Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
September 26, 2011
Image Size
52.3 KB
Resolution
139×62
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,442
Favourites
30 (who?)
Comments
385
Downloads
26

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×
Gun Loving Liberal by AtheosEmanon Gun Loving Liberal by AtheosEmanon
If you check this out, also check this out:
Liberals & Gun Ownership: [link]

As someone who definitely has left of center political leanings. I consider myself a liberal, democratic socialist [NOT A DEMOCRAT], and a progressive we always get smeared as being anti-gun.

I always laugh at this claim; I mean it was the great Republican God Reagan who signed the Mulford Act which prohibited the carrying of loaded firearms in public when he was governor of California. Reagan also supported the Brady Bill signed by Bill Clinton which implemented background checks for those buying firearms.

It was George H.W. Bush who banned the import of assault weapons.

It was conservative Republican Giuliani who when Mayor of NYC filed a lawsuit against over two dozen gun manufacturers.

Another Republican, George Pataki who signed a law that was said to be one of the nation’s strictest gun control laws.

Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control
by Richard Poe
[link]

Former President George W. Bush also has made past statements of strict gun control and tracking.

George W. Bush on Gun Control
[link]




I can only speak for me, but when it comes to guns I pretty much only have two prerequisites or disqualifiers.
1 – That the person must be mentally stable to own a gun
2 – They have no violent felonies, or any history of child abuse


For [2] of the background check, there have been several companies finding alternatives to the three day waiting period which is more like a computer system where they input your name, DOB and some other information and it runs a background check in just a few mins so the person can go on their way.

I support this program and it is gaining support among many conservatives as well who have no problem with a quick background check as a better alternative to the three day waiting period while a background check is performed.

As previously stated my political leans are center left, and as a liberal, progressive, democratic socialist we are often smeared as being anti-gun laws. There is a difference between being anti-gun and being for responsible gun ownership such as background checks and mentally stable.

One of my favorite quotes written by an evil *sarcasm* democratic socialist is
The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms… You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man.
-Eugene V. Debs


Goes back to my cave to walk around in my evil leftist liberal, progressive, democratic socialist, pragmatist brain..

Good day..
Add a Comment:
 
:iconstevecali90:
stevecali90 Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Progressive guy myself, but have been fascinated with guns (and weaponry in general!) for a long time.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Meas well, I am a great shot, have about a 84% accuracy with throwing daggers [72% if target is moving at moderate speed] ... am about 70-80% accurate with a Bow but only around 60-70% if the target is moving at moderate speed, stick fighting, also training in sword fighting .. which goes with my life philosophy of everything, everyone should know how to do to which I sum it up as 3F-H-S

3F- - Fish, Farm [agriculture], fight but in fighting I am referring to hand to hand combat, guns, throwing objects accurately, throwing knives to make sure when it reaches your target the blade is towards them.. stick fighting, utilizing nature and any surrounding objects to your advantage.. the H stands for Hunting and the S .. most important stands for survive
Reply
:iconduke-nidhoggr:
Duke-Nidhoggr Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It's funny, I'm sort of the opposite of this. 
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
That is of course well and good; every man, or woman is entitled to his or her views on an issue.
Reply
:iconduke-nidhoggr:
Duke-Nidhoggr Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Yes, and I respect yours too. I think it's important to have people who disagree within their own political beliefs.  
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
:thumbsup: that it is
Reply
:iconhooded-wanderer:
hooded-wanderer Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Student General Artist
Funny thing about gun control; a few decades back it was conservatives and the NRA who championed gun control, to keep the guns out of communist sympathizers and blacks because of the whole civil rights thing lol. 
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Well not just communist sympathizers, but more leftist groups in general even if they were not "communist sympathizers", and yes, groups like the Black Panthers ... the NRA supported such and now when questioned about it they state that it is somehow untrue.. With such, I also love how the NRA says the founding fathers would never restrict gun ownership.. when the founding fathers did restrict gun ownership to men who would not swear loyalty to the revolution and who were loyal to King George III
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
:iconsuffer360: would love this
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
lmao, I was going to say link him to it but it seems he has seen it already haha
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I think that's because I mentioned him
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Ah, I did not know Deviantart worked like facebook. Like when you mention someone it tells them. That is cool.
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah. It's a very useful technique when you want to grab someone's attention without actually talking to them. It can even bypass blockings.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
lmao, ah, I had no idea. I will have to remember that when I wish for someone to comment on a certain piece.. now to think of something else to post ..or something new for my gallery
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
All you need to do is say the name of the person and start it with :icon an then end the name with another :
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
No, I know how to link to a page.. just before it did not alert them like facebook does.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconsuffer360:
Suffer360 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2014
I'm sure he would.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
:thumbsup:
Reply
:iconfuzz3knavel:
fuzz3Knavel Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I love guns and I'm a liberal too. :D
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I wish more liberals were.
Reply
:iconfuzz3knavel:
fuzz3Knavel Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah, but not all of them are like that.

Reminds me of something I saw on The Newsroom about how Obama is pretty much, the best friend the NRA has had in years, yet they keep saying he's doing the opposite with guns, why?

Control and fear. The NRA has a monopoly on the gun industry, if something happens politically, they panic, or rejoice, and the gun owners react.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Gun sales have went up each and every year under Obama..and Obama and Dems have not done much of anything to make fundamental changes to the gun laws. I admit that I am against gun and ammo bans, and when it comes to Dems who often call for Assault Weapons bans.. I would be against them - - I am for universal background checks and stronger mental health system...

But, the NRA is not even listening to their own members, they are listening to the gun groups who they basically lobby for
Reply
:icon1980goldclick:
1980goldclick Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013
You are VERY smart and knowledgeable indeed.:) (Smile) 
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Thank you, sir.
Reply
:iconairmanduke:
AirmanDuke Featured By Owner May 2, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
You earned yourself a hug from this Libertarian.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner May 2, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
:thumbsup: much obliged, good sir.
Reply
:iconteh-lucario:
Teh-Lucario Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I personalty don't want to ban all guns, just want some regulation.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I am okay with background checks and stronger mental health system but against gun bans
Reply
:iconteh-lucario:
Teh-Lucario Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Same, though I don't see the need to own an RPG...
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
neither do I since it is not a firearm and has no practical purpose
Reply
:iconlolitheleopard:
LolitheLeopard Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I think religion is more dangerous than guns...
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I would agree with you, more have been killed in the name of religion throughout history then just because someone had a gun.
Reply
:iconteh-lucario:
Teh-Lucario Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I also agree. That's one of the reasons I don't trust organized religeon.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I agree
Reply
:iconnyanpuppy:
NyanPuppy Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
A Liberal who doesn't want to ban our guns? WHAT DARK SORCERY IS THIS?
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
The bulk of liberals that I have heard have never spoken of banning guns in general. While I do not think military grade weapons such as the minigun which can fire 2,000-6,000 rounds per minute need be available for the general public, I am not opposed to gun ownership. Quite the opposite, I think everyone, if they wish, should check out local laws and find local ranges and if they wish to, buy a gun and get proficient in its use.
Reply
:iconnyanpuppy:
NyanPuppy Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Ahaha, my comment was merely a joke, I do believe that there are Democratic people that are against a weapon ban. The thing is though, in the second amendment, it says this; "This shall not be infringed" meaning that no gun should be banned. So, enforcing good Gun Laws like have an ID and prove you're mentally stable to carry a firearm, those are GOOD laws. Banning weaponry is just a road to Big Government and crime.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Well sir, I am no Democrat, to speak to their wants.

The constitution also states that it is up to congress and the supreme court to interpret the laws and whether or not something is constitutional.

The supreme court has stated that a banning of guns in general would be unconstitutional. but it is not unconstitutional to ban certain guns, and yet still leave the right for the people to bear arms in tact.

The supreme court does not agree with you on the terms of banning military grade weapons is a "bad law", saying citizens can have shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, semi-automatic weapons still has the citizens bearing arms, yet the Supreme Court utilizes the General Welfare Clause when making this decision. Looks at the country and its citizenry as a whole, and the safety of the people or the general welfare.

Though speaking of the founding fathers, if we are to be honest, sir - during the times of our founding fathers all they had were one shot pistols, and one shot muskets.. If these are the weapons we were speaking of where you shot one shot and then had to reload I do not think anyone would care - - as well as we did not have a standing army, we had a militia, we do not utilize militias for national defense any longer, so it made sense at the time for the average citizen to have "any weapons" because they were the first line of defense against a national threat - today, as the supreme court has spoken to, we have a military for that.

But fast forwarding, the big next weapon jump used in battle was the gatling gun, which was used during the civil war, which shot several hundred rounds per minute.... so such a gun then that our founding fathers could not even fathom.

Fast forward to today, where you have miniguns, that can shoot 2,000-6,000 rounds per minute with accuracy, also a gun that our founders could not fathom.

One, such as you or I, can only form an opinion, what possible restrictions there may have been by our founding fathers if
-We had a standing military thus the average citizen was not used for national protection
-We had guns that could shoot up to 6,000 rounds per minute before needing to reload vs the one shot and then reload weapons that they had.

I have heard the argument sir, that banning weapons is the road to big government, yet banning military grade weapons has not been shown to increase crime, where you have strict gun laws that make it hard for a person to own any gun is where one can make the argument but saying that [where there is no evidence for] that banning military grade weapons increases crime...

The average person can still have pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles and semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15... there is no limit on the amount of guns nor ammo one can have within reason, thus this weaponry, if one is proficient is more than enough for personal, family and property protection.


You have some who say, IT IS TYRANNY IF WE CANNOT HAVE MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS!!!!! - - That is not a view I share, but everyone is entitled to their own view.

Then you have another view, which you may or may not agree with, that takes it pass firearms, and wants "any" weapon the military can have, one woman that I was debating before said, since the government - - military - can have nuclear weapons that we should be able to to.

While I do not know if you share this view, you would forgive my worry of what need does the average person need with nuclear weapons, then you have to weigh that vs the general welfare of the radiation poisoning just from being around it if not properly maintained, and if such a bit of the chemicals gets into a water supply, can kill an entire city within a matter of days - so I fear this idea that it is tyrannical if we cannot get any and all weapons that our military has. - just as I worry what need would the average citizen need with a minigun which can weigh between 47-85 lbs, that can fire 2,000-6,000 rounds per minute.. surely not for home safety, if someone breaks in your home, you are more likely to grab a shotgun, the assault rifle, pistol.. not a gun that you have to lug ...

I apologize for being long-winded, I tend to debate this quite often of.. if you ban any weapon for the average person then it is big government and crime, which "any" is without merit, saying making it harder to get legal weapons may show higher crime rates, is an argument I can understand, but saying if you do not allow us any and all guns under the sun then that is big government and tyranny is an argument that I have never gotten.
Reply
:iconnyanpuppy:
NyanPuppy Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Well, there's a difference, Nukes would be considered bombs, not firearms. And Miniguns are for people with Giant wallets, and have time for a shitton of paper work. Same goes for any Automatic Weapon. And no, disarming citizens leads to Tyranny, let's say this were Russia, okay? So Stalin disarms Farmers... And then he rounds us up to murder us. You must be thinking "Well, that's a commy country" but truth is, it could happen to any country. Just that you don't see it happen to a democracy that often.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
As I said, that specific woman thought that if the military had it that we should be able to as well. She thought since the founding fathers could not fathom those weapons that IF they could at the time they would have allowed for the average citizen to have such - it is a very persuasive argument if we are utilizing a militia for the first line of defense, and did not have a standing military nor department of intelligence to gather information, and the like ... as we do today.

It is a bit of a false comparison sir, though I admit I find some hilarity when people go straight to Stalin or Hitler. When these two man did it they banned all weapons not just military grade weapons [though the average soldier walked around with a pistol or revolver at the time...] If you look at today, and sir, I ask that we be honest of the terms, Pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, semi-autos are, were still, and will still be allowed for ownership after the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, they would have still been allowed when those Republicans in 2008 wanted to reinstate the assault weapons ban [H.R. 6257], and with the discussion now..

So it is nothing like Stalin, sir, I would have hoped that the gun debate has passed the stage where we keep using Stalin and comparing apples to oranges.

" So Stalin disarms Farmers... And then he rounds us up to murder us."
Well sir, I can assure you that
1- Stalin is long since dead thus shall not be passing any more orders in Russia, of which I hold lineage there - I had family that were members of the Stalin Army, and many others who were killed by Stalin's purges.
2- You and I have not been, nor will we be rounded up by Stalin... who is dead and never rounded anyone up personally.

It has nothing to do with it being a "communist country" or a Fascist one, it has to do with the leaders and their views, and what they would have done. I am a student of history sir, as well as am well versed in guns and gun politics.

I would like realistic comparisons rather than the Stalin ones.

As stated, as the constitution stated, they left it up to congress and the supreme court to determine whether or not something is constitutional, the SCOTUS has stated that a ban on all guns would be unconstitutional as the people would not be able to bear arms, yet that a regulation and civilian ban on military grade weapons for the average person which they applied to the general welfare clause of the constitution in saying was not unconstitutional in its inception.

I reiterate a point that revolvers, pistols, shotguns, rifles, semi auto assault rifles will all still be legal and if used with experience will stop an intruder, protect your home, family, and home.. one of my favorite quotes on guns, was written by a socialist, Eugene V. Debs.
“The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms… You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man.”
-Eugene V. Debs


Now, it says you have the right to own guns, which is true, no one has ever denied we have a right to own guns, but as just as there is limitations to the first amendment [no yelling fire in a crowded theater is the often cited one] the Supreme court has said that there can also be limits without violating of the second amendment when looking at the amendment from a modern standpoint and speaking of weapons that our founders could not even fathom.

I can assure sir, that as per your journal on your page that I am not stupid. I am well versed in the matters at hand, and am well versed in their history and their usage of terms... though I am a bit surprised that you blame liberals and big government for it, Was it not, sir. Ronald Reagan that advocated and signed the Mulford Act which banned the carry of guns in public when he was governor? Was it not George Bush 41 who advocated for the stopping of imports of assault weapons when he was president... I do not see this as a liberal, or conservative problem, sir. I see this as a national issue that should be addressed.

I am sure you and I could come up with sensible regulations, such as perhaps a background checks, even most NRA members say people should get a background check before owning guns yet 40% of guns according to the ATF in a 2010 study, are bought without background checks..
Reply
:iconnyanpuppy:
NyanPuppy Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Look, don't mean to be an ass, but I'm not gonna read all that.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
To each their own, good evening, sir.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconneoninja2:
Neoninja2 Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2012
I love you
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
:thumbsup:
Reply
:iconheartsneverbreak:
HeartsNeverBreak Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012
For number two, do you mean that they were the child abusers or that they were the ones being abused?
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
That they have been convicted of abusing a child.

But of course even that depends on the exact charge.. some people are charged and convicted of statutory rape...if they happen to be 2-3 years older.. I do not think that should stop them from getting a firearm where they forced no one and that was not actually "rape" or forcible sexual act.

...I expect if we ever looked at the laws, congress may have other prerequisites... but.. such is life.
Reply
:iconheartsneverbreak:
HeartsNeverBreak Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012
Yeah, I can agree with that, even though I don't agree with number one on your list unless they've done something violent towards another person. I guess I'm very liberal, but I don't see why liberals aren't against gun control, I feel like it goes along with the same mentality as: if you don't want to be gay, don't be gay, if you don't like abortion don't get one, if you don't want guns don't buy one, ect. It just flows.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
... if you need meds to maintain yourself and you have no history of outbursts then you would be allowed to. But there are some people that if they miss one or two doses of their meds can spiral down quickly within a matter of days... having a house full of guns in this situation is something I would rather not take the chance with.

I am not speaking of mild mental people, I am speaking of those cases that you need some daily med and if you forget to take it you can harm yourself or others.

I see nothing where liberals are against gun control [yes, I know you said aren't] where I See liberals differ from conservatives is one, usually on the right have spoken against background checks because the government should not infringe at all... I always laugh at that argument which was written when all you had was rifles and pistols... you did not have guns that could fire 100 rounds a minute.... nor silencers to cover up you from being caught etc .. while the other side merely does not want to hand them out like candy.
Reply
:iconheartsneverbreak:
HeartsNeverBreak Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012
Yeah, I can definitely see some cases where an unstable person prone to violent outbursts shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. But at the same time, I have a problem with the modern state of psychology/psychiatry in general. Nowadays very many people take that type of medicine daily and in my opinion the line is very blurred over who needs it and who doesn't. But I suppose that's a whole other debate.

Yeah, I agree that it's not that black and white. Mostly I just feel that if I was in danger I would want the right to be able to get a gun and not have to wait forever to get it.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Each state has their own tests to say what is and what is mentally stable, the mere act of taking a daily dose does not factor in much to mental stability, the particular strength and dosage of the drug is the most determining factors...along with their side-effects etc. I doubt there are many people taking psychotic meds for the fun of taking them, then there are those who simply do with their doctor says, to which I would always advocate for a second opinion, but as you say that perhaps is another discussion.

...well the general waiting period for the background check is only 3 days... I Do not think a 3 day waiting period is too much.. but some think there should be no waiting period and .. as stated, no background checks, mental stability tests etc.
Reply
Add a Comment: