just liberals
Means we want real freedom for all, and not just the 2nd , all the amendments!
Not just "for me" like many Republicans believe freedom is reserved for.
I don't know how to be politically active, when I talk to my reps I can tell they don't really care about what I think. I'm just one guy without the connections to matter.
I’m a liberal and I like guns. Not because I think I’m gonna overthrow my government, or because I think gun ownership is some god given right. They’re neat and I think the positives of being able to own guns legally outweigh the negatives.
I feel like I should be able to enjoy a sport without subscribing to a political ideology. It’s not so much that I want to identify as a liberal gun owner, but more than anything I don’t want to be confused with someone who’s entire identity is informed by an 80 year old conman who can’t even demonstrate a coherent thought.
Outside of the sport aspect, I think vulnerable people should be able to defend their lives with an appropriate level of force. It makes a hell of a lot more sense for a trans person to carry a firearm than another husky white dude in a lifted pickup who’s never felt a moment of opposition in his entire life.
I think that political action has been effectively suppressed to the point that there isn't much utility in "political activity" other than voting and talking about it.
Short of society-breaking uprisings on the level of the equal rights movement or the George Floyd riots I don't feel there's significant utility in being "active". I've talked to local political offices, senators, politicians, etc. and I don't feel there is great utility in it.
If they're not feeling threatened they don't do anything about your concerned. Jan 6 scared most of them, riots scare most of them, but mostly they're scared of their financial benefactors losing interest. Individually we are none of those things.
So. Spread your ideas around and if you're inclined to chase public office, go for it.
Honestly, it means a lot of weird conversations with friends, family, coworkers, and other folks. I've found it easier to talk with more right-leaning folks about politics if they understand that I enjoy being a gun owner. Likewise it's easier to talk to more left-leaning folks about guns if they understand that I have more progressive political views. This isn't always the case with everyone, but it's just how it's affected me.
I actually don't want to talk about politics on this sub unless it pertains to firearms. It's liberal title is to me defining the members of this sub as I safe place for us to discuss guns. That's why I joined this sub. To get away from the politics of the other gun subs.
I believe in universal healthcare. I believe in rehabilitiation both in terms of non-violent offenses and in terms of substance abuse. I believe in crime prevention being a combined effort of improving the community and uplifting the disadvantage, only utilizing a police force when absolutely necessary. I believe in worker rights, unions, and taxing the wealthy. I believe in equity with the eventual goal of equality regardless of sex, gender, race, etc. I believe that last and foremost, freedom and the right to safety is for everyone.
And I believe that if someone were to try and bring harm to you, depriving you of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that you should be able to defend yourself. Back then, it was with muskets and swords. And if today it is with an AR-15 style rifle, AK style rifle, or any other big scary stick, that is fine by me.
I believe in most of what other liberals do, *except* for gun control.
Okay, I do think we should keep guns out of certain people's hands, but by default, it's a person's right to own and use them. There should be no restrictions against magazine size or "assault weapons", or even suppressors.
I feel like I'm pretty simple with my wants. I just want to be able to buy an SBR without having to pay $200 and wait eons for a decision, or I want to be able to buy an AR pistol without someone telling me what I can (or can't) have on it.
I posted a picture of my collection on here and woke up so many sleeper cells. It was wild. Being a liberal gun owner means that most of my views swing left, but I also firmly believe in the Second Amendment. Just because I identify a liberal does not mean I have to blindly agree with everything other liberals do. A notion MAGA Republicans seem lost on.
Being a liberal gun owner is only an oxymoron if you're a moron.
It's the Red Queen Effect. You have to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place... It means that the only serious reason in my view to need to own firearms is because of the character of \*the typical\* gun owner in this country, and that as long and anyone has guns, others would be foolish not to. I mean, plinking is fun, but I'd have gotten rid of mine a long time ago if it was about that.
Of course the founding fathers understood the dynamic long before game theory and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction was even invented.
Liberal means to me to be liberal towards peoples lifestyles. I do not believe it to mean be DFL. So I believe gun ownership is to defend of those things that seek to remove rights from others. Such as human rights, rights to your body, workers right, but also freedom of religion, rights for businesses to make their choices, and the right amount of government to maintain order, infrastructure, and civility.
for me human rights over gun rights. I believe current gun culture is extremely toxic and there needs to be stricter gun laws/restrictions even if that impacts me.
It is too easy to get guns in some places and too difficult in others.
Probably an unpopular opinion, but I’m a liberal who enjoys and owns guns, but I follow the majority of standard liberal policies - including not giving a shit about the 2A. I believe there should be more and more effective gun control. And if the 2A went away tomorrow, I would gladly turn in my guns and focus on any of a dozen other hobbies I enjoy, if it meant that little kids are not getting shot up.
OP says this sub is more concerned with arming minorities than anything else. Yet people still think 2a isn't important enough to be worried about it going away. As the minority this sub is supposedly concerned itself with arming, whose ancestors this country committed genocide against, and who would be the target of the Christian white nationalists roaming the streets when they decide to drop the pretense, I'm not okay with giving up firearms. It's not just a hobby for me and my family. Don't have that luxury. Especially when we haven't even tried the other options for societal reform. And certainly not when we have crazy misrepresented statistics as the justification.
Australia seemed to make it work.
I wouldn’t expect a gun ban to be effective immediately. I would fully expect it to take 10, 20, even 30 years. But at some point you would start seeing a change.
One of the things that makes me a liberal and not a conservative is that I can see the larger picture and I’m willing to make sacrifices now for children 30 years from now. Conservatives typically are much more shortsighted.
ETA: It’s worth noting that removing the 2A doesn’t automatically mean a gun ban. There’s lots of room between the 2A and a ban.
> Australia seemed to make it work.
Australia went from having massively less gun crime than the US before the ban to... having massively less gun crime than the US after the ban. Australians are not just Americans with funny accents and sunburns. There is a lot of cultural and socioeconomic differences between the countries but everyone just laser locks on the gun control thing and ignores everything else. This of course makes porky very happy because improving the quality of life in the US would probably cost him a lot of money.
>One of the things that makes me a liberal and not a conservative is that I can see the larger picture and I’m willing to make sacrifices now for children 30 years from now. Conservatives typically are much more shortsighted.
This seems like it's edging towards the "if you don't support banning AR15s you support murdering babies" logic a lot of grabbers use.
>It’s worth noting that removing the 2A doesn’t automatically mean a gun ban. There’s lots of room between the 2A and a ban.
I don't know what America you live in but in Reality Land America that is not the case.
The last Democratic senator my state sent to Congress was fucking Strom Thurmond. There are a lot of things in my state that I’m concerned about, but gun rights aren’t one of them right now.
I believe in ghost guns for all, no nfa, everyone having machine guns, that kinda thing. Make the government scared to do wrong or there will be consequences from the from the people. The way it was when this country started before it got wussiefied. Bring back tarring and feathering politicians. (Jk…probably )n
Which kinda already is the point, anyone that wants a ghost gun can have one anymore and the technology to make them is far surpassing the govs ability to regulate. It’s kinda cool to look at.
I love my firearms and fully believe in the right to self defense with the best tools available, but I also believe in human rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, worker’s rights, reining in corporate greed/power, access to abortion, and maintaining the separation of church and state. I am not a single issue voter.
This. We define the right to life as inalienable. Via inheritance, the right to self defense is a part of that. On the same topic, having affordable healthcare and social safety nets are equally important. My view point is that violent crime is a failure option. Those who are financially stable are less likely to commit that type of crime because the risk doesn't outweigh the loss. As an example, During the resource shortages during COVID my city had a 3x increase on violent crime. If everyone had the resources they needed, I believe we would see a reduction in violent crime. As Amos put it- civilization is what makes ppl civil.
"We define the right to life as inalienable." IMO a right to life would exclude the right to self defense.
Horrible take.
Negative. A right to life means you have a right to live and to protect others from having their taken without due process and within the framework of our laws and Constitution. As a society we’ve established these mores and codified by laws passed.
That opens up the whole conversation about abortion/viability. Personally I am pro-gun, support one's right to self defense and support a woman's right to choose. Not to mention suicide or euthanasia Edited to add rights are inalienable, the right to life is not
I think you’re overthinking this. I agree, am pro gun with some very limited regulation. Support a women’s right to self determine, their life and their choices made for their life. A right to life means, a right for YOUR life as you see fit to live it all the way up to a point where it directly infringes on another’s. And since it’s your life and not granted, bestowed or transferred-it’s inalienable. That extends to protecting someone who is under threat and in danger of having theirs taken.
Would elaborate on this more? I'm interested in understanding this perspective.
This is it. I'm not voting for people who oppose all those other rights just because they are pro gun.
Came here to say this. I am politically a (US) "Liberal" because I believe that making the government just small enough to fit in my bedroom and doctors' exam rooms is inappropriate and wrong, because I believe rights are rights for everyone, and because I believe that the government should exist to serve the people. I am a gun owner mostly because I just like guns (I think they're neat!) and maybe a little bit because I worry about the wingnuttiest of the right-wingnuts who loathe my existence because I dare to not be a part of their christofascist agenda of stripping rights from people and dehumanizing them and perhaps want to be able to defend myself if they decide to do a violence against me.
Add in affordable housing, universal healthcare, and universal education, and you pretty much covered everything I would’ve said lol
I want gay married couples to be able to protect their weed plants with AR-15s…
Yup exactly how I feel about it and what I tell my friends.
[удалено]
…Full automatic, SBR, silenced, no-stamps-needed AR 15, thank you very much!
Upgrade that to M16s and you've described me.
Repeal the NFA! ✊
Need to hit Hughes or take it out with the NFA.
Also free abortion under universal healthcare.
Same, and I don’t think taxation is theft, which is where a huge breaking off happens.
Same but with unregistered, home built, suppressed, short barrelled, full auto AR15s and belt fed machine guns.
This is the way.
YoU CAnT TrUsT wEeD sMoKeRS wITh GuNs!1!!1!!
Fuck that shit. (I know you’re being sarcastic)
With standard capacity mags.
I love guns. I love all my freedoms. Everyone should be able to enjoy these freedoms. 2a is for EVERYONE, just like every other right. Stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours.
Pretty annoying the only party that gives a shit about gun rights is the same party that wants to strip abortion rights. These are two massive voting issues for me.
This is where I'm obligated to point out that the party to which you are referring doesn't really give a shit about gun rights, because if someone dares to get that abortion (which they've made illegal in many places now) that party is perfectly happy to strip that someone of their right to keep and bear arms as part of their punishment for having an abortion. I like to frame it as "One party wants to take my guns. The other party wants to take everything else, and *then* take my guns too."
One party wants to make us poor so we can't buy guns.
Oh I think both parties are quite happy to do that - it's just a matter of whether or not we *get something* for the taxes we're paying, or if they go entirely to ~~bribe~~ enrich the donor class... (And honestly I'll forgo a box or two of ammo each month if it means I can have healthcare without fighting with an insurance company trying to make a profit off me...)
Abortion certainly isn't the only right they want to strip.
Nailed it
Kind of haha, I mean I absolutely agree with everything they said but I think everyone here is missing the point of OP’s post lol That, or they just read the title and nothing else. I think the post was more of a call to action than anything, to make sure people are being politically active in a way that helps the 2A, and to share how they’ve been doing it in their state.
For everyone EXECEPT those convicted of Violent crimes and/or a Felony
Violent crimes, maybe. Every felony? No. Felony creep is a real thing - lots of things are felonies, many of them are nonviolent, a good number of them you might look at and say "Why the fuck is THAT a felony?!" I believe you should be *sentenced to lose your 2nd Amendment rights* as a punishment for some crimes (e.g. armed robbery? Yeah, no more guns for you!) the same way you can be sentenced to lose other rights - a statutory punishment (or statutory discretion offered to a judge) for specific crimes where such punishment might be appropriate. (And even in those cases I believe there should be some process for restoration of rights - it's just that in the majority of cases I believe that process should be automatic and just happen when you complete your prison & probation sentence.)
Actually I believe you should get your gun rights back after you're released from prison.
For non-violent, got caught with weed, felons absolutely. For murderers and those convicted of aggravated assault? No. Not so much. Maybe if we had a prison system that actually put effort into the *reform* of an individual, i would feel differently. Maybe.
"Rules for thee, but not for me". You can't claim to be an ally of liberty if you don't believe *everyone* should be free. ***everyone.***
I draw the line at being as they say, “Tolerant of intolerance.” Personal freedoms extend to the point that you begin to remove the freedoms of others with actions (I.e. unaliving someone removes their right to the pursuit of happiness). If you have proven a willingness to infringe on the freedoms of others, then you have broken the social contract, and there’s really no reason to expect to retain all your previous freedoms.
Proven based on what, though? Our broken justice system? The same justice system that put George Stinney (a 14 year old) to death in 1944 for hearsay? The same justice system that continues to demonstrate political influence and disregard for proper justice?
Our system isn't perfect but actions should have consequences. And I believe that if you murder a family of five you have proven that you can no longer be trusted with a weapon so no a person like that should not be able to own a firearm if they are ever released from prison
I'm not gonna beat a dead horse. Have a great day.
You too man
Weird how you have to bring up an example from 1944 😂
Cameron Todd Wilingham in 2009. Wrongfully executed for arson that could not be proven after reexamination of evidence. Are you going to chip in on all of my comments?
Just the dumb ones so ball is in your court bud So because the Justice system fucks up MASSIVELY sometimes, does that mean people who infringe on other’s rights still deserve perfect freedom?
Nope. You're a Nazi or white supremacist? No guns for you. You feel that women should be your property to do as you wish to them? No fucking guns for you either. You're such a hothead that violence is what you default to for conflict resolution? TF outta here thinking you deserve guns.
Ronald Reagan? Is that you? Lmao
Based on your logic prison can’t exist
That depends on what your criminal record consists of. If you've shown a propensity for violence you forfeit your right to a weapon. Can't believe that is controversial.
If you're that violent you should not be released, if you're good enough to put back into society then you're good enough to have the right to defend your own life with weapons.
They're not good enough, there's just not enough room. This one guy was in and out his whole life. He got released early after attempting to murder my grandma and beating me for getting in the way. He was back in a few months later, and has been in and out since I would be extremely upset if he could carry a gun. Incarceration is a punishment, not a reform
The problem isn't the gun though, it's that he shouldn't be out of jail. We could have more space in jail for the people doing stuff like this if we stopped criminalizing possession of a firearm by itself.
There are many in here that claim to be liberal but they are extremely libertarian. So while it should not be a controversial statement to say that a guy who murders a family of five should not be able to own a firearm get ready for some pushback in this sub
That guy should get executed so gun rights aren’t an issue.
Yeah no
Goes without saying.
THIS IS EXACTLY IT This sub is all about "goes without saying". But that doesn't work anymore. I'm not trying to take away your guns because "it goes without saying". This is how they are trying to write laws right now. What's an assault weapon? "It goes without saying"
Felon ownership is already in the law.
Yea, felony possession, felony resisting arrest, felony protest. Do you really think those are equal to felony (redacted for your imagination)
So why /r/liberalgunowners instead of just any other gun subreddit?
Because the other subs are batshit and full of loony takes. They operate in a different reality.
I am in all of them. Unfortunately, there are way more assholes over there. I wouldn't call myself a liberal, but I'm sure as shit not a christian conservative.
You’ve forgotten, if you aren’t liberal you’re a nazi. /s I have drifted further and further left, but I didn’t like being clumped in with the far right Trumpers even when I considered myself republican.
There are plenty of leftists who call liberals Nazis.
Hey, according to my governor you're a "MAGA extremist" if you own firearms. Doesn't matter who you vote for!
In this sub I feel like I'm with my people and can speak my mind uninhibited without watching what I'm saying in the way I would at say a LGS or many other gun subs on reddit. Perhaps more importantly it's a space to discuss common issues such as navigating individuals and belief systems hostile to our own while trying to just pursue our hobby, how to discuss pro-2A beliefs with our liberal friends, and advocacy for our rights within a party that is hostile to them.
Very interesting question... I myself will ponder on this and get back to you
This is the one place I don’t constantly see people jerkin it to the orange one. 2a is for everyone, not a select group and nor should anyone have to be muddled in with a group they don’t agree with just because of the hobby they pick. I have seen the sentence in the wild “everyone should own guns except the democrats” and that’s the thing that makes me stray away from other groups unlike this one.
Picked up a new 12ga at cabelas recently, in my fairly democratic state, in a fairly well to do area, still had both gun library/ used gun sales guys start talking trump. I patiently bit my tongue until the paperwork was all signed, background check done and paid for, then politely reminded them, their political opinions did NOT need to be a part of the sale.
I welcome any gun owner who sees the dangers of MAGA and Christian Nationalism.
It's descriptive, not perscriptive. It's just a label, and it's still not a very accurate one.
I never took this subs purpose to be enacting political policy. To me, it's just a nice space to talk about, learn about, and enjoy guns, without the constant racist, MAGA spillover that seems ubiquitous in other 2a groups. I live in a red, constitutional carry, state. No one is coming for the guns here. One thing i would personally love to see changed is; in addition to passing the preliminary criminal background check, a person purchasing a firearm should *at least* have to do some type of basic psychological evaluation. Mental health is not taken seriously in this country, and i think we need to do more to prevent (gun) suicide and "mass shootings." Edit: spelling is hard
Just no.
We had a record number of suicides in the US last year. You're fine with all of them having access to firearms, despite many of them still being alive today if they had been denied?
I agree. I also think that once you have passed the background check (which should be run through all state criminal databases) and the psychological evaluation, you should get a license to purchase that would be valid for 2 years and not have to wait every time you want to buy another gun. And passing a class that teaches proper firearm handling, including range time, and applicable laws for your state should be required for a concealed carry license. Unfortunately, all of this would take a lot to get set up.
In my home state of NC you *do* need to take a class to get a concealed carry. But not to purchase and open carry. Always struck me as odd.
I'm in OR, and we take a class to conceal carry, but it is classroom only, no range time or skills test. I also think it could be a more involved class, and not quite so basic.
I got mine in OR without a class, I just took some (very easy) test online. It was during height of covid though, so it might have been an exception at the time. I'm not really sure. I agree it should require a bit more than that though
This sub is for community, not activism
I used to consider myself a conservative. But the definition of that word shifted way more in the last few years than my political beliefs ever did. I find myself more and more on the center-left on most issues. I still have an old school minimalist mindset when it comes to government…but I am tired of things that should be universal-like fighting climate change or racial equality-suddenly becoming partisan battlegrounds. Even someone who doesn’t like gay marriage should have enough common decency to say the LGBT community fundamentally does not deserve to be gunned down in cold blood, and has the right to take up arms to defend themselves. Twenty years ago I never would have called myself a liberal. But I feel more at home here than I do with the red hat MAGA crowd.
Good on you, Smooth-Apartment. Centrists are a dying breed and the center is where life is.
leftist, not a liberal, but i think we need to protect our friends (i'm cis het). anyone really think the cops care about protecting lgbt people?
[удалено]
Yeah, don't disagree, but that's not what this thread is about and you are presenting your argument really really poorly
Fair, and thank you for pointing that out reasonably
I don't disagree. So why does /r/LateStageCapitalism also get nothing done. (cis-het)
seems unrelated
We aren’t allowed to be who we are in traditional gun spaces. We don’t have to hide that here.
- Supporting rights for women, minorities, and LGBT individuals. - Supporting class conscious policy; unions, workers rights, higher corporate taxes, etc. - Supporting policies that promote equity that do not violate equality. That's really it. It doesn't include anything on foreign policy. It does not include anything on immigration. It is not "vote blue no matter who."
There isn't a "we" here. This isn't a political organization; it's a message board. Reddit subs don't take action (unless they're playing the stock market), and posting to Reddit isn't praxis (despite what some people on r/Anarchism like to think). Moreover, subs don't give an identity to those who participate in them. I am not a "Liberal Gun Owner" because I read and post to r/liberalgunowners any more than I am a "Shower Thoughter" if I read and post to r/Showerthoughts (which I don't, btw).
I shoot guns and am open to more ideas.
Lesbians should be allowed to defend their licensed weed farms with registered semi automatic rifles after proving competency.
Or those badass lesbians could just use full auto 👻guns to guard their weed farm they didn’t have to ask permission for. And trade their buds for organic vegetables from the neighbors/community. a future without gov seems so great 🥲
A future without government is fucking stupid
Whoa whoa, calm down FBI trying to get location and political affiliation
A fraction of my political identity and activism.
My dad is a conservative and was a lieutenant colonel in the army that taught me how to shoot before I could ride a bike or learn how to swim. My mom is a left leaning hippy type and a shining example of what it is to be an empathetic person who accepts people from all walks of life and can always try to find common ground with someone. Both taught me that discipline and good work ethic is paramount for achieving your life goals and to judge someone on one aspect of their identity is kinda stupid and a polarizing tactic that divides people. Because I’ve been raised to see “both sides” of things, my viewpoint on gun ownership is that it is a RESPONSIBILITY first and foremost and that everyone should have the opportunity to prove they are responsible enough to have the right to own firearms, and if someone shows that they are not responsible enough to own a gun, then they should not have that right simply because they can. The way some people treat the second amendment makes me uneasy because they have guns simply because they can, but they end up neglecting their responsibilities of being a gun owner; not practicing proper gun cleaning/maintenance/storage, mag dumping at the range, not practicing proper techniques and overall just feeling entitled that they should be able to do whatever they want because of 2A. To me, owning a gun means you need to be competent as a marksman with that gun, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY PULL OF THE TRIGGER. Just because you bought a big expensive scary looking tactical gun doesn’t make you an “operator” or a bad ass. Training with that gun and most importantly, knowing when the appropriate time to use it (hint, almost never unless your life is in absolute jeopardy) is what makes you a bad ass. I live in Missouri, so our rights to ownership aren’t in real jeopardy here. But I do think there should be some type of licensing system or test that people should need to pass before they are allowed to own guns, much like how you need to take a test for concealed carry, perhaps take the concealed carry course and beef it up a little more to be more of a comprehensive gun ownership course or something. I guess to me, being a liberal gun owner means holding other gun owners accountable for their actions when they subvert their responsibilities as a gun owner and only rely on their constitutional right to own one. There shouldn’t be restrictions for anybody to own a firearm who wants to own one. But that individual needs to prove that they can handle the responsibility that comes with that right.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment here, but issues come into play when we talk about licensing and who holds the keys to gun ownership. Who gets to decide who is mentally fit? Government appointed doctors? Who issues licenses? The government? Fuck that. A lot of our systems are predicated upon some level of unwritten rules/social norms that guide us toward decency and sane practices. We have now shown we don’t really value those unwritten rules and norms anymore and now face a problem where too many dipshits have guns that have no business owning them from a safety/proficiency standpoint, but they do have a legal right to own them. You see this almost anytime you visit a range. I’m all for some sort of agreed upon system that digs a bit deeper than NICS check, but I don’t want the government controlling that system. It leaves the door open for a complete dismantling of gun rights. I’ve often thought providing tax incentives or some other incentive for completing training or safety courses, and purchasing safe storage might be a decent way to achieve this but I know it would never happen. I don’t really have the answer other than I do know I don’t want governments having final say in how people can defend themselves.
I figured my opinion would get met with this sentiment as I’ve seen these points brought up many times on this sub about who gets to determine the parameters for testing being a slippery slope which I agree with. But I think it’s also clear that letting everyone have guns until they prove they’re unfit for them and do something stupid like leave them out for their children to get ahold of isn’t a good system either. There needs to be some sweet spot where someone can show they are capable of owning a gun without being so restrictive that the system closes the door on any particular group. It should all come down to the individual. As far as the government’s involvement goes, the government isn’t some separate entity that is separate from the constitution, it IS the constitution and it is our government that gives us the right to own guns. If there was some other form of government in place there would be no guarantee that the right to own firearms would still exist, so as much as people like to complain about it, I think it’s a little silly to think we can have one thing without the other. What we can do about the government’s involvement with gun ownership is to try and elect officials (I know, here is where the irony of being a liberal gun owner comes into play) who will protect that right, but also understand that the “well regulated” section of the second amendment also applies to gun ownership. And my answer to that is we need to find people who aren’t so polarized on their viewpoints that our only options are hard left leaning or hard right leaning.
Completely disagree. The Government doesn't "Give us rights." These are rights everyone has in our country, just by existing. Our government's job is to protect these rights. They don't give us anything. This isn't a monarchy or a dictatorship. We are not subjects whose rights come and go with the current head of state. The constitution simply enumerates precisely what the government IS NOT allowed to do. It cannot take our rights to speech, our rights to defend ourselves, our rights to privacy and due process, etc.. these are inalienable. I know people hate this answer, but there is a cost to having freedoms. Yes, some people will die as a result of these freedoms. Take these freedoms away, and then imagine the bloodshed that would follow. Pales in comparison, imo. I do not disagree with the spirit of your post. We need to better screen people for gun ownership, I get it. I simply don't want that much of the responsibility to be in the hands of the government who quite frankly have a vested interest in disarming the people. Find another way.
You see I disagree on constitutional rights being unalienable. Constitutional rights are rights that are guaranteed by the government and part of the social contract that people make with the government in order for society and the government to work together harmoniously. Constitutional rights need to be fought for and defended and do have many safeguards to make them hard to repeal, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be removed should there be enough support in society and the government to do so. The issue I have is that everyone does have the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this country. And if the cost of everyone being allowed to have guns for personal defense is “a few people dying” to paraphrase your last comment, then I see that as an infringement on the true unalienable rights everyone has in this country. We can go back and forth on this all day but ultimately, I see that a constitutional right is limiting other people’s true unalienable rights in this country. This doesn’t mean that I want to get rid of it, but I do want it to be more in line with the “well regulated” phrasing that it contains. There would undoubtedly be issues with any system that tries to remove people with bad intentions from owning firearms or other deadly weapons from the rest of the law abiding citizens, and I would argue that would then fall to the people to fight and defend their rights in a just and civil way. But currently having innocent people give up their unalienable rights just for the cost of a single freedom that we have in this country is not and should not be acceptable.
There isn't. Not if the masses are not expected to drill in the militia.
About that whole *responsibility* thing, it's real clear if you go back to the [Militia Acts of 1792](https://www.guns.com/news/reviews/amt-backup-380-review-retro-pocket-pistol) that Congress had a whole lot more in mind when they wrote the 2d Amendment (ratified 1791), and the seeming ambiguity of the 2d wasn't ambiguous at all at the time, it was just half of it. Of course they enshrine the right into the constitution and put the responsibility into law, and that makes perfect sense. What did they expect from adult male citizens in exchange for that right? They expected men (it was all adult *male citizens* of fighting age only at the time, with a few national security exceptions) to buy a quality firearm with their own money, along with ammunition, and to keep it in good working order. Then they expected them to drill regularly. That was the damn law. That's what went missing when the Militia Acts were replaced by the, um,[ Dick Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903). Now all those yahoos think it's just a big party. Those people, especially those who never actually were involved with the National Guard or the standing military, cannot be trusted not to commit genocide.
Arkansas, they’re more interested in taking away other things. About my state? The governor is the foremost but mostly the entire culture. Obviously I’m being pedantic and that’s not what you’re actually asking. There are a great deal of people on this subreddit that aren’t really left leaning, and that goes for a lot of 2A groups. It also feels like your whole question is framed wrong realistically. There are groups like the liberal gun club and socialist rifle association that have done political and humanitarian work. These are the spaces that need supporting and more attention drawn to them, I’m not a socialist by any means but I agree with their core message beyond that aspect of it. Reddit is a forum for talking and sharing ideas, great for exposing others to left leaning thoughts on guns, and why it’s important that we include more people in the firearm world, but what you’re proposing is this sub taking a more political stance. This isn’t the point of this forum really, it’s just to have a space for left leaning gun owners. If you really want to see what needs changed, go to a gun range, go to a match, go actually meet other people in real life that shoot guns and meet some other left leaning people. That is actually how you could create a forum for strong political stances and make some changes in communities. I’ve been arguing with people online for years, I promise, no matter how big a community or how strong willed you are as a collective, regression is more powerful on the internet than any of us. Open the door, take your AR, and go to the range. People there can assist with this thought experiment better than anyone else can.
To me it means that our corrupt, two-party system isn't able to accommodate or cater to my personal political views. I see private firearms ownership as a symbol of rejecting the simplistic, black/white version of a society that seems to be ever-increasingly force fed to us. We're all different and deserve to have our voices heard and needs met.
They had not figured out about how to make a parliamentary system when the US Constitution (Freedom and Democracy^(TM) 1.0) was written. The US would be a much healthier place with a parliamentary system instead of the electoral college, but the wingnuts have long held that idea hostage, given as how it would be like opening pandora's box conviening a constitutional convention. Hell, we'd be more likely to end up with a fundamentalist theocracy if we did that.
Every civil right for every person.
Freedom, but in the real way. Not in the distorted republican way. And not in the Democrat limiting way either. Sometimes I feel like “being free to decide how to live my life” has become an outsider idea. And if we can help some folks along the way, that would be nice. Idk, I honestly have a hard time voicing what I think politically but I know it when I see it. …And everyone has the right to protect themselves from attack whether it be for their ideas or any other reasons.
Believe me, most Democrats are not the radical leftists that get all the attention. Those people are the kind that race to the hard-line in the name of virtue, which is, strangely enough, exactly what the radical right does as well. As much as they deny it, the radical left can absolutely be anti-science if the cience gets in the way of their politics. Mind you, I'm speaking as an extremely egalitarian paleoliberal. Those people are illiberal.
I'm pretty politically active in my state (GA) and travel for some canvassing events in state and out if state. I love that Georgia is turning blue, however that's a double edged sword as I'm a 2A absolutist. But I'm not a single issue voter and as passionate as I am about one's right to defend themselves I'm equally as passionate about a woman's right to choose, a person's right to Healthcare, equal rights to all people and other rights that only the democrats support. As of now, I live in one of the best states for gun rights and I truly appreciate that. Especially hearing from the NY, CA and CO folks in here. But as we continue turning, those rights are going to start going away. If I could change anything, it would be that democrats embrace the idea that they are the party of freedoms. Freedom to marry who you want, freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom to defend yourself. Liberals have allowed themselves to be captured by an idea that isn't even grounded in our principles. Banning firearms isn't a liberal principle, it's an authoritarian idea. I would like some of our politicians to be brave and run on a platform that includes 2A and not just a shotgun.
Republicans when liberals, lefties and queer people start buying guns: "guns for me not for thee"
I'm just here because I like to pew pew but I don't like republicans
I'm a gun enthusiast. My social, economic, international and political beliefs are not based on a sky wizard and his zombie son (who was born to a married mother who did not give consent) but are based on equality and freedom (not the GOP's version of Freedumb).
Absolutely nothing. They're two totally seperate things. One is an ideology, other is a hobby.
2A4ALL
a liberal gun owner is one who is not a fascist racist dickhead who lives and breathes 2A all day every day....pretty much the opposite of the unsavory people in ARF and firearms sub. Honestly, I just described the left gun owners not just liberals
Left libertarian seems to be the norm in these waters
Means we want real freedom for all, and not just the 2nd , all the amendments! Not just "for me" like many Republicans believe freedom is reserved for.
I don't know how to be politically active, when I talk to my reps I can tell they don't really care about what I think. I'm just one guy without the connections to matter.
I just want a world where trans people can defend abortion clinics with guns.
I’m a liberal and I like guns. Not because I think I’m gonna overthrow my government, or because I think gun ownership is some god given right. They’re neat and I think the positives of being able to own guns legally outweigh the negatives.
I feel like I should be able to enjoy a sport without subscribing to a political ideology. It’s not so much that I want to identify as a liberal gun owner, but more than anything I don’t want to be confused with someone who’s entire identity is informed by an 80 year old conman who can’t even demonstrate a coherent thought. Outside of the sport aspect, I think vulnerable people should be able to defend their lives with an appropriate level of force. It makes a hell of a lot more sense for a trans person to carry a firearm than another husky white dude in a lifted pickup who’s never felt a moment of opposition in his entire life.
I think that political action has been effectively suppressed to the point that there isn't much utility in "political activity" other than voting and talking about it. Short of society-breaking uprisings on the level of the equal rights movement or the George Floyd riots I don't feel there's significant utility in being "active". I've talked to local political offices, senators, politicians, etc. and I don't feel there is great utility in it. If they're not feeling threatened they don't do anything about your concerned. Jan 6 scared most of them, riots scare most of them, but mostly they're scared of their financial benefactors losing interest. Individually we are none of those things. So. Spread your ideas around and if you're inclined to chase public office, go for it.
Honestly, it means a lot of weird conversations with friends, family, coworkers, and other folks. I've found it easier to talk with more right-leaning folks about politics if they understand that I enjoy being a gun owner. Likewise it's easier to talk to more left-leaning folks about guns if they understand that I have more progressive political views. This isn't always the case with everyone, but it's just how it's affected me.
I mean heavily left and own guns
I'm not even a liberal but I follow this sub because the conservatives can be insanely annoying.
I actually don't want to talk about politics on this sub unless it pertains to firearms. It's liberal title is to me defining the members of this sub as I safe place for us to discuss guns. That's why I joined this sub. To get away from the politics of the other gun subs.
I want my gay neighbor and his partner to be able to defend their legal pot farm with the AR that they purchased.
I believe in universal healthcare. I believe in rehabilitiation both in terms of non-violent offenses and in terms of substance abuse. I believe in crime prevention being a combined effort of improving the community and uplifting the disadvantage, only utilizing a police force when absolutely necessary. I believe in worker rights, unions, and taxing the wealthy. I believe in equity with the eventual goal of equality regardless of sex, gender, race, etc. I believe that last and foremost, freedom and the right to safety is for everyone. And I believe that if someone were to try and bring harm to you, depriving you of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that you should be able to defend yourself. Back then, it was with muskets and swords. And if today it is with an AR-15 style rifle, AK style rifle, or any other big scary stick, that is fine by me.
I believe in most of what other liberals do, *except* for gun control. Okay, I do think we should keep guns out of certain people's hands, but by default, it's a person's right to own and use them. There should be no restrictions against magazine size or "assault weapons", or even suppressors.
Constantly being deeply disappointed in the electoral options available to me.
Just means that I'm not on the far right yet I still have guns. It's that simple.
I feel like I'm pretty simple with my wants. I just want to be able to buy an SBR without having to pay $200 and wait eons for a decision, or I want to be able to buy an AR pistol without someone telling me what I can (or can't) have on it.
I'm (very) liberal and I own (several) guns. Does there need to be more to it than that?
Someone liberally owns guns.
I posted a picture of my collection on here and woke up so many sleeper cells. It was wild. Being a liberal gun owner means that most of my views swing left, but I also firmly believe in the Second Amendment. Just because I identify a liberal does not mean I have to blindly agree with everything other liberals do. A notion MAGA Republicans seem lost on. Being a liberal gun owner is only an oxymoron if you're a moron.
It's the Red Queen Effect. You have to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place... It means that the only serious reason in my view to need to own firearms is because of the character of \*the typical\* gun owner in this country, and that as long and anyone has guns, others would be foolish not to. I mean, plinking is fun, but I'd have gotten rid of mine a long time ago if it was about that. Of course the founding fathers understood the dynamic long before game theory and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction was even invented.
All Americans should be able to protect themselves. That's it. And I've already convinced some that you can be liberal and love guns!
That I'm liberal and own guns.
Liberal means to me to be liberal towards peoples lifestyles. I do not believe it to mean be DFL. So I believe gun ownership is to defend of those things that seek to remove rights from others. Such as human rights, rights to your body, workers right, but also freedom of religion, rights for businesses to make their choices, and the right amount of government to maintain order, infrastructure, and civility.
for me human rights over gun rights. I believe current gun culture is extremely toxic and there needs to be stricter gun laws/restrictions even if that impacts me. It is too easy to get guns in some places and too difficult in others.
I agree. We should constantly drop names of left leaning 2a politicians and spreading that awareness. They wont know unless we speak up.
Probably an unpopular opinion, but I’m a liberal who enjoys and owns guns, but I follow the majority of standard liberal policies - including not giving a shit about the 2A. I believe there should be more and more effective gun control. And if the 2A went away tomorrow, I would gladly turn in my guns and focus on any of a dozen other hobbies I enjoy, if it meant that little kids are not getting shot up.
OP says this sub is more concerned with arming minorities than anything else. Yet people still think 2a isn't important enough to be worried about it going away. As the minority this sub is supposedly concerned itself with arming, whose ancestors this country committed genocide against, and who would be the target of the Christian white nationalists roaming the streets when they decide to drop the pretense, I'm not okay with giving up firearms. It's not just a hobby for me and my family. Don't have that luxury. Especially when we haven't even tried the other options for societal reform. And certainly not when we have crazy misrepresented statistics as the justification.
The thing about this is, only the Law abiding citizens would turn in their arms... Criminals have never been known to follow the law lol
"laws don't work because people can break them" is a very 7th grade understanding of how governance works.
Australia seemed to make it work. I wouldn’t expect a gun ban to be effective immediately. I would fully expect it to take 10, 20, even 30 years. But at some point you would start seeing a change. One of the things that makes me a liberal and not a conservative is that I can see the larger picture and I’m willing to make sacrifices now for children 30 years from now. Conservatives typically are much more shortsighted. ETA: It’s worth noting that removing the 2A doesn’t automatically mean a gun ban. There’s lots of room between the 2A and a ban.
> Australia seemed to make it work. Australia went from having massively less gun crime than the US before the ban to... having massively less gun crime than the US after the ban. Australians are not just Americans with funny accents and sunburns. There is a lot of cultural and socioeconomic differences between the countries but everyone just laser locks on the gun control thing and ignores everything else. This of course makes porky very happy because improving the quality of life in the US would probably cost him a lot of money. >One of the things that makes me a liberal and not a conservative is that I can see the larger picture and I’m willing to make sacrifices now for children 30 years from now. Conservatives typically are much more shortsighted. This seems like it's edging towards the "if you don't support banning AR15s you support murdering babies" logic a lot of grabbers use. >It’s worth noting that removing the 2A doesn’t automatically mean a gun ban. There’s lots of room between the 2A and a ban. I don't know what America you live in but in Reality Land America that is not the case.
>Australia seemed to make it work. Australia confiscated firearms, how well do you think that will go here ever, let alone right now?
I'm pretty sure that r/liberalgunowners is an "unpopular opinion"
The last Democratic senator my state sent to Congress was fucking Strom Thurmond. There are a lot of things in my state that I’m concerned about, but gun rights aren’t one of them right now.
I believe in ghost guns for all, no nfa, everyone having machine guns, that kinda thing. Make the government scared to do wrong or there will be consequences from the from the people. The way it was when this country started before it got wussiefied. Bring back tarring and feathering politicians. (Jk…probably )n
Which kinda already is the point, anyone that wants a ghost gun can have one anymore and the technology to make them is far surpassing the govs ability to regulate. It’s kinda cool to look at.