Who's more violent, liberals or gun owners?


PDA

twoblink
March 7, 2003, 06:15 AM
Who is more violent, liberals or gun owners? I ask this question because I (personally) find that most "anti-war" protestors are very violent; just as most liberals I know..

My friend, who is a liberal, she tells me it's because she has "pent up rage" that she "releases" sometime in maybe a not so healthy manner..

I guess 10 shots in the X-ring is what they need!

If you enjoyed reading about "Who's more violent, liberals or gun owners?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Khornet
March 7, 2003, 07:01 AM
I see more lip-curled, spitting rage in liberals than conservatives. Just as I see more racism, sexism, etc. in them.

As Peggy Noonan so eloquently pointed out this week, I'm a Republican for the same reasons my father was a Democrat. Or as Reagan used to say, "I din't leave the Democratic Party. THEY left ME."

Jim March
March 7, 2003, 07:14 AM
Whenever there are pro-gun and anti-gun demonstrators at the same place, police invariably have to control the grabbers. There's been cases of outright assault by grabbers. Some of the stories are just legendary, Andres Soto and his pet hand grenade come to mind :).

'Couple of years ago, the Second Amendment Sisters held a rally on one face of the California state capitol building, while the MMM were on another face. It wasn't US that went trotting through THEIR crowd spitting water at people and got run off by the CHP :fire:.

m.i.sanders
March 7, 2003, 07:34 AM
I'll have to agree as well. I know a few liberals, ( not too many around here :D ) and they're a lot more angry than us "angry white males", and a lot more intolorent as well.

twoblink
March 7, 2003, 07:35 AM
Jim, you know why they are so violent?? They have to be because they aren't armed!!

Quantrill
March 7, 2003, 07:38 AM
Could there possibly be any question???? Quantrill

rick458
March 7, 2003, 07:56 AM
I suppose that armed thugs crying about THE MAN'S brutallity fall on the liberal side of things right?

geekWithA.45
March 7, 2003, 08:47 AM
Fear of not being able to control themselves is a big, big part of Hoplophobia.

Case in point: Just last night, my wife and I where having one of those silly marital arguments that come up from time to time. We resolved it, on the way to the range.

The point? I absolutely trust my wife with a loaded handgun in my presence, even when PO'd. If I didn't I wouldn't have married her.

From the gun grabber mentality, they'd have imagined that the situation could have only resulted in bloodshed.

It just doesn't work that way.

mrsMTN
March 7, 2003, 09:48 AM
Their most frequent argument against guns is that the owner will just go off at any time and shoot everybody up. Apparently that's the way they see human nature. It's a normal reaction to them. And that's scary!

foghornl
March 7, 2003, 10:03 AM
Who are the ones throwing paint, crude oil, spitting on others???

PETA, Greenpeace, MMM's, and the current anti-war folks. I will resort to violence only when there is no other choice.

Any more questions?

10-Ring
March 7, 2003, 10:34 AM
I voted liberals. I find it funny that liberals label gun owners as "evil morons" and need to squelched whereas gun owners tend to see liberals as misguided or misinformed. Why are they never open to calm, civil debate? why must always end up a game of name calling?

pax
March 7, 2003, 10:56 AM
Which liberal? And which gun owner?

I know violent liberals, and I know perfectly nice liberals. Ditto gun owners.

Does anyone really think that some gang-banger holding up a liquor store with his Lorcin is "less violent" than any one of THR's liberals?

People are individuals.

pax

I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. -- Q, Star Trek

shermacman
March 7, 2003, 11:03 AM
I'll go one farther...The atrocities committed during the last century, Nazi, Fascist, Communist and Socialist are all Left wing political ideologies. The liberals are in love with governmental control. In order to establish a Workers' Paradise or a Communist Utopia a whole lot of people have to die. The Left wins the award for the greatest love affair with violence.

Elmer Snerd
March 7, 2003, 11:25 AM
This has been posted to THR before, but it is especially relevant to this thread:
http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm


http://www.tincher.to/mmm.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051101.shtml
http://www.gunowners.org/op0110.htm

Joe Demko
March 7, 2003, 11:42 AM
Yes, all that and I hear that liberals eat conservative babies, too. For a place that is called "The High Road" there has been a lot of nasty stereotyping going on the last couple days. See the thread about the Eiffel tower for another sad example.

BigG
March 7, 2003, 12:03 PM
The liberals will certainly kill you if they can get power over you. They are merely tyrants in disguise.

Kaylee
March 7, 2003, 12:05 PM
Certainly we are all individuals, and group identifications are dicey. does "gun owner" imply everyone that owns a gun, or only members of the "gun culture" that encompasses folks like those here at THR?

All that said.. my experience to date is that on average I've seem poorer impulse control on the left side of the spectrum.. the classic "ant and grasshopper" story.

Poor impulse control leads to all sorts of problems, from poor personal finances (leading to the impression "they don't pay me enough"), to yes, use of violence.

Poor impulse control is more easily tolerated within communities focusing on "its all The Other's fault" ... which I'd say describes a lot of activist lib circles. Conversely, poor impulse control within the "gun culture" tends to be weeded out, as it presents a clear, deadly danger to all present. Thus we may still have folks who'd blow their last house payment on more ammo.... but by and large... I'd agree that you'll find more personal responsibility, including and especially in the use of violence, within the civilian gun culture than just about anywhere else.

Precisely because the stakes are so high.

-K

Navy joe
March 7, 2003, 12:14 PM
On a grander scale, if a leftist U.S. president slings the military all over the globe with often no real sense of purpose it is called protecting human rights(unless you live in Rwanda...). If the current president has a plan and uses the U.S. military it is called bloodthirsty, oil hungry, powermad U.S. warmongering. The left controls the language of public discourse, so of course conservatives are more violent. On a real scale, I was happy to be there in '96 and '99 while we belatedly undid the Serbian mess. Just the same as I'd be happy to end up in the persian gulf tomorrow. To be fair, the rightists harangued Billy boy about starting another Vietnam in all of his adventures, much as Daschle does now, the only difference is that it was always a news sidebar, not the headline.

jmbg29
March 7, 2003, 12:28 PM
twoblink,

I don't know how to tell you this without breaking your heart or causing your mind to warp, but millions of liberals own guns.

If I absolutely had to face down somebody that insisted on resorting to violence, I would probably want to face a conservative. There would be a decent chance of the fight being honorable and serious. I fight well when things are serious.

If I had to fight a liberal, I don't think I would do quite as well. Trying to fight while watching them flail around doing some sort of over-the-top Hollyweird pantomime of a "real" fight, would cause me to fall over laughing, at which point they might actually be able to hurt me with their pointy little ninja boots.:D ;) :p


Edited to make "the", they. :o

bogie
March 7, 2003, 12:29 PM
Well, once I was told, back when we had the ballot issue going on here in Misery, by a well-meaning hoplophobe, that if he was in a restaurant, and he knew that someone was carrying a concealed weapon, he'd grab a steak knife and stab them before they could shoot anyone. He didn't seen a correlation between carrying for self defense, and carrying for intended violence. That, folks, is what we're up against.

Chipperman
March 7, 2003, 12:41 PM
"Just last night, my wife and I where having one of those silly marital arguments that come up from time to time. We resolved it, on the way to the range."

Who went down range to set up the targets?

:p

From my own personal life: My wife has stated several times that she does not want a gun, because she's afraid she would shoot me in a fit of rage. I bring out the best in people. :evil:

BerettaNut92
March 7, 2003, 12:45 PM
I think 'liberals' and 'gun owners' each have their own type of violence.

Liberals seem to be of the more emotional violence. I had someone tell me they'll shoot me if I shot a deer, but they don't believe in violence. She thinks shooting deer is wrong because it's killing, but fishes, because they're only fish.

The gun owners I know are violent in their own way. More of a cool and calculated violence. Usually directed towards blue helmets, 'JBT's and politicians.

I prefer to stay away from violent types no matter what race, religion or creed.

KMKeller
March 7, 2003, 12:46 PM
So the gist of this thread is that the reason that liberals are so vehemently opposed to private gun ownership is that they are patently afraid that one of us will fight back when they pull their eco-terrorist hooey.

CZ-75
March 7, 2003, 12:59 PM
I hear that liberals eat conservative babies, too.


Nah, they'd just let someone accused of that crime go, because they had a "troubled" childhood. :neener:

2dogs
March 7, 2003, 01:04 PM
Liberals, when confronted by logic and common sense, are fearsome creatures and it is best to let them be.

Much like the insane, if you question their delusions they become quite hostile.

:(

MicroBalrog
March 7, 2003, 02:37 PM
Hey, I'm a Democrat! :evil:
I support almost all of their stuff - except GCA - 68, NFA, FOPA, AWB, etc.:D :neener:

seeker_two
March 7, 2003, 06:10 PM
Definitely liberals...

After all, when you take away a person's dignity, self-determination, liberties, and personal possessions, they tend to behave violently & w/o any concern for their character or others.

Just look at the prison system...:what:

Standing Wolf
March 7, 2003, 08:47 PM
The nation's prisons are packed to the proverbial "rafters" with individuals who believe there's such a thing as a free lunch, and they're entitled to it.

Crimper-D
March 7, 2003, 09:53 PM
I've been around the company of Liberals for several generations.
My observations are that while they talk a good line of "Kumbiyah" and love to sound off in the comfort of their self-assumed superiority over the great 'unwashed' semi-literate Redneck Mainstream populace, they are stifeling a HUGE amount of RAGE:cuss: that comes out in interesting ways... their Driving habits come to mind immediately:neener: Their business dealings with one another and their approach to service employees - public or private are interesting to observe too.:mad:
Who's more likely to be in some form ot "Therapy" - a Liberal or a Gun Owner:confused: - Why?:scrutiny:
Who is more likely to Lie, Cheat or Steal?
Be Resposable?
:neener:

mack
March 7, 2003, 11:25 PM
Liberals - because they are always advocating using violence (govt.) to enforce their desires on others. Conservatives aren't immune to this either, but liberals seem more addicted to violence, (govt.).

By a large majority gun owners just want to be left the heck alone and by the same token seem to be more willing to leave others alone.

DakotaSig
March 7, 2003, 11:33 PM
Believe it or not, something similar has actually been studied!
Check out this article. Scholars often complicit... (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/bu-soc020503.php) :uhoh:

4570Rick
March 8, 2003, 06:36 AM
First, The question should be Liberal or Conservative. There are a lot of liberal gun owners. It is also not correct to say the whole group is as any one individual in that group. The debate should be;

As a whole, which group has the greater propensity to commit acts of violence?

This may not be the definitive question, but it is closer to being valid. It is also not a jab at liberals any more than saying people who drive high performance cars get more tickets and have more accidents. It’s just statistically true. Liberals, by their very nature, are more passionate. They are more prone towards activism. As such, they tend to be more apt to cross the line than the more rigid conservative.

So in response to the question, the answer is Liberals. As examples, I offer these;

1. Spikes driven into trees to cause damage to loggers and their equipment.
2. Red paint or blood thrown at those who wear fur.
3. Research facilities broken into, to release animals used in medical experiments.
4. Gay activists who assault the congregants of a church, which holds the homosexual act, a sin.
5. Ramming whaling ships to protest whaling.
6. Using smear tactics to try to get on-air radio talk show hosts fired for stands taken against “Liberal Positions.”
7. Blocking traffic during protests of war, animal abuse, World Trade Agreement meetings etc. These more often than not turn violent to some degree.
8. Using weapons in the commitment of crimes. (These criminals tend to blame, bad childhood, poverty, social pressures etc. The blame game tends to be more a liberal tool than a conservative one.)

This is not to say the above causes are right or wrong, nor is it an indictment of all liberals. It is simply the suggestion that, expressed as a per-capita percentage; the liberal is more likely than the conservative to act in a violent manor to given stimuli.



:)

Khornet
March 8, 2003, 10:12 AM
no offense to the Libs here, but I think a gun-owning liberal, while to be commended for his sense, is actually showing how liberalism is not really credible.

I refer to Liberalism in the modern sense, of course, not to classical liberalism, which is more like modern Conservatism. Liberals (modern sense) who own guns are acknowledging that liberlism is inherently mistaken, since liberlalism favors big gov't and disarming citizens; yet when it comes down to the personal level they decide to be armed. It's the OTHER guy who can't be trusted with guns. I don't care whether you own guns only for 'peaceful' purposes sucha as hunting or target shooting; if you as a liberal own them you contradict yourseslf.

Now I don't mean to accuse fellow THRers of hypocrisy; I realize that liberalism is a spectrum just as is conservatism. But I think there's no getting around the fact that gun control is the natural position of the liberals, organic to their politics, because to organize the Great Society requires control of the citizens. And armed citizens are hard to control.

So yes, jmbg29, there are millions of gun-owning liberals. But I think they own them because they aren't really as 'liberal' as they think. Which is fine by me, of course. The others, like Feinstein, who actually carry but want me disarmed...you can finish the sentence.

gryphon
March 8, 2003, 10:35 AM
Khornet, good point.

Some examples are the Hollywood actors/actresses who talk about gun control and banning firearms, yet have armed bodyguards.

Somone else also posted that they are a democrat and own a gun. While a lot of people, and at one time myself thought, that democrat and liberal are synonimous, they are not. You can be a democrat and not a liberal, although in the past few years, the extremist liberals have been taking over the democratic party, making it seem as if there is no distinction.

twoblink
March 8, 2003, 11:05 AM
Kaylee nailed it, what I meant was "impulse control". Also, I find that most that belong to the gun culture (generally what I mean by gun owners) to have more self-control..

jmbg29
March 8, 2003, 01:16 PM
So yes, jmbg29, there are millions of gun-owning liberals. But I think they own them because they aren't really as 'liberal' as they think. Which is fine by me, of course. The others, like Feinstein, who actually carry but want me disarmed...you can finish the sentence.You get no argument from me.

I have always maintained that the libs that own firearms are hypocrites. Many people make the mistake of giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think that I ever have. I learned at the knees of relatives wounded in combat to "never underestimate your enemies".

Take my sig line for example. It's from MM the Jabba the Hutt of all things liberal. See what he reveals about himself in it. He knows that his most deeply held political beliefs are a sham, based on a lie, wrapped in propaganda, and yet he shamelessly goes on to pimp his filth anyway, because he knows that the sheeple will line up around the block to buy it.Somone else also posted that they are a democrat and own a gun. While a lot of people, and at one time myself thought, that democrat and liberal are synonimous, they are not. You can be a democrat and not a liberal, although in the past few years, the extremist liberals have been taking over the democratic party, making it seem as if there is no distinction.It has been a difference without a distinction for at least the 40 years that I have been on this planet. We live in a country with a government that does now, and will continue to (in the forseeable future) operate on a two party system. Being a conservative Demorat is little different from being a wheelman.

The radical left runs into the country, guns down some of the citizens (while holding the rest at gunpoint), steals all the money, and all the conservative Demorat did was drive them there, and wait patiently with the engine running so they could get away with it.

THANKS! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

BerettaNut92
March 8, 2003, 01:31 PM
Kaylee nailed it, what I meant was "impulse control". Also, I find that most that belong to the gun culture (generally what I mean by gun owners) to have more self-control..

Impulse control? I don't know, seeing all those 'Look what just followed me home today!' posts ;)

Sven
March 8, 2003, 06:55 PM
How about some threads about how to remedy the situation, versus spewing rants about how bad the other side is?

rick458
March 8, 2003, 07:15 PM
Mass medication seems to be an option
anger management does not seem to work very well
(IE Cleibold and Harris):banghead:

trapshooter
March 8, 2003, 08:36 PM
If, by 'liberal ', we mean anti-rights, elitist, whining peta/greenpeace/feinswine/hitlery type a-holes, then yes, they are certainly far more violent and vile than the vast majority of gun-owning types I have met or had discourse with.

jmbg29
March 8, 2003, 10:32 PM
How about some threads about how to remedy the situation, versus spewing rants about how bad the other side is?How about some concrete examples of what you mean. I'll see if I have tried your ideas before, and let you know what I think.

I once heard a liberal celebrity (Gene Simmons of KISS of all people) say that liberals and conservatives are both willing to use force to preserve life. He said that they merely differ on when to drop the hammer. I submit that he is correct, but that he left out a vital point. Liberals are only willing to drop the hammer themselves after it is far too late. I submit - as evidence to back my theory - that Mr. Simmons' entire family on his mother's side was wiped from the face of the Earth by the :cuss: NAZIS! Because Mr. Simmons liberal family members were unwilling to use violence that by any reasonable measure, was just! Unfortunately, brave conservative men like my Uncle Frank didn't get to the death camps soon enough to save Mr. Simmons' family members.

But don't think for a minute that I don't thank God nearly every day that he did in time to save others who were more fortunate. And don't think for a moment more that it doesn't make me feel sick inside that many of the children of those saved have joined with hundreds of millions of other sheeple that just don't "get it".

I've tried for 30 plus years to talk sense into people, but quite frankly, I find that people that consider fundamentals - like self-defense - to be anathema; to be utterly unreachable.

Sorry if my endless frustration offends your sensibilities, but the bottom line is this: their hatred of the self in favor of the imaginary "safety" of the collective, enrages me in that their votes place restrictions upon MY ability to keep me and mine safe.

Marshall
March 9, 2003, 01:45 AM
Gee, wonder how this poll will turn out? ROFLMAO


Gun forum: Who's more violent, we conservative, level headed, self controlled, background checked gun owners? Or, the liberal, irrational, out of control, no background checked anti's? HAHAHAHA Uhhhhh, they are??




http://members.aol.com/OUSoonerOne1/images/smiley%20blob%20jump%20blue.gif Did I get it right, huh huh huh tell me tell me?



:neener:

Jim March
March 9, 2003, 04:58 AM
The term "Liberal" is too much of a catch-all.

First problem: as of 40/50 years ago, the main group agitating for serious racial equality were "Liberals" and unfortunately carried all sorts of other "socialistic baggage". (NOT all of 'em, CORE is a classic example otherwise.) I don't believe MLKJr was himself a communist but he had some commie allies. The whole "left-wing movement" gained "moral credibility" from those times and is still "feeding off it".

In terms of race relations, *I* am a "liberal".

The rest of the Liberal package:

* "Since the gov't managed to fix race relations, they should fix everything else". :barf:.

* "Social Justice", using gov't spending to "make sure nobody gets left behind". They can't see that they sponsor a "culture of theft and helplessness".

* Once you get to thinking that "wealth is evil", it's a short jump to "the US is evil", which explains Democrat foreign policy :scrutiny:.

What's puzzling is that gun control per se really doesn't *fit* into all this! Think about it a bit. The only real connection is that personal arms can stop a progression to a fully totalitarian FORM of socialism way out past where we're at now, hell, past where Western Europe mostly is.

So the question is, how many of the current Democrats REALLY, secretly, want to take us towards a Stalinist/Maoist future? I can think of a few: Hillary is that rotten, Willie Brown, DiFi, maybe a dozen others. But, call me an optimist, I really don't think there's all that much support for that sort of thing. Maybe impossible to say. In the *UN*, good GOD there's one hell of a lot of Stalin wanna-bes.

I have a sneaking suspicion two other things are going on, completely outside the "Liberal problem":

1) Academia is full of complete morons with no "street sense" whatsoever. "Useful idiots" for other, more dangerous types.

2) Dig deep enough, and I think you'll find people way the hell up there in gov't who believe that the US prevailing wages are too high to make the US competitive in the world economy. Therefore, a series of sustained economic recessions or even depressions will be needed to get us "back in balance", reducing the value of the US labor pool. If I'm right, they'll try and do it with a "soft landing" at the bottom, to an economy where most people own bicycles instead of cars and live six to an apartment instead of four to a ranch house. That's going to cause upheaval, possibly riots, social tensions, crime, and they think private guns will either make it worse or allow for a major social change before the "downgrade" is finished.

Now, the mysterious "they" might even be right about the need to "soft land" the economy. More likely, they're not factoring in the "new wealth" potentially available from space, hardcore genetics, biotech, nanotech, etc. I believe the human race can actually get past the coming problems but it'll be one very weird world when we're done :). Cool. "High tech weird" is better than "planet Calcutta slum".

But whatever happens: we can't let the totalitarians take over. We *know* where that can go. :scrutiny:

We'll keep our guns.

jmbg29
March 9, 2003, 06:10 AM
What's puzzling is that gun control per se really doesn't *fit* into all this! Think about it a bit. The only real connection is that personal arms can stop a progression to a fully totalitarian FORM of socialism way out past where we're at now, hell, past where Western Europe mostly is.I have thought about it... a lot.

You are missing the whole point. Liberalism is about liberals (especially their dream of a benevolent dictator) telling you, and every one else, that you are incompetent to handle your own affairs.

It's been said a million times, but here it goes again...It's not about guns, it's about CONTROL!!!!

They figure out how much of your money you get to keep.

They figure out what you get to own/not own.

They get to assign you what your race/ethnicity is e.g. Judge Estrada. Normally libs would squeal like squished cats that Estrada must get the job because not enough members of "la raza" sit on the federal bench. They get to determine what constitutes a "latino".

etc, etc., etc.... :barf:

Hal
March 9, 2003, 10:06 AM
So what is the first thing he would do to decrease violent behavior?

Quick answer (Spike Lee). "We've got to dismantle the NRA."
And what to do with Charlton Heston?
"Shoot him - with a .44-caliber bulldog," he (Spike Lee) says with a laugh.
Fairly typical Liberal attitude.

Oh, and about the broad brush.

Next election cycle,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,















see which convention has the most violent outbreaks.

(Hint: DNC) :D

twoblink
March 9, 2003, 11:07 AM
There is also the stupidity part;

They protest and become violent at an NRA rally?? So you can't say they are all that smart..

Solutions?

First, we have to win back the schools, I think this is the start. Look at the colleges and the professors and what they spew. We educate one by one, they brainwash in masses.. We pay to take someone shooting; they have to students pay tuition to bet brainwashed.

jimbo
March 9, 2003, 02:29 PM
Liberals and Conservatives both have their violent fringe of extremists. To say the one is more violent than the other is to paint with too broad a brush. The fact is that most gun-owners are like most people, which is to say non-violent unless severely provoked or threatened.

But I agree with your point that many of these war-protesters come from the violent liberal fringe.

12.7x99mm
March 9, 2003, 02:57 PM
I’ve been to many, support out troops rallies in my area and all the cops there were saying they had nothing to do.

Everyone was happy and polite and I bet 50% of the supporters were armed. (classic example of a armed society is a polite society) Lots of really nice people and families and real decent Americans. Another thing I noticed is that all the streets were cleaned up after they left. They didn’t leave a mess behind.

Now go to liberal rally against the war/president and see what happens. Take a look at the attitudes, shouting and possible violence and take a look at the streets after there done. It’s a mess.

Sean Smith
March 9, 2003, 04:35 PM
I find it interesting how 19th century liberals' brains would explode if they found out what is considered "liberal" now. ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Who's more violent, liberals or gun owners?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!