Harold Ford to speak at NRA Conference
I saw a long list of folks to speak at the NRA conference at Bitter’s. I was invited to go but, sadly, cannot make it what with scheduling and all (see, told you they reached out to us gun bloggers). Any way, AC notes that Harold Ford will be there. Harold Ford has a rather anti-gun voting record but, as is being mimicked by Giuliani, has recently found his pro–gun–Jesus. Anyway, John Rodgers stated that:
This appearance probably won’t help Ford and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party get back on good terms, not something he necessarily needs to do.
To which AC asks:
Does liberal necessarily mean anti-gun — especially in the South? Can you not be rather progressive and still supportive of most of the general aims of the NRA?
Not at all. There are quite a few pro gun liberals out there.
Honestly, I think the NRA and we gun bloggers could do a better job of reaching out to them.
And let’s not forget that some alleged conservatives are anti-gun.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:36 am
[…] Uncle Say reminds us that not all conservatives are “pro-gun” either. Share and Enjoy: These […]
September 20th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Not at all. There are quite a few pro gun liberals out there.
Honestly, I think the NRA and we gun bloggers could do a better job of reaching out to them.
Amen. Not all liberals are extremists. Of course by definition all conservatives are extremists, by definition you know. Right metulj?
September 20th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
maybe not by definition, #9, but i’ve certainly never yet seen a counterexample.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Zell Miller? Most RINOs?
The modern Democratic party doesn’t allow much in the way of moderation (see Leiberman’s 80+% ADA rating and related booting out), but you don’t have to be a Democratic senator to end up on the liberalish side.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Liebermann’s unpopularity with the Democratic Party is mostly his sniveling efforts to kiss up to the Administration on the war…he was pretty obviously angling for the SecDef job.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I tended to think it was more the demographics of his voting block — they seemed to support Iraq enough to get him in trouble. Either way, he still voted nearly lockstep with the Democrats outside of that.
Republicans, well… most of our RINOs can score pretty high on the ADA’s list.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Harold, Jr. may well be the only person in his family who can pass the NICS background check.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
One of the reasons I am no longer a member of the NRA – aside from just forgetting to send in the funds – is that there was a period when the NRA-ILA news site included more articles on non-gun-related things than on the second amendment (or so it seemed to me.)
I didn’t join the NRA because it is anti-abortion. I didn’t join the NRA over immigration issues or to get Christian prayers reintroduced into public schools. If it is going to branch out to include other issues under its umbrella then I am not interested in being a part of it.
There is a (stupid) tendency in America today that says I can ask one question (one of several questions) – your stance on gun control, your stance on prayer in schools, your stance on abortion, etc. – and the answer you give to that one question, is supposed to crystallize your entire political opinion on a bunch of unrelated topics. This is naive at best, and self-defeating for second amendment advocates.
I don’t care what your stance on abortion rights is. I don’t care what religion you are or if you want YOUR prayers in public school. (Actually I do care, but not in the field of my second amendment blogging and advocacy.)
And I think we really do want all of the liberals who are dealing with self-defense issues to support our second amendment rights even if we disagree on some things.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
And if you turn up your nose at people “with a history” of voting against the 2nd Amendment, are you saying that it is impossible to have people change their minds and opinions? I think you might want to read Sandra Froman’s statement on how she got into guns. She wasn’t always a 2A advocate.
Granted, people have to show their positions by their actions, but people do change their position on various political positions after they are 20. OR even after they are 30.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Deb, i think it’s a matter of are they really changing their minds or is it just politically expedient to do so.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Deb, if there’s a choice between someone who has voted constantly and consistently for the 2nd Amendment, for a period of ten or twenty years, I have little reason to believe that they’ll change their mind. If they’ve been progun through Columbine, 9/11, VA Tech, normal political flow, CCW laws, and countless citizen self-defense stories, they know their stance.
On the other hand, someone without that track record, we can’t tell. Maybe they’re just pandering politically; they might stay pro-gun as long as the political waves stay that way, or they might flip once they’re elected. Or maybe they do honestly think progun after a real revelation like being mugged… but only want guns for themselves after they’re elected.
There are exceptions. I might take a newly progun Senator or Mayor who makes the right arguments — talking about protected rights rather than granted ones, about self-defense and all lawful uses rather than just about hunting — than one who doesn’t get it.
People change their opinion. I myself was fairly antigun (yay, public school brainwashing!) for a long while. But I did not try to get into a position where I could dictate the rights of others mere days after stumbling onto guncite.org. Those who try to do so are going to have to deal with a certain degree of skepticism.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:31 am
[…] See what I mean about liberals and guns? […]