Ammo For Sale

« « Speaking of conventions | Home | Identity politics » »

Eating our own

In comments here, there’s a bit of a back and forth because I called Barack Men At Work Obama a socialist. I’m not exactly the first to voice that concern. But this ain’t a post about that, it’s a post about the comments. See, in that thread, frequent commenter and fellow gun nut Nomen is taking me to task. Unsurprisingly, most readers agree with me. But the comments directed at him are uncalled for. Telling him to get out of the country because you disagree is silly. And it can drive him away from our cause: gun rights. It’s not helpful. Our side needs to 1) recruit and 2) not drive people who agree away. So, stop that.

There are more and more people of the lefty persuasion who are embracing their inner gun nut. So, quit scaring them off. If you disagree with them on other things, fine. Have at it. But do not make them feel unwelcome.

It’s sorta like how a bunch of folks aren’t fans of the Pink Pistols. You may not like their lifestyle and, get this, you don’t have to. But on guns, they’re on your side.

27 Responses to “Eating our own”

  1. coonhollow Says:

    Franklin said: “Gentelmen, we must hang together or else we shall hang separately.”

  2. tonymck Says:

    fwiw, i came to your site some months ago from drugwarrant and took a few days and read all old post to bring myself up to date, you’ve been bookmarked and (must)read daily since. i don’t post because i have no desire to be flamed because I AM a lubrul, dem, black, believe in tax, etc. i will still read you everyday and routinely read your right side roster of blogs everyday. there are almost(ok, none that i can find) lubrul blogs on guns, and none for us black folks(blackman with a gun seems to be hit or miss). as you can tell from this post, i wouldn’t stand a chance at doing my own. (USN/R)

  3. SayUncle Says:

    tony, i recommend also pro gun progressive & Gun Toting Liberal.

    Thanks for reading.

  4. Nomen Nescio Says:

    And it can drive him away from our cause: gun rights.

    actually, all it was driving me to was considering getting my CCW sooner.

    then i shook my head and realized that tiny minorities of extremists always sound braver over the anonymous internet than they would in real life. i’ll get my carry license once i can afford to practice enough i might hit shit, not before.

  5. mostlygenius Says:

    Exactly correct. We need more pro-gun people of all stripes. We can argue about family values and the economy after we have secured our constitutional rights.

  6. tonymck Says:

    sayuncle: i found both those websites from reading you(thanks), although guntoting gets a little wingy(?) for me. nomen nescio: i know what you mean, i have a first gen pt140 for my carry gun!(lol)

  7. HardCorps Says:

    Don’t worry about the forum warriors Nomen, they’re all too cowardly to fight and too fat to run!

  8. Mark Alger Says:

    I would add in reinforcement of your point about fellow travelers that, when you have someone partially in your camp, it is easier to persuade them — based on what you have in common — to accept and adopt more of your perspective on matters.

    If you don’t alienate people who came here to celebrate their freedom to arm and defend themselves, you might be able eventually to persuade them that individual liberty really is the superior position to socialism.


  9. dolphin Says:

    What ever happened to disagreeing in a free country even if you disagree on EVERYTHING (which face it, it’s rare when to people literally disagree on EVERYTHING)? Threatening to risk arrest to prevent him from voting? Seriously, that is just disturbing stuff. It’s a free country. People are allowed to disagree. The day that it’s ok to use acceptable to use force to shut out opinions you disagree with is the day America stops being a great nation.

  10. SayUncle Says:

    well dolphin, i dunno that you’ve said anything i’ve ever agreed with. So, there’s a start. 🙂

  11. Phoronus Says:

    I’m a fairly liberal guy, myself and a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment. I don’t mind the honest disagreements, while I might think you’re (nonspecific you) wrong, I trust that you’ve come to your opinions through rational means and we can agree to disagree. It’s the namecalling and childish stuff that drives me up the wall. Calling Obama or Edwards Socialists or Marxists! (I’ve seen that elsewhere). Doing the little Barack ‘middle name’ Obama gag, when frankly, the people who were harping on and emphasizing his middle name weren’t exactly doing it to be reasonable or fair.

    Disagree with me? Awesome! Threaten me? Tell me to leave because I disagree with you and your views? That’s not cool.

  12. Nomen Nescio Says:

    Threatening to risk arrest to prevent him from voting? Seriously, that is just disturbing stuff.

    actually, that one had me chuckling to myself. somebody trying that where i live would (1) end up arrested, and (2) not stop me from voting in the end anyway. i’m just cruel enough i’d find that funny if it were to happen.

    (one thing i’ve learned since immigrating, it’s not wise to have a thin skin in this country. i can deal with some stupid offensiveness — better than being offended by somebody doing something smart, come to that. “make my enemies ridiculous”, and all that.)

  13. dolphin Says:

    well dolphin, i dunno that you’ve said anything i’ve ever agreed with. So, there’s a start. 🙂

    Probably true, though I think we have more common ground than you might expect (for instance, while I don’t own, or want, a gun; I don’t have any desire to take yours away). The thing is you’ve never told me to leave the country or threatened to try and stop me from voting.

  14. Robert Says:

    Anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment is my friend, anyone else is a little suspect.

  15. JJR Says:

    Welcome, tonymck.

    Count me in as a Gun toting, pro-RKBA red-green. (socialist/environmentalist)
    Have enough Anarcho-syndicalist streaks in my worldview to respect some (though not all) Libertarian viewpoints.

    I like to jerk the chains of anti-gun faux Lefties by reminding them that Lenin won the Revolution with Mosin-Nagant Rifles and Nagant revolvers, not love beads and dancing.

    I second the nod for PGP and Gun Toting Liberal. Good folks.

    I also like the static website (non-blog) “Liberals with Guns”.

    I also read Say Uncle’s blog probably every day. Don’t always agree with the non-gun topics, but sometimes I do. With ya’ll on pro RBKA, though.

  16. tonymck Says:

    thanks JJR my 20yr highly undecorated navy career left me with zero gun knowledge, so pro 2A sites have been priceless

  17. bob r Says:

    Supporting the 2nd Amendment’s intent is a necessary condition to be my friend, it is not a sufficient condition. A socialist (by just about _any_ definition) may well support the 2nd; they are still not my friend. And to the degree that they attempt to impose their socialist agenda on me, they are in fact my enemy.

  18. bob r Says:

    ack! Forgot to close that bold tag after “not”.

  19. rightwingprof Says:

    Calling someone who wants to redistribute wealth a socialist isn’t name calling; it’s fact. That’s what wealth redistribution is, and that’s all it is. However, some of the reactions are over the top and more than a little scary. Then, about half of the comments on HotAir are also more than a little scary.

  20. Phoronus Says:

    Socialism seems to have a few more requirements than just ‘redistributing wealth’. If that’s so, then we’re already Socialist society (run for the hills!) since we have some social programs that tax from those with means and spend on those without. Even if you accept that it’s the only requirement, the term then has to be subjective. X amount of wealth redistributing is actually Socialist and not just Liberal. What’s X? If it’s that subjective, it’s not a very useful term.

    Frankly, advocating more ‘wealth redistribution’ or social programs does not make one a socialist. You may not like it, but simply calling it by a bogey-man name doesn’t elevate your position any. Now, when someone calls for state owning the means of good production, then you can trot out that label.

  21. Nomen Nescio Says:

    what if a person thinks the state buying stock in strategically important industries is a good idea? even if it’s to the point of owning majority interests in companies deemed particularly important and/or useful? ‘cos that’s the sort of thing i think of when people say “state owning the means of production”, and it’s never seemed outlandish to me.

  22. RAH Says:

    I have been pleasantly surprised at DU site since there is a strong pro gun community. One of the unintended consequences of BDS is the realization that maybe the 2A can keep us free. I do not see the severe liberty restriction under Bush except McCain Feingold 1st amendment violation and sections of the Patriot Act. Bob Barr did a good job in Congress pointing out the problems in Patriot Act. I have nothing against wiretapping bad guys if the call is from overseas and uses US networks. They can get a warrant for the local connection if they think the case warrants further investigation.

    I am a conservative and very far right in a lot of things. But I have libertarian leaning on personal rights and not wanting the nanny state telling me what I can or cannot do in order to save my children or me. Let us all take risks. A lot what gov’t does is usurp authority that is parental authority, i.e. bike helmet laws. Might be a good idea to wear one, but that is my authority not the state. The child is mine and not the states. If I choose to let my child take risks, that is my right.

    What I have seen at DU pro gun site is more what I would call classical liberalism rather than the paternalistic fascist style that started in the early 1970’s. Not that the government was liberal, but prevailing social thought sure was and it showed all the signs of telling me what to do for my own good. I did not call myself a conservative but an individualist.

    A lot that is considered conservative principle is a positive idea of self-reliance, individualism. Strong sense of private rights. Competency and the idea that really do not need the gov’t for much.

    Under Bush compassionate conservatism is a blend of liberal social policy but using a more private market approach.

    I think that if Nomen is more liberal, then it might be interested in engaging him in discourse. No use preaching to the choir.

    I have seen in the last few years the tactics of ad hominid attacks and name-calling, which used to be only the left has been adopted by the right.
    I have always been aware that authoritarian right leanings and leftist liberal nanny state get to the same point. A totalitarian police state when they go their logical extreme.

  23. EgregiousCharles Says:

    “It’s sorta like how a bunch of folks aren’t fans of the Pink Pistols.” Really? I am glad to say I’ve never seen a negative comment about the Pink Pistols.

  24. dolphin Says:

    I am glad to say I’ve never seen a negative comment about the Pink Pistols.

    Then you missed the big controvesary where Bill O’Reilly and guest, Fox News commentator Rod Wheeler discussed 100s of roving violent lesbian gangs running around raping school children and associated that figment fo their imagination with the Pink Pistols. Wheeler, who became a Fox News commentator (and even an advisor to the Bush White House!!!), after losing his job as a police officer due to failing a random drug test, claims he wasn’t referring to the Pink Pistols but rather to lesbian gangs with pistols painted pink, but the linkage stuck. As an aside, Wheeler says that the reason there’s not a single law enforcement specialist or agency in the entire country (beside himself of course) who knows anything about these dangerous lesbian gangs is because they are all “out of touch.” Therefore we should all trust him (the way Bill O’ Reilly, Fox News, and the President of the United States do), because he is the only one who knows of these gangs and the crimes they commit.

  25. rightwingprof Says:

    Socialism seems to have a few more requirements than just ‘redistributing wealth’.

    Well no, because socialism isn’t Boolean. The redistribution of weath — stealing hard earned money to give to others who didn’t lift a finger to earn it — is nothing more or less than socialism. You may split hairs and call it a socialist policy if you like, but it’s socialism.

  26. dolphin Says:

    The redistribution of weath — stealing hard earned money to give to others who didn’t lift a finger to earn it — is nothing more or less than socialism.

    Then congrats, you’re a socialist. I’m a socialist. 99.9999999% of the world are socialists. By your definition, ALL forms of government are socialism.

  27. Billy Beck Says:

    That’s exactly right, Dolphin.

    I’m glad we’re getting that straight.