OC LiberalGunOwners announcement

gentleman, 10 months ago

@HelixDab I think it would be very helpful if @account and @GiveAShot introduced themselves to this magazine

gentleman, 10 months ago

@HelixDab I think this great news. Appreciate what the mods at LGO have done - they have created a resource for the community and demonstrated good judgment and fairmindedness. Welcome aboard

BaroqueInMind, 10 months ago

I don't agree with what you did, but no one here stepped up to help you out (including any of us here) so I don't blame you.

HelixDab, 10 months ago

::shrug:: 'S all good. I'm a n00b, and I like pew pew pew. :)

I don't expect it to be an issue unless and until lots of people migrate here specifically from other places. (It's often said that youshould be the change you want to see in the world; I saw what was happening and wanted to help in some way by creating an option for people that didn't like a platform that was authoritarian.

And, since the fediverse allows people to create similar things across multiple instances (and still be viewable from any other instance that's federated with them), the ideal of liberals that are also gun owners isn't locked into a single place. You--and any other person!--can create an identically-named sublemmy/magazine/whatever, and moderate it the way that works best for you, and I 100% support that, because I know that I'm not an authority on anything.

Zaphodquixote, 10 months ago

Nothing wrong with that (though be aware the mods of 2aLiberals are not what they claim to be.)

But, also be aware that there's nothing mandating that reddit mods have a seat on a c/ or magazine solely because they moderated a place with the same name. We get a chance in the fediverse to build from the ground up, and not every mod from reddit is going to be up for the change.

cacheson, 10 months ago

You're not wrong, but there's something to be said for experience. I think the r/LGO mods do a pretty good job overall, and I'm glad to see them here.

HelixDab, 10 months ago

(though be aware the mods of 2aLiberals are not what they claim to be.)

As long as I don't feel like they are taking positions that are opposed to an individual right to keep and bear arms, and are at least left of center, I'm not going to worry too much about policing most specific opinions. (See sidebar about bigotry, etc.) If this particular magazine ends up growing significantly, I know that I won't have the time or technical ability to moderate effectively.

Unhappily_Coerced, 10 months ago

Interesting...

I joined this magazine (without reading the side bar, until now) thinking that "liberalism" refers to a political ideology that emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, emphasizing individual liberty, limited government intervention, and free markets. It is generally considered a right-leaning ideology due to its emphasis on limited government and individual freedom...

Little did I know, that's not at all what is being talked about in the side bar...

So, are "the mods of 2aLiberals not what they claim to be", or are the users or LiberalGunOwners now what they claim to be?

Isn't it quite contradictory to list the social movements that this magazine is in support of while also talking badly about fascism and authoritarianism? These movements often try to censor free speech, try to manipulate and coerce free speech (in favor of their personal feelings), and often physically attack people who disagree with them... That's fascism. The left, in the United States, often votes for policies that bring on more infringement, more limitations and regulations, more taxes... That's authoritarianism (NOT liberalism).

Am I completely off base here? Or have I stumbled upon some kind of mass identity crisis?

HelixDab, 10 months ago

My purpose was to give a space for people that are outside of the US political right--people that are not economically or socially conservative, people that don't want to exert coercive control over other people--a place to be comfortable discussing firearms, training, hunting, legislation, and so on.

The political term "liberalism" has evolved significantly in the 150 years or so since the term was coined; I'm using a definition that's far more commonly understood.

At this point, I think most people recognize that a left/right distinction in politics is insufficient. Left-right can refer to both social issues, or economic issues, but you also have a libertarian/authoritarian dimension. To put it in more concrete terms, fascists and Nazis both tend to be quite far right on social and economic issues, but also extremely authoritarian. Stalinists are far left on economic issues, tend to be more socially conservative, and are also extremely authoritarian. Libertarians, strictly speaking, are very anti-authoritarian, but can be either socialist or capitalist (libertarianism was originally a socialist political ideology, but was co-opted by the fringe right in the US in the 50s/60s). Anarchism is a socialist, anti-authoritarian political ideology.

In the US, gun politics tend to be dominated by voices that are on the political right; people that are socially and economically conservative and/or regressive. Many of the people that have the loudest pro-gun voices are also opposed to many other individual liberties, like the concept of bodily autonomy (e.g., abortion rights, legalization/decriminalization of drugs), sexual autonomy, freedom from religious coercion, etc. The left--people that broadly support things like real religious freedom, bodily autonomy, etc.--also tends to oppose gun rights.

Sorry for the disjointed response; I'm at work, and typing between other tasks.

BTW, being pro-LGBTQ+, BLM, and feminism is in-line with classical liberalism, as those movements all emphasize individual liberties for those groups, and those groups that have been traditionally denied liberties through gov't and social intervention.

Unhappily_Coerced, 10 months ago

Thank you for the further context regarding the rationale behind the magazine's focus. I appreciate the goal of creating a "safe space" to discuss firearms, though I don't agree with the nature of limiting other people's speech through strict moderation or bans... I think being open-minded and encouraging constructive discussion is more important than "safe spaces".

being pro-LGBTQ+, BLM, and feminism is in-line with classical liberalism, as those movements all emphasize individual liberties for those groups, and those groups that have been traditionally denied liberties through gov't and social intervention.

people that don't want to exert coercive control over other people

While I understand and agree that individual liberties are important, I have concerns about some means used to achieve those goals. For instance, there have been instances where legislation has been proposed that could limit or coerce free speech, such as through restrictions on dead naming and misgendering.

Additionally, certain social equity programs that, by their nature, can be seen as discriminatory, such as affirmative action or specific minority business development programs (Minority Business Enterprise, Women-Owned Small Business, Native American Business Development Programs, Section 3 Housing, etc.). TRUE equality does not discriminate based on race or gender. It's crucial to find a balance that promotes true equality while respecting individual liberties and avoiding unintended consequences (ie, the shifting role of a father in a family, being replaced instead by "Big Brother").

At this point, I think most people recognize that a left/right distinction in politics is insufficient. Left-right can refer to both social issues, or economic issues, but you also have a libertarian/authoritarian dimension.

This I also mostly agree with. However, I guess I am of the minority(?) opinion that modern liberalism has lost it's true values. I understand and agree that individual liberties are important, and marginalized groups need all the help they can get, BUT the point is, while saying what you've said here, how can the magazine's description blatantly say...

This is a magazine for people that identify as left-of-center

... while also recognizing that people can be in favor of policies and ideologies that come from various locations on the broad spectrum that is the political compass? Hell, the whole point of 2A in the United States is anti-authoritarian. Yet, "the left" continues to make it exceedingly more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire firearms, without realizing that criminals don't give a crap about their regulations and "gun-free" zoning...

Personally, I'd consider myself more right leaning, because I want 2A rights... Which, as time goes on, "the left" becomes more afraid of... I also value lower taxes, deregulation / free trade, school choice (free choice), non-socialist healthcare (more free choice), decentralization of power to local governments, and I don't believe that murder should be legalized (free choice, to use contraceptives)...

Overall, my point is that I am "Pro-LGBT, Pro-Equality-For-All, and Pro-Women's Equality / Rights"... But I also lean right... Because I recognize that without 2A, none of the aforementioned policies would be defensible.

HelixDab, 10 months ago

For instance, there have been instances where legislation has been proposed that could limit or coerce free speech, such as through restrictions on dead naming and misgendering.

I'm not familiar with those proposed laws off the top of my head. BUT, on the other hand, when you're working at a job, your employer can compel certain speech, and if you won't comply, you can be fired. If you're talking about legislation that compels e.g. teachers to call students by the pronouns that they use, then I don't see a problem with that, because it's regulating teachers in their capacity as employees of the state, not in their individual capacity. If a teacher doesn't want to do that, then they are absolutely free to seek employment at a private institution that isn't funded by the state. (...Which will then compel their speech in other ways, and perhaps in much more restrictive ways.)

Your religion may compel you to evangelize. But if you evangelize while you are acting in your capacity as a state employee, then you are violating separation of church and state. So prohibiting that speech while you are acting a representative for the state doesn't not harm your individual rights in a significant way.

TRUE equality does not discriminate based on race or gender

Sure. But we still see discrimination now. We're not at a point where people are treated equally in places they live, schools they go to, career choices, policing, etc. Acting as though certain demographics don't need more support in certain areas than other demographics do isn't going to get us there either; it's just going to widen the gap. If society truly treated people equally now, then you'd see highly competitive schools with demographics that roughly mirrored the population as a whole (..which you do, because they have intentionally worked towards diversity and inclusion, rather than looking solely at "merit").

(ie, the shifting role of a father in a family, being replaced instead by "Big Brother")

Why would shifting the role of father be bad? I'm not saying that the father should be replaced by the state, but why is a traditional father role better than a father that's a nurturing home maker, and a mother that's the primary provider? Or two fathers? Or two mothers? Or a blended family with two fathers and two mothers? Men benefit in all of those cases, because they have more options that can suit who they believe themselves to be, rather than what society expects of them. Men get to choose their role, rather than having one assigned to them.

Yet, "the left" continues to make it exceedingly more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire firearms

More specifically, Democratic lawmakers in general, yes. But not all people that tend to vote Democratic believe that; I vote democratic because I also strongly support abortions rights, LGBTQ+ rights, tax reform, major criminal justice/policing/rehabilitation reform, single-payer health care, etc. I'm not a single issue voter. But if more people that identify as Democratic get involved in shooting, we're more likely to see Democratic politicians start changing their stances. Having a place where people that are on the left can talk, and be supportive of gun rights while also supporting things that are more traditionally seen political left point should help, over time.

Personally, I'd consider myself more right leaning, because I want 2A rights...

That alone doesn't make you on the political right. The fastest growing demographic for new gun owners is black people, but black people overwhelming vote on the political left--or for Democratic candidates, at least--because the left has more to offer them. Gun ownership is part of a spectrum of issues that may help define where you are, but isn't the single determinant by itself. You say, for instance, that you're pro-LGBTQ, pro-women's equality (which is broadly consistent with 2nd wave feminism at a minimum), etc. These are things that the political right are generally opposed to; when DeSantis says that Florida is where woke goes to die, those are the things he's in opposition to. I don't think that it's a stretch to say that any of the current Republican presidential candidates (Trump, DeSantis, Pence, Haley, Scott, Ramaswamy, Christie, Hutchinson, Elder, or Burgum) are in favor of any LGBTQ rights, and all of them appear to want to significantly curtail the rights of transgender people. All of them were in favor of eliminating the reproductive choices of women.

I disagree with Democrats--which comprise the bulk of the US political left--on 2A issues.

without 2A, none of the aforementioned policies would be defensible.

Unironically, yes.

As my Appleseed instructor said, "git gud".

Unhappily_Coerced, 10 months ago

I'm not familiar with those proposed laws off the top of my head

Off the top of my head, California and Montana courts have had issues regarding this.

If you are an employee, yes, your speech can certainly be compelled, that is a freedom you give up and termination is a risk you take by becoming an employee and signing a legally binding contract. I don't see the counter argument you're trying to make here? You're comparing a voluntary contract (both employment and religious) to a non-voluntary infringement on rights through legislation...

But we still see discrimination now

And you always will. Regardless of how many laws are created to try and prevent it. If you're close with any Asian immigrants, just ask them how often Asians openly discriminate against each other. Thais don't like Burmese, the Burmese hate the Vietnamese and Cambodians, Cambodians hate the Thai, none of them get along with the Chinese, and basically all S.E. Asians think that the Japanese are deplorable, especially the older generations. It's not as bad as it used to be with current generations, but it's definitely still there. This can be said, in a more different fashion, for certain demographics of white people too.

Discrimination is evil, but you cannot legislate morality.

Why would shifting the role of father be bad?

You're taking my statement out of context. I don't care who is the sole provider for your household, if you can make it work in a non-traditional manner, more power to you. The point is that personal responsibility is dying and in its place we're giving more power and oversight to the state or the fed.

if more people that identify as Democratic get involved in shooting, we're more likely to see Democratic politicians start changing their stances.

I can only hope that this is true. I certainly lack faith in the sentiment. In my mind, protecting the right to bear arms comes first. Similarly, I can only hope that republicans become less theocratic over time and just lets people be themselves...

That alone doesn't make you on the political right.

I listed quite a few things that would make me right leaning. The outliers are those concerning fair and equal treatment for all races and genders.

black people overwhelming vote on the political left

Pretty sure this is one of those, "depends on who you ask" things... Conflicting "facts" are everywhere on the matter.

You say, for instance, that you're pro-LGBTQ, pro-women's equality

Our definitions likely are not be the same. I believe in equal accommodation, equal treatment, and equal expectations regarding contribution to society. The part that makes the whole situation a shit show is, what do they actually expect from society?

Does nobody believe that segregation based on gender is an acceptable distinction to make?

Do we need public restrooms for each letter in the LGBT alphabet? Because it certainly makes no sense when talking about kids for example... Why would anyone want boys and girls to share the same locker rooms? We separate them for various reasons... So how can one reasonably expect to put gay boys and straight boys in the same locker rooms when that violates the very reason why we separated to begin with?

That logic covers the first 3 letters of the alphabet very simply. Now we just need to double the locker rooms and restrooms. Easy.

But where do trans fall into this? Do we need one locker room or restroom for just the trans kids? Or do we need Hilbert's Paradox of the Infinite Restrooms to accommodate for the ever changing spectrum that encompasses the trans space?

eliminating the reproductive choices of women

That's another place where we conflict. I believe women do have "reproductive choice" already. Contraceptives are widely available and extremely affordable. Pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of having unprotected sex. Murdering defenseless, unborn babies is, in my mind, even worse than murdering someone who at least had a chance at defending themself. In cases where rape or incest is involved, I tend to swing back the other way because of the extremes of the circumstance.

I support everyone owning firearms. I'm glad you're trying to encourage lefties to get their guns before their politicians continue gun grabbing. But, I still believe it would be more logical to make a statement about inclusion while trying to avoid excluding people in the same sentence.

HelixDab, 10 months ago

An examination of abortion rights from the standpoint of philosophy. Yes, it's a thought exercise, but it's illustrative of the point.

The only moral abortion is my abortion

cacheson, 10 months ago

Yet, "the left" continues to make it exceedingly more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire firearms, without realizing that criminals don't give a crap about their regulations and "gun-free" zoning...

Do you understand the distinction between people on the left who are pro-gun, vs the rest of the left? The point of groups like this is to promote gun ownership and gun rights to those on the left. Doing that is a necessary prerequisite for breaking the stranglehold that gun controllers have on the Democratic party. Coming here and ranting about how bad the left is does not help.

Unhappily_Coerced, 10 months ago

I realize you aren't the mod I was talking to, so this isn't really directed at you, per se... But...

Wouldn't it make more sense to just make a statement about inclusiveness, instead of excluding your fellow country men?

What is the point of, for lack of a better term, virtue signalling, feeling inclined to identify as "left-of-center" when the left doesn't actually align with the goals that (maybe my assumption is misplaced of course), should be the focus of a "Gun Owners" / 2A magazine?

Regarding the sociopolitical spectrum, what is the point of excluding persons like myself who, on the political (exercise of power, governance) side, are right leaning, and on the socio (culture, customs, and relationships) side, left leaning?

cacheson, 10 months ago

If you want a general-audience gun magazine, there's already /m/Guns.

Internet gun forums mostly attract conservatives and libertarians, just because they're significantly more numerous than gun-owning liberals. Any gun forum that allows conservatives and libertarians is mostly going to consist of conservatives and libertarians.

For various psychological reasons, people tend to want to cluster together with those that are like-minded. A gun-curious liberal, upon meeting the denizens of a typical gun forum, is likely to nope out pretty quickly.

Because of this, if we want a forum populated by liberal gun owners that we're hoping will attract gun-curious liberals, we have to prohibit conservatives and libertarians from joining it. Or, at the very least, prohibit them from using it as a place to challenge liberals to debates.

HelixDab, 10 months ago

To add to this, certain popular gun forums--e.g., arfcom--will ban and have banned users that express such deeply controversial viewpoints like, "all people should have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation".

If you want to make guns and the ability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms feel accessible to people that are not already part of the overarching gun culture, you need to create spaces where they feel safe to participate.

And hey, I'm selfish. I like guns. The more people that are on the political left in the US (because that's where I live) that develop an interest in and participate in gun 'culture' in some way, the better the odds are that I'll get to keep my guns. :)