What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?

RealGun

February 4, 2006, 07:27 AM

cracked butt

February 4, 2006, 07:37 AM

What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?

Delusional.

Manedwolf

February 4, 2006, 09:22 AM

I see Mr V. And Kodiaz describe themselves as pro-gun liberal, and I wonder what they mean, betting that it is far from simple. It might also be misplaced, even schizophrenic. I would think one would need to do more than enjoy guns and want to ward off laws that interfere with that enjoyment.

It also has to be more than rejecting pro-life and Judeo-Christian theocracy or more than the rich versus the poor, the haves and have nots.

I think labels, especially when applied to oneself, make one accountable for the beliefs and actions of others who claim those labels. Liberals are notoriously anti-gun, so I don't get what pro-gun liberal means and bet there would be a better label.

Nope. You can be pro-gun and liberal, because LIBERAL...think about it. What does the word mean?

According to Webster's: Liberal

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

The word has been hijacked just as "conservative" has been hijacked by spend-like-drunken-sailors ballooning-bigger-government sorts.

You're looking for LEFTISTS...which promote a delusional brand of oppression that any real "liberal" hates, too. See, someone who went by the textbook definition of "liberal" would hate gun laws, seeing that they keep a tool of freedom out of the hands of the general population, and only allow authoritarian figures to have them.

Liberals are not leftists. Blissninnys, gungrabbers, Hollywood sorts who call for gun control (despite having armed bodyguards), Sarah Brady...those are all leftists, instead.

TarpleyG

February 4, 2006, 09:46 AM

You can't put a label on me but some can try. In their eyes I am very conservative in some beliefs, very liberal in others, and a very balanced moderate in most. I am neither Republican, Democrat, nor Libertarian if you opt to compare to political party lines. I think a lot of us here are like that, IMHO.

Greg

Third_Rail

February 4, 2006, 09:54 AM

TarpleyG, you mean... free thinkers? :D

SIOP

February 4, 2006, 10:17 AM

It means the same thing as "compassionate conservative."

Silver Bullet

February 4, 2006, 10:19 AM

I agree with what Manedwolf said. There are a lot of "leftists" labeling themselves as (classic) liberals when in fact they are anything but. I think it would be perfectly natural for a classic liberal to be pro-gun.

I also agree with what TarpleyG said, and I would extrapolate from it to point out that even a real leftist might be pro-gun. Most folks don't fit entirely within a mainstream political stereotype. There would be nothing hypocritical or "schizophrenic" to agree with most but not all points typically associated with a particular political entity.

From an RKBA standpoint (wearing blinders to every other issue), I welcome both the pro-gun liberal and the pro-gun leftist; the more votes and influence we have the better.

benEzra

February 4, 2006, 10:20 AM

I think labels, especially when applied to oneself, make one accountable for the beliefs and actions of others who claim those labels. Liberals are notoriously anti-gun, so I don't get what pro-gun liberal means and bet there would be a better label.
You're conflating liberalism with some of the authoritarian philosophies that have permeated the Democratic Leadership Council in recent years.

Bill Clinton was not particularly liberal; he was a self-avowed centrist communitarian. Google the Communitarian Manifesto to see what I mean (scary stuff). Gun-grabbers come from all over the political spectrum. Sarah Brady is a Republican, you knew that, right?

Barbara Boxer is an example of a left-wing communitarian; William J. Bennett is an example of a right-wing communitarian. Both are anti-gun. Then there are left-wing libertarians (many Pink Pistols might fall into that category, and most gun-owning liberals), centrist libertarians, and right-wing libertarians.

The political spectrum isn't a line; it's more like a two-dimensional graph with one's social views on the left-right spectrum (X axis) and one's views on libertarianism vs. authoritarianism on the Y axis. Support for gun ownership is correlated with the libertarian zone on the graph, not one's position on the left-right spectrum.

Silver Bullet

February 4, 2006, 10:22 AM

The political spectrum isn't a line; it's more like a two-dimensional graph with one's social views on the left-right spectrum (X axis) and one's views on libertarianism vs. authoritarianism on the Y axis. Support for gun ownership is correlated with the libertarian zone on the graph, not one's position on the left-right spectrum.
I might add a third dimension to include economic structure (e.g., capitalism vs. communism).

boofus

February 4, 2006, 10:28 AM

You can be a pro-gun liberal, like Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry. But you can't be a pro-gun socialist.

The left is overwhelmingly socialist or marxist.

RealGun

February 4, 2006, 10:29 AM

MrTuffPaws

February 4, 2006, 10:30 AM

Considering the political climate, anyone that is pro-gun should be considered liberal.

Kodiaz

February 4, 2006, 10:53 AM

What I mean by pro gun liberal.

1. I couldn't care less how many abortions there are.

But if someone says you can't have an abortion then that same someone will say you can't do something else. Conservatives want to tell people what to do.

2. I like being outdoors so I absolutely hate pollution. I am a tree hugger.

Conservatives haven't met a polluter they didn't love. Let's cut down every tree in this national park and cover it with roads.

3. I want the govt. to leave me alone. The only way that will happen is if govt. is as small as possible.

Show me when the self proclaimed conservatives have shrunken govt.

4. I want corporations to leave me alone as well.

Conservatives want corporations to have more rights and freedom than people. Why I don't know.

GoRon

February 4, 2006, 11:15 AM

2. I like being outdoors so I absolutely hate pollution. I am a tree hugger.

Conservatives haven't met a polluter they didn't love. Let's cut down every tree in this national park and cover it with roads.

3. I want the govt. to leave me alone. The only way that will happen is if govt. is as small as possible.

Show me when the self proclaimed conservatives have shrunken govt.

And here lies a typical logical disconnect in modern American liberalism.
2 & 3 are direct contradictions.
4. I want corporations to leave me alone as well.

Except that they must be required to provide health insurance, a living wage and maternity leave right?
1. I couldn't care less how many abortions there are.

But if someone says you can't have an abortion then that same someone will say you can't do something else. Conservatives want to tell people what to do.
Then why would you care if the people put reasonable restrictions on it that reflect the legal and moral climate?

You haven't defined anything except what you aren't. A conservative.

Kodiaz

February 4, 2006, 11:27 AM

Well if a corporation doesn't provide a living wage then I would just have to find some other way of making a living then?

If they don't offer medical I'll have to pay for the doctor. I've done it before.

So I guess your version of small govt. doesn't have national parks.

Mine doesn't have welfare, corporate or otherwise, and a much smaller military.

Heck the Swiss style standing militia would be fine with me. Don't see anyone bothering them.

Feinstein wants to put "reasonable restrictions" on something too.

If you want to abortion your kid go ahead it isn't an of my business. If you don't want to then don't.

Funny how the people put reasonable restrictions on one thing and then they want to put "reasonable restrictions" on something else and then something else until the restrictions aren't so reasonable and everything is covered under them.

You don't need a shotgun with a barrel under 18" son. 1934

Why do you need that machine gun or that silencer be "reasonable" those are dangerous weapons.

Assault weapons aren't needed for hunting "reasonable" people don't have these things.

So Goron how are you a conservative you want the govt. to make laws to restrict a person's personal behavior. Wouldn't putting "reasonable restrictions" on abortion increase the size of govt.?

I have yet to have someone else's abortion have any effect on my life.

Silver Bullet

February 4, 2006, 11:55 AM

3. I want the govt. to leave me alone. The only way that will happen is if govt. is as small as possible.

Show me when the self proclaimed conservatives have shrunken govt.

Tax reduction shrinks government. Tax increases enlarge the government. Which party just reduced taxes, and which party wants to raise them ?

Old Dog

February 4, 2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:
What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?

Delusional.
It's posts such as this that go a long way to foster divisiveness among the ranks of gun-owners. That post is a truly pointless addition to this thread.

Where I grew up, in Michigan, among my family were two major groups, academics (father was a college prof) and auto workers (obviously, the major employers in my region) -- both of these groups could be considered "liberal" in the political sense as they consisted of a voting bloc that ran heavily Democrat. Yet, amazingly enough, gun-ownership was prevalent in both these groups and those in my family tended to support the 2nd Amendment as most here do ... One can support the RKBA to its fullest extent and still be otherwise politically or economically liberal.

Labels are a fact of life these days. I care not whether someone considers themselves a "liberal," "conservative," "libertarian" or "moonie" ... whatever. I just people based on their intellect, passion for life and convictions. If their convictions differ from mine, so be it. As long as they are consistent and display integrity in their life, I can usually get along with anyone.

Boy, am I seeing a lot of broad (and misleading) generalizations and stereotypes already in this thread ...

Kodiaz

February 4, 2006, 11:58 AM

Mine haven't gone down.

I'm still trying to figure out how I made 3000 more than last year and have to pay 1000 dollars more in taxes.

Nitrogen

February 4, 2006, 12:01 PM

When people ask me that question, here's how I answer:

I support the ENTIRE bill of rights. Amendment 1 through 10.
I partake of those rights as much as possible.

I also keep up membership in groups that help defend the bill of rights. Unfortunately, there is no one org that does it the way I want, so it takes a few different memberships.

I'm a liberal because I believe that health care is a right that every citizen should have. We've got a lot of smart people in this country, and i'd like to find a way to give every CITIZEN of the US health care, without falling into the socialist traps of countries like Canada.

I'm a liberal because I believe that the government should not take away rights of it's citizens because they happen to engage in a sexual practice that others find squeamish.

I'm a liberal because I believe that totally free markets take advantage of their workers. I think industry and businesses need guidelines to help protect the rights and health of their workers.

Finally, I'm a gunowner because I'm a free thinker. I don't believe everything people of my political persuasion believe. I believe that my right to self defense is just as important as everything I listed above.

I wish others would try and think a bit more freely.

CoachVince

February 4, 2006, 12:03 PM

ID_shooting

February 4, 2006, 12:07 PM

Finding ones political alignment these day is a tough task. Alot of us have different views and levels of government involvement in our minds.

"2. I like being outdoors so I absolutely hate pollution. I am a tree hugger.

Conservatives haven't met a polluter they didn't love. Let's cut down every tree in this national park and cover it with roads."

I love the outdoors too, but I am also disabled. I would like at leat one or two roads to get me to the top of the mountian, or should it be off limits to me?

I don't like the Patriot Act, I also don't like gun control and would love to reverse the CGA and parts of FOPA, so who do I vote for? I can't vote Lib, All that would do is put another gun grabber in office, the Constituion Party is a joke. I tend to vote single issue (gun control) Sen Kerry would have been proactive about takeing them away, Pres Bush is not. My choice was simple. No matter what freedom-stealing ageneda Pres Bush pushes, he left the ability to fight back alone.

I lurk DU quite a bit, BenEzra does a real good job of comunicating gun rights over thier, but there is a HUGE contingent that would take them away in a heartbeat.

I don't think you can be defined as Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, or Republican anymore.

Kodiaz

February 4, 2006, 12:08 PM

Old Dog I won't "just" you on your spelling.:what: :neener:

Hey I.D. I'm no vegan I didn't say no roads.

BTW if you are wheelchair bound you might want to try kayaking.

stevelyn

February 4, 2006, 12:15 PM

ID_shooting

February 4, 2006, 12:21 PM

Kodiaz,

That is just it, There is no middle ground. The forces pushing for wilderness designation want to do just that, no roads, no vehicles, no machines of any kind. The other side want open development and logging. I want niether, I want to enjoy the forrest, but I also realize that for EVERYONE to enjoy it, there will have to be some access.

BTW, not wheelchair bound but the Army did put syntetics in my knee and my ability to walk greater than a mile over rough terrain is greatly limited. I choose to use an ATV rather than horses becuases I do not have the facilities nor time and money for thier upkeep.

I get very angry when I encounter locked gates in the national forrests. I served 8 years in teh Army, I got injured while in, I am a disabled vet and draw my monthly pension for it, but I am limited to main roads during hunting season. I do not want to go running cross country or tear up the country side, I just want to use the exsisting trails. I have a handicapped hunters permit, but it means squat when there is a closed gate.

As for kyaking, how do you shoot a deer from a kyak? :confused: LOL

Kodiaz

February 4, 2006, 12:32 PM

The same way you shoot from a table sitting down.

ID I bet you can shoot a deer from a kayak a lot better than I can shoot a duck from a kayak.

It is possible they make wide yaks for fishing stable enough to get dragged all over the ocean by big fish. You can also shoot from these. You would be amazed by how much gear you can cram on and in a yak. Also once you get good at paddling you make no noise not even the fish know your there. Sometimes you can sneak up on your targeted fishy and sometimes you spook a gator or a shark.(I love Fl even when I'm scared out of my wits)

Well I think you now have some research to do. I think I've spread my other addiction. I think googling Hunting Kayaks might get you started

You're right about the middle ground we'll just have to make a road and use the fill for middle ground:)

gc70

February 4, 2006, 12:46 PM

Broad labels like "liberal" and "conservative" have been hijacked by the political parties to generalize thought and try to channel people into choosing between the two main political parties. Each party tries to use a positive label for their party (i.e. the recent Democratic rebranding from "liberal" to "progressive") and a negative label for the other (i.e. the Demcratic effort to plaster the Republicans with "neo-con").

Except for the wackos at the ends of the spectrum, people are far too complex to be categorized into only two camps. Unfortunately, when we exercise our democratic right to vote, we often have only the two polarized choices - bad and worse.

My self-adopted label is "personal freedom and responsibility" - pigeon-hole me wherever you think that falls in the political spectrum.

Fly320s

February 4, 2006, 01:20 PM

When people ask me that question, here's how I answer:

...I'm a liberal because I believe that health care is a right that every citizen should have. We've got a lot of smart people in this country, and i'd like to find a way to give every CITIZEN of the US health care, without falling into the socialist traps of countries like Canada.

So, by that same logic, you'd like to find a way to give every citizen of this country a firearm, since that is a right, right?

I'm with ya, buddy. Now, who's going to pay the costs?

Manedwolf

February 4, 2006, 01:29 PM

Manedwolf

February 4, 2006, 01:34 PM

Tax reduction shrinks government. Tax increases enlarge the government. Which party just reduced taxes, and which party wants to raise them ?

Tax reductions only shrink government when those taxes weren't required to pay the bills.

What we have now is a case of expanding government AND tax cuts at the same time, which is why the deficit is spiralling out of control!

xd9fan

February 4, 2006, 01:54 PM

I'm a liberal because I believe that health care is a right that every citizen should have. We've got a lot of smart people in this country, and i'd like to find a way to give every CITIZEN of the US health care, without falling into the socialist traps of countries like Canada.

I wish others would try and think a bit more freely.

As a professional in the healthcare field I would just love for you to tell me how this would work. Because I think healthcare IS NOT a "Right". Soon your thinking will turn SAFETY into a "right". and "risk in life" something that the Govt should prevent .....at all costs requardless of liberty.

American healthcare is in this grey area. We want/demand capitalist innovations and new healthcare Technology ..but think we can get thier via socialist Govt control. In other words we have a half-ass socialist system but we want free market/capitalist outcomes. And we think more Govt is the answer. Tell me how in a socialist system you will atract the best medical talent (knowing they spend 15+ years in school learning thier craft) when everybody knows that socialist systems will not reward/pay them for thier worth???

Tell how making healthcare a "Right" (which by the way violates every meaning of that word) will not grow this Govt and not turn healthcare into just another socialist system??? There are only two choices....the free market and the Govt. Right now we have an unworkable mix.

Because patients/consumers have no cule what things cost in healthcare. Third parties get in the way and drive up costs of mediacl products.
My wife just got some stockings to help increase venous return from her legs. (she pregnant) the "this is not a bill" letter put the cost of these stocking at $300:eek: ( an ipod is cheaper)
There is NO way God's Green earth that those stocking should cost that much, and in a free market healthcare system we would shop around to make damn sure we didnt pay that price.

Carefull in wishing others to think a bit more freely. Socialismn is NOT free... its damn expensive.;)

beerslurpy

February 4, 2006, 02:31 PM

It is a highly misleading term because a "classical liberal" is really what would today be called a libertarian. Today they would be called "right wing extremists with guns."

A modern "liberal"/"progressive" is really more of an authoritarian socialist. They are socially permissive in the sense that anything that doesnt threaten or contradict their ideology is permitted.

Can you be a pro-gun liberal? No, not in the modern sense of the word "gun" or "liberal". Individual ownership of firearms is anathema to the socialist authoritarian, because it raises the transactional cost of controlling wealth. Anyone who calls themself a "liberal" and "pro-gun" is either mistaken or lying.

beerslurpy

February 4, 2006, 02:35 PM

Also, "neo-conservatives" are not conservatives, they are socialist hawks. They are collectivists who espouse an aggressive foreign policy. This is unfortunate, because socialism's best friend is wartime centralization of power.

They are not conservatives because they embrace big government, the welfare state and redistribution of wealth. One cannot do that and still be conservative.

Dont you get it? Bush is a socialist!

beerslurpy

February 4, 2006, 02:42 PM

What I mean by pro gun liberal.

1. I couldn't care less how many abortions there are.

Me neither. You definitely arent a christian fundamentalist.

2. I like being outdoors so I absolutely hate pollution. I am a tree hugger.

How do you propose to prevent pollution? Your approach will determine your ideology.

3. I want the govt. to leave me alone. The only way that will happen is if govt. is as small as possible.

Ok, now youre definitely heading in a libertarian direction. But remember that businesses want to be left alone too. They bear a far heavier burden of government intrusion than you do. Try and run a business someday. Better yet, a "medical device" business. You will have 30 different flavors of government inspector crawling up your ass.

4. I want corporations to leave me alone as well.

As long as congress has the power to affect business, businesses will lobby congress to get policies made to favor them. The problem is the New Deal era court decisions that expanded the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses to virtually unlimited scope. Your intrusive corporations are a result of that power being diverted by influentual constituents.

To summarize, I think you are partly libertarian and partly confused. You arent socially conservative, but you havent yet caught on that most political conservatives arent necesarily socially conservative. The problems you are complaining about today are the indirect result of structural changes in government introduced by previous generations of socialists/liberals that have subsequently degenerated into a pile of corruption.

Silver Bullet

February 4, 2006, 02:44 PM

Tax reductions only shrink government when those taxes weren't required to pay the bills.
In the long run reduced taxes means reduced government.

Going the other way, if the Dems get in and increase taxes, do you think 100% of those taxes are going to be used to pay down the debt ? Not likely; some of it will be used to enlarge the bureaucracy.

Kodiaz

February 4, 2006, 03:04 PM

Beer I don't know how to prevent pollution. There just isn't an easy answer. I can't even define it. The full out greenies would say the lead in our bullets is pollution. Therefore shooting ranges are polluters.

Telling some one to put a million dollare widget in their factory by making a law isn't right. Man I live in Fl if you like to fish imagine this. You have a great spot you always catch always. Then they start dumping the water out of Lake Okeechobee I fish from a kayak and I won't even paddle there anymore the water looks like chocolate milk.

The lake gets kept high for Big sugar. Their phosphate filled water causes a million problems. But also up river from Lake O(Lake Okeechobee) there is also lots of farming and cows. So if you don't dump water from Lake O it over flows if you send the water south you poison the everglades. You can't tell the farmers north of the lake not to farm. So how do you stop polluting the lake which by extension pollutes the intracoastal which dumps into the ocean on the east side and the gulf on the west side.

I wish I knew but making more laws and suing people both suck.

And your right king jorge is a socialist the problem is that most of the major party candidates are also socialists.

beerslurpy

February 4, 2006, 03:20 PM

If companies are polluting, anyone harmed by it has standing to sue. This is the sort of thing our court systems were built for. The problem is when the pollution causes harm to populations without standing such as manatees or grouper. But that is what state law is for. The government of Florida has authority (10th amendment) to protect wildlife and regulate uninhabited areas. As such, shooting bears, panthers, gators and manatees (and a few other species) are felonies. I would imagine that the reach of state law is bounded by the 14th amendment and probably by the state constitution.

The problem with environmentalism is not that the environment isnt worth protecting, it is that environmentalism is used as a vehicle for attacking the concept of private property. See U. S. v. Rapanos (originally denied and recently granted certiorari by the SCOTUS) for an excellent example of using "protection of wetlands" as a vehicle to take money and property from people on the weakest of pretenses.

The fault with this lies in the New Deal supreme court cases that redefined certain areas of the constitution to become unlimited grants of power.

beerslurpy

February 4, 2006, 03:22 PM

In the long run reduced taxes means reduced government.

Going the other way, if the Dems get in and increase taxes, do you think 100% of those taxes are going to be used to pay down the debt ? Not likely; some of it will be used to enlarge the bureaucracy.

We have a winner.

If you overfeed a fat man, he isnt going to exercise more.

Malone LaVeigh

February 4, 2006, 04:52 PM

Kodiaz,

That is just it, There is no middle ground. The forces pushing for wilderness designation want to do just that, no roads, no vehicles, no machines of any kind. The other side want open development and logging. I want niether, I want to enjoy the forrest, but I also realize that for EVERYONE to enjoy it, there will have to be some access.
I hope this isn't a big source of worry for you. Very, very little of the remaining public wild land is even eligible for designation as wilderness. There are many thousands of road on public lands, and most of those that have hunting potential are accessible by road.

I would put it back on you: Can't we have any of the remaining roadless land left that way so that those who want to get away from the crowds can do so? My 12-mile backpack days in steep ground are probably behind me, but I like the idea that some places like that are left so my kids (and their kids when that time comes) can have the experience.

progunner1957

February 4, 2006, 05:09 PM

What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?
I would say it's like a whore masquerading in a Nun's habit - remember Kerry in the duckhunter costume?

TallPine

February 4, 2006, 05:19 PM

The other side want open development and logging.
I guess I don't understand some folk's phobia about logging ... it borders on the same insanity as hoplophobia. The alternative to logging is disastrous wildfires, since our modern fire suppresion practices have built up an overload of fuel in the forests. Logging/wildfires are related in the same manner as hunting/predators. A well managed forest is better for all concerned: wood products are supplied to the consumers rather than going up in smoke; the woods are more accessible for recreation; and wildlife habitat is enhanced.

Most of us in MT know that if you want to see or hunt game, the best places are clearcuts and thinned areas. Plus the logging roads make great access (unfortunately many are gated off now:( ). Up in the Little Belt Mts, the FS has been fixing up trails for ATV/hiking/horse usage.

I myself have 40 acres of mixed forest and grass. I have two choices: I can either keep it thinned out and hope a wildfire just burns through on the ground and leaves the trees alive, or I can leave it "natural" and watch it all burn up someday, leaving it barren for at least a generation.

Kodiaz

February 4, 2006, 05:58 PM

Malone there are places that are not road accessible. You have to get to them by boat. The everglades trail is a boat only trail there are chickees(platforms above the water wheer you can pitch your tent and sleep) You can set up a 10 day paddle and go 100 and some odd miles without seeing a road. Granted roads thru the everglades are easier said than done.

ID_shooting

February 4, 2006, 07:45 PM

I would have no trouble with logging provided it was not clear cutting. Selective cutting is fine.

I only speak for Idaho here, but we allready have 1/3 of the state locked up in a roadless wilderness, there is no reason to claim the Whiteclouds and Sawtooths as well. They are also going after the Owyhees. Next it will be the Boise and Payette area, much of that is allready closed off to ATV access.

I am not talking about paving the whole thing, just allowing access on the exsisting roads. Heck, it would give rangers somthing to by ensuring people stayed on trials.

ElTacoGrande

February 4, 2006, 08:42 PM

ElTacoGrande

February 4, 2006, 08:42 PM

(deleted)

RealGun

February 4, 2006, 08:59 PM

Fine. Then "Conservative" shall henceforth mean those who support uncontrolled deficit spending, unsecured borders, big, no, HUGE government with exponentially increasing bureacracy, and those who support more and more and more laws, regulations, and restrictions for the populace.

It's not the original definition or intent by any means, but since that's what I see people who label themselves CONSERVATIVE politicans doing, that's what the word must really mean!

Happy? :)

The administration, with which you seem so angry, certainly frustrated, is and always was moderate, not conservative. Those who win elections are essentially moderate, only leaning left or right. The term "conservative" is lately only applied when referring to the new found pandering to church people and in many cases is just a code word for anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro mentioning God and prayer at every opportunity. We saw the signs in the recent Supreme Court nomination hearings and floor debate. What were the questions? What were the issues?

The GOP is certainly not now defined by the secular right, classical conservatives. Get over it. If they were, they would not be a viable party and would certainly not have achieved the level of dominance they now enjoy.

afasano

February 4, 2006, 09:16 PM

Derby FALs

February 4, 2006, 09:20 PM

Tax reduction shrinks government. Tax increases enlarge the government. Which party just reduced taxes, and which party wants to raise them ?

You have got to be kidding. :banghead:

Nitrogen

February 4, 2006, 09:55 PM

As a professional in the healthcare field I would just love for you to tell me how this would work. Because I think healthcare IS NOT a "Right". Soon your thinking will turn SAFETY into a "right". and "risk in life" something that the Govt should prevent .....at all costs requardless of liberty.

See, I realise it's expensive, and you know what? I admit I don't know how to pay for it. But I DO THINK some amount of health care should be a right.
It is for older people, whose cost of care is much much higher than most people. I would love to figure out a way to try and make it work, and have it not break the bank to do it.

As a liberal, I believe in a lot of the things Jesus taught (and i'm not even a Christian, i'm Jewish) about taking care of the less fortunate among us.
(I don't believe we should subsudise the lazy though.)

You're also twisting my words and my ideals around. If you read my whole post, Liberty is the #1 thing I want to preserve. "All 10 amendments in the bill of rights" etc.

So many people want to say "Liberals" want to take their rights away. Anyone that wants to take your rights away isn't a liberal, they are Radicals.

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html

I'm at the center left of this spectrum; as where all people I'd call Liberals should be.
The people accuesd of being "liberals" by today's "fox news crowd" are down toward the bottom of this chart.
The reason I like this chart is it shows how both sides of the political spectrum can end up toward the same ends if they arent careful.

Malone LaVeigh

February 4, 2006, 10:01 PM

I only speak for Idaho here, but we allready have 1/3 of the state locked up in a roadless wilderness, there is no reason to claim the Whiteclouds and Sawtooths as well. They are also going after the Owyhees. Next it will be the Boise and Payette area, much of that is allready closed off to ATV access.
Google is a wonderful thing:
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=feature0405

Currently, 7 percent of Idaho's 52 million acres is protected as congressionally designated wilderness.

Now, we may just have a little semantic difference going as to the definition of wilderness. Not all roadless land is considered wilderness. The rest is roadless due to the circumstances of it's history. Usually because roads are impractical.
I am not talking about paving the whole thing, just allowing access on the exsisting roads.
the locked gates you talked about are another issue. Lots of roads are closed seasonally to prevent resource damage. Sometimes roads are locked to keep access out of active timber sales. Most often, they are locked because there is a parcel or two of private land down the road.

Sometimes, you'll see a locked gate on a spur road leading to a wilderness trailhead. That's because the agency is trying to keep people from parking too close to the wilderness boundary, or trespassing. Sometimes the best place to put a gate is not on the boundary for strategic reasons.

gc70

February 4, 2006, 10:55 PM

It means your liberal but your're pro-gun instead of a usual liberal anti-gun bigot. At least that what the token spokepersons in the media press room say. :eek:Thank you! I really would hate for anyone to think that I was a "usual" bigot... of any sort. :D

gc70

February 4, 2006, 11:17 PM

... But I DO THINK some amount of health care should be a right. It is for older people, whose cost of care is much much higher than most people.There's one of the problems - defining the amount of health care.

My mother is 80. She would not go to the doctor very often if she had to pay the bill, but she will go for any ache or pain as long as the government is picking up the bill. And high-coverage insurance gives people the same inducement to use the health care system too often.

Silver Bullet

February 5, 2006, 12:24 AM

So, by that same logic, you'd like to find a way to give every citizen of this country a firearm, since that is a right, right?

I'm with ya, buddy. Now, who's going to pay the costs?

Good one ! :cool:

No_Brakes23

February 5, 2006, 03:15 AM

Using the term "liberal", when meaning something distinctly different than modern usage, is poor communication. In practical terms, I think liberal really means not letting a Constitution stand in your way or using that Constitution selectively to support only the parts you like. That pretty precisely defines ACLU. Those who want to promote an archaic definition of liberal would rather be pedantic than well understood.
So should we call the insurgents in Iraq that are butchering civilians "Freedom Fighters"? That is what they call themsleves, with just as much truth as when Ginny Burdick or Chuck Schumer call themselves "liberal." Maybe we should use Freedom as a dirty word, since "freedom fighters" cut people's heads off and plant IEDs, right?

Not letting Orwellian socialists get away with stealing a term of honor is not pendantic. But you can keep drinking the right wing kool-aid if you want. Ya know, these leftists call themselves liberals, but then they vote for the PatAct and try to ban music they don't like and video games they don't like, and cars they don't like, etc etc etc. Not liberal at all. Firearms liberties are not the only liberties that these so-called "liberals" are trying to restrict.

It is a highly misleading term because a "classical liberal" is really what would today be called a libertarian. Today they would be called "right wing extremists with guns." Well, it is what you would call a libertarian. Personally I think over-suffixed terms like liberal-ism and libertar-ian are inane. If you support liberties over restrictions, you are in fact a liberal.

I guess I don't understand some folk's phobia about logging ... it borders on the same insanity as hoplophobia. The alternative to logging is disastrous wildfires, since our modern fire suppresion practices have built up an overload of fuel in the forests. Logging/wildfires are related in the same manner as hunting/predators. A well managed forest is better for all concerned: wood products are supplied to the consumers rather than going up in smoke; the woods are more accessible for recreation; and wildlife habitat is enhanced. +1 I had to evac from San Diego military housing in '03 because Cali is sthensthitive about the trees and doesn't practice controlled burns. In '93 I had to evac from UCI dorms in Orange County for the same thing. I consider myself pro-environment, but the anti-logging stuff is just nuts. I love how people will argue that logging companies are greedy and only care about money, and then suggest that they are stupid enough to cut all tress down, thereby giving up their income. No businessman I know thinks like that.

hso

February 5, 2006, 04:10 AM

BTW if you are wheelchair bound you might want to try kayaking.

You are talking about flat water aren't you?

beerslurpy

February 5, 2006, 04:24 AM

If you support liberties over restrictions, you are in fact a liberal.

You might want to try telling that to the people that call themselves liberals in this country. I had to move to a conservative southern state to taste liberty and low taxes for the first time.

Liberals in the 18th century were very pro-liberty. Liberals in the 21st century are socialists with a touch of liberty (but only where it doesnt interfere with your dependence on the government).

And you know what they say about socialism and liberty (they being FA Hayek):
Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker de Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said. "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man," he said in 1848, "while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
What is promised to us as the Road to Freedom is in fact the Highroad to Servitude. For it is not difficult to see what must be the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of planning. The goal of the planning will be described by some such vague term as "the general welfare." There will be no real agreement as to the ends to be attained, and the effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all.

Tell me, fellow lover of liberty, which group in this country has the strongest urge to meddle in business and the economy and to direct the wealth and actions of the citizenry? Was it liberals perhaps? Lately it has become "compassionate conservatives" but the socialist underpinnings are all the same and the biggest offenders are still the liberals in this country. We need to reject this mode of thinking no matter where it springs up.

RealGun

February 5, 2006, 07:38 AM

If one uses "liberal" as code for "I am a Democrat', they should stop doing that. If one uses "conservative" as code for "I am a Republican", they should stop doing that. The effective heart of both parties is moderate, and that's how they get elected. The polarity in the parties comes from the farther left or farther right. The parties become, in some cases, incorrectly identified by their fringe elements.

For example, the block of 22 leftist US Senators approach only half of the Democrat caucus, but who gets selected as or takes on the role of the attack dogs when there are cameras around?

I think "liberal" is most commonly used today as a pejorative. I think benEzra correctly pointed out that "leftist" would be the better term, reserving "liberal" as something honorable, certainly not unknown to moderate Republicans.

"Neocon" is equally a pejorative that doesn't deserve air time. Republicans are not obliged to be right wing conservatives. If they were, they wouldn't get elected.

antsi

February 5, 2006, 09:42 AM

Liberals are notoriously anti-gun, so I don't get what pro-gun liberal means and bet there would be a better label.

A pro-gun Liberal is a Liberal who is campaigning. Like Kerry's media event with the skeet shooters.

After the elections, it's back to business as usual.

cracked butt

February 5, 2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:
Quote:
What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?

Delusional.
It's posts such as this that go a long way to foster divisiveness among the ranks of gun-owners. That post is a truly pointless addition to this thread.

Where I grew up, in Michigan, among my family were two major groups, academics (father was a college prof) and auto workers (obviously, the major employers in my region) -- both of these groups could be considered "liberal" in the political sense as they consisted of a voting bloc that ran heavily Democrat. Yet, amazingly enough, gun-ownership was prevalent in both these groups and those in my family tended to support the 2nd Amendment as most here do ... One can support the RKBA to its fullest extent and still be otherwise politically or economically liberal.

Labels are a fact of life these days. I care not whether someone considers themselves a "liberal," "conservative," "libertarian" or "moonie" ... whatever. I just people based on their intellect, passion for life and convictions. If their convictions differ from mine, so be it. As long as they are consistent and display integrity in their life, I can usually get along with anyone.

Boy, am I seeing a lot of broad (and misleading) generalizations and stereotypes already in this thread ...

Believe what you might, but I said more in one word than you did in 4 paragraphs of rambling. There may be a few moderates and leftists that are progun at state levels, but when push comes to shove, the socialist money talks and 2A rights become disposable.

RaySendero

February 5, 2006, 11:30 AM

Whatever you guys want to call yourselves - There are not enough "pro-gun" democrats to pass even one pro-gun law if only the democratic votes were counted! But they will sure vote to pass any and all gun control laws without regard to the 2A. Democrats look to change this perception (Kerry's hunting trip is a good example) but they have not shown any inclination to change their underlying values/views. Just check their party's platform on gun control from each of their election conventions! :barf:

TallPine

February 5, 2006, 12:05 PM

the locked gates you talked about are another issue. Lots of roads are closed seasonally to prevent resource damage. Sometimes roads are locked to keep access out of active timber sales. Most often, they are locked because there is a parcel or two of private land down the road.

My observation is that many of the road closures are due to the demand on the FS management to enact a "plan" ... so they close some roads and leave others open just to show Washington that they are doing something "meaningful"

Helmetcase

February 5, 2006, 12:15 PM

Can you be a pro-gun liberal? No, not in the modern sense of the word "gun" or "liberal". Individual ownership of firearms is anathema to the socialist authoritarian, because it raises the transactional cost of controlling wealth. Anyone who calls themself a "liberal" and "pro-gun" is either mistaken or lying.
What is it with people trying to tell others what they can and can't think? Talk about authoritarianism.

I am, by anyone's metric, a liberal. Look at my stance on just about any issue other than guns and you'd have no trouble figuring that out.

But I'm also pro-gun. Why? Because I believe my liberalism inherently necessitates individual choice and a love of personal freedoms. I also reject the notion that liberalism necessarily means not defending the self. It doesn't. I have no problem suggesting that Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer have liberalism wrong, and I have it right.

Once in a while I've been accused of being an anti-gun plant or spy in sheep's clothing. I spend a lot of timing blogging (www.progunprogressive.com) and lobbying in Annapolis for someone who doesn't really support the RKBA--so if you're thinking of suggesting I can't really be a CCW activist and gun enthusiast, you need to go sit under a tree and contemplate just how your mind got to be so myopic and narrow. :neener:

gc70

February 5, 2006, 01:29 PM

Most people want to be left alone and not have anyone else tell them how to live their lives.

The biggest difference I see in people is whether they mind their own business or feel compelled to tell other people what to do.

Here, in a discussion between gun enthusiasts, we have a fair number of people who sling around pergorative labels trying to shame others into conforming to their point of view. I'm not buying it; authoritarians, whether leftist or rightist, are enemies of freedom.

BigG

February 5, 2006, 01:41 PM

All the self-congratulatory backslapping by those who have on occasion consulted a dictionary is misplaced. Anybody can quote their Funk and Wagnalls till they're blue in the face. Notwithstanding, it doesn't take a genius to realize that "liberal," for better or worse, has been co-opted by the Left as their label of choice. No guy who does not subscribe to their baggage can in good conscience identify themselves with that label, imho.

I will continue to mistrust anybody who identifies themselves as such, even though I know the definition of classical liberal, which has been out of date only since about the time Karl Marx wrote his little book. :banghead:

Kodiaz

February 5, 2006, 01:49 PM

Good point we need a new label:neener:

Malone LaVeigh

February 5, 2006, 02:05 PM

Most real leftists can't stand liberals.

ID_shooting

February 5, 2006, 02:30 PM

"the locked gates you talked about are another issue. Lots of roads are closed seasonally to prevent resource damage. Sometimes roads are locked to keep access out of active timber sales. Most often, they are locked because there is a parcel or two of private land down the road."

It is those "seasonal" closures that I refer to. These are forrest service gates that are locked every fall just before big game season startes. The land behind them is all puplic, no private land at all.

As for the last sentence, if I buy a 1/4 acre of land on a puplic road, I can gate it so I can keep thousands of acres to my self with out ever paying a dime, huh, I just might have to look into that. Where is your favorite hunting spot again?

Since everyone is so fond of google, how about googleing up how many acres of puplic land is accesible to the mobility impaired? and yes, wilderness is more than just land designated by fed law.

Helmetcase

February 5, 2006, 03:36 PM

No guy who does not subscribe to their baggage can in good conscience identify themselves with that label, imho.

I will continue to mistrust anybody who identifies themselves as such, even though I know the definition of classical liberal, which has been out of date only since about the time Karl Marx wrote his little book. :banghead:
...yawn...:rolleyes:

Like I was saying, what's with all this baloney about telling people what the words they use to describe themselves really mean? This "you're not really a liberal" bullhockey is really getting tiresome.

I love it when conservatives pretend they know what liberalism "is really about", moreso than self-described guntoting libs like me. Funny. :neener:

beerslurpy

February 5, 2006, 05:19 PM

RealGun

February 5, 2006, 05:43 PM

...yawn...:rolleyes:
I love it when conservatives pretend they know what liberalism "is really about", moreso than self-described guntoting libs like me. Funny. :neener:

What's a conservative?:evil:

Art Eatman

February 5, 2006, 06:32 PM

Any more kayak stuff and I'll go back and delete all of it.

Art

beerslurpy

February 5, 2006, 06:33 PM

You advocate redestribution of wealth under the cover of compassionate social programs and control of industry and property under the cover of environmentalism. This makes you a socialist- a communist that doesnt have all the guns yet. Repeated political defeats have caused you to take the path of incrementalism, but you are no less evil than socialists that have revealed their plans in full.

The 2nd amendment ensures that those who would impose their will upon society by force will always be outnumbered by a populace largely armed and unsympathetic to their cause. This is why liberals-who-are-really-socialists oppose gun rights. It is the bedrock of the State Monopoly on Force that became so popular in the first half of the 20th century.

This is why "pro-gun liberals" are either:
-socialists who espouse incremental disarmament under the rubric of "sensible and safe gun ownership"
-political conservatives that dont feel comfortable in the republican party, but havent realized that the democratic party is bad in the same ways, only with different trimmings.

beerslurpy

February 5, 2006, 06:35 PM

Weird, I responded to you, but my post came out on top.

edit: somehow your post takes place 10 minutes in the future, methinks there is a bug

hey mods, helmetcase posted like 20-30 minutes ago but the post time is behind so all my replies come out before his/her post

Helmetcase

February 5, 2006, 06:39 PM

Sorry, we're basing our conception of what "liberal" means by what self proclaimed "liberal" politicians advocate and carry out in office and have since the 1930s. I know that may not be what YOU want liberal to mean, but it does to 95 percent of americans.
Your mistake is to assume that there's a hard and fast rubrick that 95% of people can agree on that encapsulates liberal; there are some tenets that some people think fall into liberalism, while others will reject them. There's no hard and fast set of beliefs or principles that you can lump everyone together with; think for a minute about all the self proclaimed conservatives here who back away as fast as they can from the religious right's whacky dogma. Is it fair for me to say "well you're not a real conservative?" Of course not. Same thing applies, whether you like it or not.

I'll be the first to admit that too many liberals let their belief in activist government rope them into anti-gun positions. Those are the liberals that I intend to confront head on. I do believe govt, applied properly, can be a force for good works in society--but I even more firmly believe in individual liberties.

If you describe yourself as a liberal, people are going to assume you are big-government socialist because there is a huge, decades long overlap between big government socialism and liberalism.
Socialism is the most overused word in politics, save for terrorism. It's like Inigo Montoya: "you keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means."

Dannyboy

February 5, 2006, 10:25 PM

Socialism is the most overused word in politics, save for terrorism. It's like Inigo Montoya: "you keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means."

Thank you! I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way. At least with terrorism(ist), people tend to be somewhat more accurate.

wallysparx

February 5, 2006, 10:58 PM

oh boy, a whole can of worms opened up here. i believe that gay people should be able to get married; that undocumented immigrants are fundamental to our economic system and contribute more than they take out; that we should have a nationalized healthcare system built on heavier taxation of the wealthy; that illegal drugs should be decriminalized; that it would be great if we were forced out of iraq and finally ate some humble pie; it's great that leftist politicans have been gaining ground all over South and Central America; and that the Holy Qur'an is God's final revelation to his creations.

oh, and did i mention I'm from California?

but nonetheless i love my guns and i love shooting. and should anyone dare threaten my (or anyone else's) right to keep and bear arms, they can expect a fight.

call me what you will.

dm1333

February 5, 2006, 11:13 PM

I'm liberal and pro gun. And I am in the military. I even go to church. I don't push my beliefs on others, this is a free country after all. I'm also from a long line of stubborn, argumentative SOBs so bring it on!

You too Wallysparx! Just knock on my door. Here is my question to everyone who thinks you can't be pro gun and liberal. Oh forget it. Ignore this post.

GoRon

February 5, 2006, 11:32 PM

The problem with leftists,liberals and their big government republican brethren is this.

All of your social utopia ideas are enforced at the point of a gun.

If I don't want to participate in your tax schemes, if I don't want to ban smoking in my establishment, if I don't want to pay for your retirement or health care eventually guys with guns are coming for me.

Oh sure, first you will fine me, maybe send "hither swarms of officers to harass the people".

Eventually if I hold out long enough guys with guns under color of law will come and take me away.

The statist big G republicans are just as guilty as the progressive leftists. They just have different targets for their attention.

True conservatives believe in limited government and would garner most libertarians at any election.

True progressives believe government is the solution, not the problem.

I welcome pro gun progressives to the fight for our gun rights but could never give you a pass on your misguided view of the role of government.

antsi

February 5, 2006, 11:37 PM

that we should have a nationalized healthcare system built on heavier taxation of the wealthy.

The rest of what you said is arguable - reasonable people may differ.

But this one is a non-starter. First off, the math doesn't add up. There just aren't enough people that wealthy to confiscate enough money from them to accomplish what you want to do. Second, what you want to do doesn't address the real problem.

The primary problem of health care financing right now is the near-total insulation of users from costs. Think about anything where users are exposed to costs... like cars, for instance. If I know that my car is going to suffer major damage and need expensive repairs if I never change my oil, I'm going to change my oil. In the health arena, nobody pays for their own bypass or chemo, so they keep on smoking. Go on, Light Up. Under the Wally Sparx plan, Richie Rich is paying your health care bills so go ahead and smoke all you want. In cars, I make reasonable tradeoffs between price and value. For instance, I know it would be nice to have a Rolls Royce, but I recognize that a Honda is perfectly serviceable to meet my needs. In the health care arena, everybody wants a Rolls Royce.

Right now I have pregnant medicaid patients coming in for $2000 ER visits because they have a yeast infection that could have been treated for $25 in their clinic if they had bothered to show up for their appointment. People who are at least somewhat exposed to the costs of their actions don't act like that.

Your plan of magically financed unlimited Rolls-Royce health care for everyone is will do nothing but increase costs with no corresponding improvement in health, even if the numbers could be made to add up on the $ side.

antsi

February 5, 2006, 11:41 PM

I welcome pro gun progressives to the fight for our gun rights but could never give you a pass on your misguided view of the role of government.

I would agree with this - say, temporary truce whenever we are arguing gun rights - but as long as these people keep on voting for gun-grabbers like Kerry, Gore, Clinton et al, they're not really fighting on our side. They're giving lip service to our side, then voting against us because they've decided their social spending programs are more important than gun rights.

RON in PA

February 6, 2006, 12:03 AM

We don't need to pigeon-hole people into some political category, all we need are people who are pro-second amendment.

beerslurpy

February 6, 2006, 12:07 AM

I welcome attempts to steer democratic politicians in a more pro-gun direction, but I am deeply suspicious of attempts to subvert the gun rights movement and take it in a more "safe and sensible" direction.

roscoe

February 6, 2006, 12:28 AM

True progressives believe government is the solution, not the problem.
And conservatives believe government is the solution - to a whole other set of problems.

Don't like gays marrying? Outlaw gay marriage.
Don't like abortion? Outlaw it.
Don't like the teaching of evolution? Outlaw it.
Don't like flag burning? Outlaw it.
Don't like affirmative action in universities? Outlaw it.
Prefer 'security' (or 'law and order') to freedom? Legalize wiretaps and warrantless searches and arrest without conviction.

Don't tell me that conservatives are against government, they are FOR their type of governental power.

And for the record, it was Ronald Reagan who signed the Mulford Act, as governor of California, imposing strict gun control regulations on acquiring and bearing arms. He was afraid of the Black Panthers, you see.

cz75bdneos22

February 6, 2006, 12:44 AM

beerslurpy

February 6, 2006, 12:54 AM

And conservatives believe government is the solution - to a whole other set of problems.

Don't like gays marrying? Outlaw gay marriage.
Don't like abortion? Outlaw it.
Don't like the teaching of evolution? Outlaw it.
Don't like flag burning? Outlaw it.
Don't like affirmative action in universities? Outlaw it.
Prefer 'security' (or 'law and order') to freedom? Legalize wiretaps and warrantless searches and arrest without conviction.

Don't tell me that conservatives are against government, they are FOR their type of governental power.

And for the record, it was Ronald Reagan who signed the Mulford Act, as governor of California, imposing strict gun control regulations on acquiring and bearing arms. He was afraid of the Black Panthers, you see.

Christian conservatives, neo-conservatives (puke), libertarians, paleo-conservatives etc all espouse different views on the matter and are all called right wingers/conservatives despite this.

Many conservatives are against big or even medium sized government. Remember the Contract with America? That was all about republicans getting elected on a small government platform. Which they have since abandoned, much to the displeasure of their base.

antsi

February 6, 2006, 01:19 AM

Don't like the teaching of evolution? Outlaw it.
.

Who, exactly, is trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution?

I mean, in the last 50 years, that is.

Malone LaVeigh

February 6, 2006, 01:43 AM

It is those "seasonal" closures that I refer to. These are forrest service gates that are locked every fall just before big game season startes. The land behind them is all puplic, no private land at all.
I understand how you feel, but unfortunately, in the Western US, October is the begining of the rainy season. Those roads are the major source of sediment to streams, and traffic in the wet season is one of the major causes of road erosion.

As for the last sentence, if I buy a 1/4 acre of land on a puplic road, I can gate it so I can keep thousands of acres to my self with out ever paying a dime, huh, I just might have to look into that. Where is your favorite hunting spot again?
No, if the road passes through the private land, there will usually be an easment. The gates usually are on roads to summer cabins or parcels where the road dead ends (spur road.)

Since everyone is so fond of google, how about googleing up how many acres of puplic land is accesible to the mobility impaired? and yes, wilderness is more than just land designated by fed law.Agree that not all wilderness is designated. But I think most people will agree that if there's a road there it's not wilderness. It might still be good public wild land, but wilderness generally refers to land that hasn't been fundamentally altered by humans. A road is the biggest impact you can have on wild land.

Byron Quick

February 6, 2006, 02:04 AM

But I think most people will agree that if there's a road there it's not wilderness.

Malone,

Have you ever been to the Big Bend area of west Texas? The ecology has been changed by overgrazing, introduction of non-native plants (the few that lived), etc., it's still a wilderness. What passes for roads in hundreds of thousands of acres require a high riding four wheel drive vehicle. Even then, you'd best have plently of spare tires and water. Now I wouldn't call the area a virgin wilderness but even with the changes wrought by man, it's a wilderness. Then again, what passes for roads in much of Brewster County wouldn't be called roads by most folk.

RealGun

February 6, 2006, 11:00 AM

We don't need to pigeon-hole people into some political category, all we need are people who are pro-second amendment.

And who contribute and vote accordingly. If some other issue is somehow more important, then I suppose one might be pro-gun in the sense that they enjoy owning guns in a short sighted way, but they may not be pro-Second Amendment.

RealGun

February 6, 2006, 11:09 AM

And conservatives believe government is the solution - to a whole other set of problems.

Don't like gays marrying? Outlaw gay marriage.
Don't like abortion? Outlaw it.
Don't like the teaching of evolution? Outlaw it.
Don't like flag burning? Outlaw it.
Don't like affirmative action in universities? Outlaw it.
Prefer 'security' (or 'law and order') to freedom? Legalize wiretaps and warrantless searches and arrest without conviction.

Don't tell me that conservatives are against government, they are FOR their type of governental power.

And for the record, it was Ronald Reagan who signed the Mulford Act, as governor of California, imposing strict gun control regulations on acquiring and bearing arms. He was afraid of the Black Panthers, you see.

Your misuse of the term conservative goes to the heart of this thread. Liberal does not mean Democrat. Conservative does not mean Republican. You seem to use conservative as a pejorative in the same way that liberal is freqently if not usually used as a pejorative. Even those often targeted with the term liberal have chosen to now call themselves "progressives".

Conservative is far too broad a term to be inferred as necessarily applying to controlling church people. Secular conservatives more concerned about real government might object to being grouped with those for whom resolving social issues to their satisfaction is top priority.

roscoe

February 6, 2006, 11:15 AM

Remember the Contract with America?
Newt Gingerich was a supporter of laws against abortion, as well as a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT against gay marriage. The only thing he was really for was limited FUNDING for government.
Who, exactly, is trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution? I mean, in the last 50 years, that is.
"In 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 in favor of science education standards that contain no mention of biological macroevolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin and early development of the Universe."
Wikepedia

You wanna bet whether those six were liberal or conservative?

Your misuse of the term conservative goes to the heart of this thread.
I happen to agree - but with Newt Gingerich and Ralph Reed advocating "conservative values", we are stuck using that term to describe a group of political movements and influences. My point is that, as long as people on this board use the term "liberal" as a purely negative term, to describe a very narrow range of people, the way Standing Wolf does for example, that is where we are.

There should be other terms to describe people who support individual liberty, like libertarian, but that one has also been co-opted by Lyndon Larouche.

Labels are very powerful things. It would be better if people in general had more sophisticated grasps of the various axes if political thought: free-market v. socialism, libertatian v. authoritarian, etc., but they dont. Instead we are stuck with a bunch of uninformative labels.

If only Teddy Roosevelt were around - a pro-gun, pro-big-business, pro-government reform, pro-federal land, pro-affirmative action, pro-strong central government, nation-building, imperialist, killer of animals by the thousands, and enemy of big business trusts. Figure that one out.

Camp David

February 6, 2006, 11:26 AM

What I mean by pro gun liberal....
Show me when the self proclaimed conservatives have shrunken govt...

A bit of a thread drift, but an answer to your question:

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0613.xml
The integration of numerous federal agencies into a unified Homeland Security Department will, among other things, consolidate like reporting structures and shrink the federal footprint of domestic security agencies.

A couple others:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?pageTypeId=8199&channelId=-13259&P=XI&contentId=12920&contentType=GSA_BASIC
E-Travel Initiative has reduced OMB costs on federal travel, and in turn, staff and government oversight personnel on travel logistics.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0103/011503a1.htm
The consolidation of the federal payroll system; reduced payroll agencies from 22 to 4.

You might read what the current administration has proposed; heritage Foundation study report:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1840.cfm

This administration's efforts to shrink the federal government fail to get the press that they deserve. Bush's conservative credentials in this regard are on display.

btw... I have no idea what a "pro-gun liberal" is; never met one!

RealGun

February 6, 2006, 12:12 PM

If only Teddy Roosevelt were around - a pro-gun, pro-big-business, pro-government reform, pro-federal land, pro-affirmative action, pro-strong central government, nation-building, imperialist, killer of animals by the thousands, and enemy of big business trusts. Figure that one out.

You are aware that Teddy Roosevelt didn't get reelected? He lost to a Progressive (Wilson).

Optical Serenity

February 6, 2006, 12:14 PM

I there there are more liberals here on this board than conservatives...So you shouldn't be surprised to see anyone call themselves a pro-gun liberal.

benEzra

February 6, 2006, 12:22 PM

Do countries with Anti-gun/ no-guns laws have liberal and conservative factions within their political systems or is it a phenomena unique to the USA?

because if they do, guns are not the reason for their being. i think. what do i know, though..
The UK does, apparently. Margaret Thatcher (very conservative) was very anti-gun, as I recall.

Weren't the Conservatives the ones who banned all UK handguns after Dunblane?

Of course, there's not much libertarianism in the UK at all, on either end of the political spectrum.

Christian conservatives, neo-conservatives (puke), libertarians, paleo-conservatives etc all espouse different views on the matter and are all called right wingers/conservatives despite this.
The same could be said of "liberals."

Not all "liberals" are statists.

Regarding the gun issue, one could quote Ben Franklin that "If we do not all hang together, we shall surely all hang separately." Whether you're conservative, centrist, or progressive, we ALL have a vested interest in having ALL politicians respect the Second Amendment.

If the Democratic party is to be turned from it's recent jihad against gun rights--and there are signs that it is happening--who do you think is going to do it? Bill Buckley and the Heritage Foundation? No, pro-gun liberals....

The integration of numerous federal agencies into a unified Homeland Security Department will, among other things, consolidate like reporting structures and shrink the federal footprint of domestic security agencies.
Err...I don't think I'd use the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as an example of shrinking government and reducing its reach. Call it a good thing or a bad thing, but it looks more like an expansion to me.

dmallind

February 6, 2006, 01:08 PM

Here's the tables:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-2006-HistoricalTable-7-1.pdf

And here's the chart from that data handily labeled since WW2

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

Colt

February 6, 2006, 02:21 PM

Kodiaz,

I was confused until I saw your location.

Now you make sense.

MechAg94

February 6, 2006, 03:54 PM

Here's the tables:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-2006-HistoricalTable-7-1.pdf

And here's the chart from that data handily labeled since WW2

Hey, do you know why GDP was used instead of GNP? I didn't see the graph on your link anyway. I wouldn't mind seeing total govt revenue, economic growth(%), and budget deficits graphed in there as well. Looks like the Repub led congress made a dent in things in the 90's, but dropped the ball a little lately. The Dem led Congress was pretty free spending in the 80's. Without a line-item veto, Presidents have limited control of federal spending, but everyone blames them.

Also, do you have a link to the actual Office of Management and Budget instead of an obviously biased web site?

JJpdxpinkpistols

February 6, 2006, 03:57 PM

Remember the Contract with America? That was all about republicans getting elected on a small government platform. Which they have since abandoned, much to the displeasure of their base.

much to the displeasure of the base...who keep electing them.

Saying that all libs kowtow and look up to Uncle Kerry and Aunt Fienstien is as disengenious as me saying that all cons kowtow look up to Bush and Gonzales.

Here's the tables:
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-2006-HistoricalTable-7-1.pdf
And here's the chart from that data handily labeled since WW2

Zounds! What a way to wake up in the AM!

I welcome attempts to steer democratic politicians in a more pro-gun direction, but I am deeply suspicious of attempts to subvert the gun rights movement and take it in a more "safe and sensible" direction.

I don't think anyone is going to be able to "Subvert" the gun rights movement. that kinda assumes that our folks are dumb enough to allow such a subversion to take place.

As far as "Safe and Sensible"...you bet. I want to see Gun Ed in all schools. That takes care of the "Safe" part. As far as "sensible": I don't wanna see convicts with guns. (Makes me nervous to know that dude that served 30 years for murder gets to goof around with a gun when he gets out.)

They're giving lip service to our side, then voting against us because they've decided their social spending programs are more important than gun rights.

Social Spending programs meant nothing to me in the last election. I voted for those folks cuz I had no choice.

What, you want *me* to vote for W? Snort. Yeah, right...he proposed a constitutional amendment to DENY my people rights (kinda sad that I have to be distinct...kinda sad that I don't get the same rights as other people).

Tell your boy to knock off that anti-14th amendment garbage, and I might just *consider* voting for the feller. Otherwise, I kinda have to vote for people who will grant me rights that everyone else gets :-)

So, by that same logic, you'd like to find a way to give every citizen of this country a firearm, since that is a right, right?
I'm with ya, buddy. Now, who's going to pay the costs?

Mandatory civilian service. Everyone serves, everyone gets the tools to their trade handed to them. A nation of riflemen. No one escapes (except for the medically infirm), no deferments. No champaigne units.

Liberals are notoriously anti-gun, so I don't get what pro-gun liberal means and bet there would be a better label.

Overall: I think that we have one thing going on here, and that is an overgeneralization.

The correct statement would be: "Some" Liberals are notoriously anti-gun.

OTOH, It *is* advantageous for folks to think in such didactic terms. It blinds them to political offensives and historically means they will get their pants handed to them for mending.

dmallind

February 6, 2006, 04:19 PM

Hey, do you know why GDP was used instead of GNP? I didn't see the graph on your link anyway. I wouldn't mind seeing total govt revenue, economic growth(%), and budget deficits graphed in there as well. Looks like the Repub led congress made a dent in things in the 90's, but dropped the ball a little lately. The Dem led Congress was pretty free spending in the 80's. Without a line-item veto, Presidents have limited control of federal spending, but everyone blames them.

Also, do you have a link to the actual Office of Management and Budget instead of an obviously biased web site?

The chart is taken from the table data, which is an OMB document in pdf form and resides on the OMB site (metapage).

So what did the Dem congresses do prior to the 80s? Why is the ENTIRELY Republican government dropping the ball now? If Presidents don't have much to do with spending do you apply that to any perceived budgetary successes in the 80's as well as any perceived budgetary successes in the 90s? When I hear that line it's almost used to make sure Clinton gets no credit for the frictional unemployment, low inflation and deficit-surplus trend of the 90s but somehow gets twisted around whenever any positive aspect of Reaganomics is mentioned.

Oh and your wish is my command - budget deficit/surpluses, again adapted from CBO tables

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/tables/budgetgraph-usd.gif

FURTHER EDIT: Raw Data of these stats and others of your choosing can be found at www.cbo.gov - a most useful resource for any economic discussion I recommend to all.

MechAg94

February 6, 2006, 04:20 PM

...who keep electing them.
As if we really had a choice.

What, you want *me* to vote for W? Snort. Yeah, right...he proposed a constitutional amendment to DENY my people rights (kinda sad that I have to be distinct...kinda sad that I don't get the same rights as other people).

Tell your boy to knock off that anti-14th amendment garbage, and I might just *consider* voting for the feller. Otherwise, I kinda have to vote for people who will grant me rights that everyone else gets :-)
Technically, you do have exactly the same rights as everyone else. :)
I do think that if the activists who say they represent you would take a more live-and-let-live approach, they would get less resistance. They have used incrementalism over the last 30 years to get where they are, why change now?

Overall: I think that we have one thing going on here, and that is an overgeneralization.
That is true for everyone it seems. You are just as guilty as the rest of us.
We hate to go into long explanations all the time so we try to throw labels around to save words. Doesn't work much of the time, and we get these long threads arguing about what should be a simple question. :)

JJpdxpinkpistols

February 6, 2006, 04:33 PM

As if we really had a choice.

agreed. I didn't like Kerry. Never did. I didn't have any choice, tho.

Technically, you do have exactly the same rights as everyone else. :)

yeah...and the Residents of Aushwitz *were set free* after hard work. Its all in how you look at it, isn't it?

MechAg94

February 6, 2006, 04:36 PM

During the 80's, taxes got cut and govt revenue doubled. The problem is that govt spending went through the roof as well. Not all that was on defense. That trend of overspending hasn't gone away yet. Most all Repubs I run into are upset about it also. The only reason the Repubs in Congress have gotten away with their crap in Congress the last several years is that the Dems have offered such a scary alternative. Repubs may not be great, but the Dems are worse. I am sure some will tell you it is all a good cop/bad cop routine. :)

Clinton did a couple positive things in the 90's like welfare reform. He did get credit for coming into office at the top of an economic wave and managed not to screw it up at least until the late 90's. Of course, that was partly because the Repubs didn't let his wife pass her crazy ideas. Bush I might have caught some of that economic upturn had he not raised taxes and done some other dumb stuff.

Of course, that is how I see it anyway. Everyone has their own view.

hso

February 6, 2006, 04:44 PM

Do countries with Anti-gun/ no-guns laws have liberal and conservative factions within their political systems or is it a phenomena unique to the USA?

because if they do, guns are not the reason for their being. i think. what do i know, though..:scrutiny:

All countries, from the most leftest to the far right have "liberal" and "conservative" factions within their politcal systems. They are much better (and more widely) defined than here in most cases just as most sources of news fall into a whole spectrum of political and social agendas. It seems that many countries are much more comfortable with divergent political and social groups than we are and that we cluster into big ill-fitting parties.

Oh yeah, I'm a pro-gun lib.:neener:

Ohen Cepel

February 6, 2006, 04:47 PM

I think it's usually the elitist view that THEY should have guns, but the filthy masses (us) shouldn't.

They know what's good for us. Just trust them:evil:

MechAg94

February 6, 2006, 04:50 PM

yeah...and the Residents of Aushwitz *were set free* after hard work. Its all in how you look at it, isn't it?
I don't think that is the same at all. No one is denying you life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at least nothing that they are not denying everyone else.

Personally, I am 50/50 on the marriage thing anyway. I listened to a pastor I respect a lot and he asked Why are heterosexuals getting upset about homosexuals destoying the institution of marriage when heterosexuals have not been holding to the institution of marriage for quite a number of years with sex outside of marriage and common law marriage and such. I think he was of the view that govt can't legislate moral traditions like that without becoming repressive.

JJpdxpinkpistols

February 6, 2006, 04:54 PM

I don't think that is the same at all. No one is denying you life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at least nothing that they are not denying everyone else..

Mech: I stated that its all a matter of perception, i.e. I have the same rights as everyone else...as long as I am the same as everyone else. :rolleyes:

And yeah, that would be denying liberty and the pursuit of happiness...just not YOUR idea of happiness :evil:

longrifleman

February 6, 2006, 05:10 PM

Personally, I am 50/50 on the marriage thing anyway.

I have another solution. Get civil govt completely out of the marriage business, other than to enforce mutually agreed to contract rights, just like any other private agreement. That also means MANDATING perks for spouses in employment should be completely eliminated. Govt sanction on marriage is only about 150 yrs old anyway. The date from memory so don't trust it too far.

RealGun

February 6, 2006, 05:39 PM

I think it's usually the elitist view that THEY should have guns, but the filthy masses (us) shouldn't.

They know what's good for us. Just trust them:evil:

There is more to it than $5000 shotguns.

Barbara

February 6, 2006, 07:16 PM

Eh, I call myself a liberal mostly because it annoys conservatives.

My liberal friends think I'm a staunch conservative because of my dislike of government interference and because I'm very vocal about supporting the 2nd and 10th amendments.

My conservative friends think I'm a bleeding heart liberal because of my dislike of government interference and because I'm very vocal about supporting the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments.

Personally, I don't care what anyone calls me. I vote for the person on the ballot that I most think will uphold the Constitution.

(still, I gotta admit, the reason I stopped considering myself a conservative was the whole "I absolutely believe in complete freedom for everyone who thinks just like me" BS that is way too prevalent in those who call themselves conservatives but are actually authoritarians who believe in gun rights.)

Malone LaVeigh

February 6, 2006, 07:52 PM

One progressive willing to be active in the Democratic Party is worth 100 garden-variety gun show conservatives in making us progress toward restoring gun rights. I've always said that if we depend on right wingers to protect gun rights, we're sunk. Evidence the condition of our rights today, after a half century of this issue being the domain of the Right.

On many issues, I tend to come down somewhere on the Barbara Lee end of the Democratic Party, if not a click or two over into Bernie Sanders country. Unfortunately, I'm also in there with Ron Paul and Bob Barr on some issues, too. But I can't consider joining the Republicans, because of the mess the current bunch of gangsters have made of our country.

I'm seriously considering registering as a Dem and getting active in the party.

tellner

February 6, 2006, 07:59 PM

I see Mr V. And Kodiaz describe themselves as pro-gun liberal, and I wonder what they mean, betting that it is far from simple. It might also be misplaced, even schizophrenic. I would think one would need to do more than enjoy guns and want to ward off laws that interfere with that enjoyment.

It also has to be more than rejecting pro-life and Judeo-Christian theocracy or more than the rich versus the poor, the haves and have nots.

I think labels, especially when applied to oneself, make one accountable for the beliefs and actions of others who claim those labels. Liberals are notoriously anti-gun, so I don't get what pro-gun liberal means and bet there would be a better label.

For me it's pretty simple. I am a liberal leaning towards Social Democrat on a large number of issues from civil rights and regulatory structure to the separation of Church and State, health care and a variety of economic concerns. I strongly support organized labor (or what's left of it), and am on the greener side of many environmental issues.

I am a strong supporter of civil liberties including freedom of expression, religion, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, and the rights of the accused. Unlike many who share my views on these subjects I believe that self defense is one of the most fundamental civil rights. Without the means to effectively exercise it that right is meaningless. Guns are the supreme tool for personal self protection in situations where life is in danger. Hence, I support the right for people to keep and bear them and to use them for legitimate self defense.

On a more radical level I have studied history a little. The ruling classes have always been armed. Or more precisely, they have been able to hire armed people to carry out their will - cf. the Pinkertons and private goons during the early 20th century, Blackwater, the "Regulators", the Inclusionists like Earp, etc. They are also the ones who own the governments and have the strongest influence on its massive capacity for armed force. Common people owning guns is simply extending to everyone the perquisites that the elite have always enjoyed.

RealGun

February 6, 2006, 08:03 PM

<>But I can't consider joining the Republicans, because of the mess the current bunch of gangsters have made of our country.

I'm seriously considering registering as a Dem and getting active in the party.

Would you be willing to have the Democrats characterized by the actions of a few bad actors? Maybe we have to now quibble over what "a few" means. Introducing the word [gangster] is a bit shrill, don't you think?

Helmetcase

February 6, 2006, 09:14 PM

One progressive willing to be active in the Democratic Party is worth 100 garden-variety gun show conservatives in making us progress toward restoring gun rights. ...

I'm seriously considering registering as a Dem and getting active in the party.
Ding ding ding!! Get this man a cigar!

Glad to see more and more people get it. Leave it to one party, and that party starts taking you for granted, which is exactly what's happened with the RNC. We'll never get all the Dems to our side or way of thinking...but thankfully we don't have to. We just need a few...which is what my site is all about.

Personally, I'm a registered Independent...but I see reforming the Dem party as the most productive use of my time.

Helmetcase

February 6, 2006, 09:17 PM

Oh yeah, I'm a pro-gun lib.:neener:
God luv ya. You, Malone, Tellner, Barbara just made cabinet positions when PGP becomes a corporation. :D

Malone LaVeigh

February 6, 2006, 09:18 PM

Would you be willing to have the Democrats characterized by the actions of a few bad actors? Maybe we have to now quibble over what "a few" means. Introducing the word [gangster] is a bit shrill, don't you think?
If a few Republicans would break ranks and stand up for environmental sanity, civil rights, against imperialism, the security state, etc, or any of the corrupt goings on in their party, you might have a point. They're not making Republicans like were around during the Watergate affair any more. And no, gangster is a prefectly accurate word, IMO. If you look at the records of a lot of these people in regards to Central America and the Middle East (for example), you basically have "made men" in the classic Cosa Nostra sense.

Malone LaVeigh

February 6, 2006, 09:22 PM

God luv ya. You, Malone, Tellner, Barbara just made cabinet positions when PGP becomes a corporation. :D
I don't know how a corp can get me in the Cabinet, but I want to be czar of Homeland Security.

tellner

February 6, 2006, 10:45 PM

Kodiaz

February 6, 2006, 11:39 PM

Hey we all agree on guns I think there might be 1 more thing we could agree on.

Repeal the stinkin income tax. This has been bothering me all day. I make 3000 more dollars this year than last year and I have to pay a 1000 more dollars in income tax.

I get nothing out of my tax money not a single stinkin thing.

beerslurpy

February 7, 2006, 12:01 AM

Hah, if you lived in CA, you would pay 1600 instead of 1000.

The problem with getting rid of income tax is: who is going to pay for... (2005 amounts)
-social security 512 billion
-medicare 277 billion
-medicaid 194 billion
-disability and other 312 billion
1.2 gigadollars/year, soon to be reaching 1.5 trillion a year for the 2008 election!

edit: oh crap this doenst include the presription drug benefit, so the actual numbers are going to be higher

And this hits us below the belt EVERY SINGLE YEAR. You cannot get rid of the income tax unless you are willing to chop away the social "safety net." I am willing to do this in a second, but the progressives/liberals/socialists arent.

Btw, this has nothing to do with guns, but everything to do with the enormous tax burden you dislike.

Kodiaz

February 7, 2006, 12:05 AM

Cut it all. All the entitlements the alphabet soup and a huge chunk of the military(Leave enough to close the border and push the button).

beerslurpy

February 7, 2006, 12:28 AM

No_Brakes23

February 7, 2006, 01:36 AM

This is why "pro-gun liberals" are either:
-socialists who espouse incremental disarmament under the rubric of "sensible and safe gun ownership"
-political conservatives that dont feel comfortable in the republican party, but havent realized that the democratic party is bad in the same ways, only with different trimmings. I certainly don't match either description, though I am closer to the second. Except that I have no illusions about Dems being any better than Repubs.

Byron Quick

February 7, 2006, 03:30 AM

Neither party impresses me about much of anything. Neither party has any member with meaningful presidential aspirations whom I would vote for. Both parties have many folk running for office whom I regularly vote against.

Barbara

February 7, 2006, 05:58 AM

Yep, same here. I can only remember off hand two Dems I've voted for in recent years. One was last election when a solidly pro-gun Dem was running against a pompous ass of a gun-grabbing Republican for our House seat, and one was for a local office. I've voted for several Republicans in that time, mostly notably the Shrub in '04.

Liberal does not = Democrat. Sheesh. They're worse than Republicans. :)

Really, both parties have their list of freedoms they're willing to sacrafice. It's always a case of which you're willing to give up. Myself, I'm not willing to give up any.

hso

February 7, 2006, 07:03 AM

God luv ya. You, Malone, Tellner, Barbara just made cabinet positions when PGP becomes a corporation. :D

No way! I deal with various government sorts, elected and not, all the time and I don't have the stomach for the double talk and numbing inefficiency I see in the gov.

Now Emperior I could get behind.

Helmetcase

February 7, 2006, 07:26 AM

I don't know how a corp can get me in the Cabinet, but I want to be czar of Homeland Security.
This corp is going to own a private island, and it'll need a cabinet for external affairs and the like :).

RealGun

February 7, 2006, 08:43 AM

A read a lot here about both major parties being held to left wing or right wing standards when both are actually moderate. Each party meeting the other halfway, becoming moderate, is the reason they are electable.

It should be no surprise that the reality of each party may be difficult to distinguish in many regards. One real difference is visible support for gun rights in the Republican party and an unmistakable lack thereof in the Democrat party. If the Democrats want their party to be seen as anathema to gun ownership, they can suffer the consequences.

antsi

February 7, 2006, 08:49 AM

If the Democrats want their party to be seen as anathema to gun ownership, they can suffer the consequences.

No, what they want is to be seen as friendly to gun ownership.

That way, they can get elected and pass laws to confiscate all our guns.

Just wait: if Hilary runs for president, there will be a media event where she goes out and shoots skeet or walks around in a field with a shotgun pretending to hunt pheasants or something. She'll say carefully-crafted things like "I support the Second ammendment rights of hunters and target shooters. The only gun laws we need are reasonable safety measures."

If she gets elected, AWB II will be introduced within a week of her taking office and it will be a million times worse than AWB I.

xd9fan

February 7, 2006, 09:16 AM

No, what they want is to be seen as friendly to gun ownership.

That way, they can get elected and pass laws to confiscate all our guns.

Just wait: if Hilary runs for president, there will be a media event where she goes out and shoots skeet or walks around in a field with a shotgun pretending to hunt pheasants or something. She'll say carefully-crafted things like "I support the Second ammendment rights of hunters and target shooters. The only gun laws we need are reasonable safety measures."

If she gets elected, AWB II will be introduced within a week of her taking office and it will be a million times worse than AWB I.

And then it would be time for the GOP to do a spot check and look for a set between their legs. Hilary will always be Hilary. My question is where the hell are all of the Limited Govt, Progun, anti tax and spend Reagen Conservatives????

hso

February 7, 2006, 09:29 AM

If only more liberals were like you.

I would vote for any candidate that went even half as far as you in that direction. Unfortunately, it seems that every presidential election isnt a debate about the proper size and intrusiveness of government, but a fight over how best to abuse that power.

Each party seems to be in a race to pick our pockets and twist our arms for their pet causes. We havent even had a plausible primary candidate in years that would take either party in a new direction (ie away from accumulating and abusing power) for as long as I can remember.

Bingo! The major parties have become monopolies controlled by cryptofaciests on both ends of the social spectrum. They moderate their candidates offered and positions dependent upon the public's spasming when they get a glimpse of their true purpose which is dimunition of individual liberty in service of their agendas.

Silver Bullet

February 7, 2006, 09:35 AM

As far as "Safe and Sensible"...you bet. I want to see Gun Ed in all schools. That takes care of the "Safe" part. As far as "sensible": I don't wanna see convicts with guns.
Exactly right, except I'd change "convicts" to "children". I don't necessarily think its right that someone who commited a crime and did his time should be barred from his Second Amendment rights any more than his First Amendment rights. An exception might be a convict who was convicted of a felony while using a weapon.

JJpdxpinkpistols

February 7, 2006, 11:42 AM

Exactly right, except I'd change "convicts" to "children". I don't necessarily think its right that someone who commited a crime and did his time should be barred from his Second Amendment rights any more than his First Amendment rights. An exception might be a convict who was convicted of a felony while using a weapon.

Hmmm...interesting Idea. However, I am still a bit nervous about having people who have proven that they are incapable of holding up their end of a relatively easy social contract running around armed. Lets face it: NOT killing someone is relatively easy, as is NOT raping someone, and NOT commiting things like armed robbery. If you can't avoid the easy stuff...should you be trusted with something that is, at times, complicated?

But I could be persuaded on this issue. I would want to see rates of recivitivism and so on based upon w/gun or w/out gun at the time of crimes, etc.

JJpdxpinkpistols

February 7, 2006, 12:15 PM

AWB II will be introduced within a week of her taking office and it will be a million times worse than AWB I.

Antsi: dude...a MILLION times worse? Wow...that would be an awfully lot worse! A whole lotta worse!

Seriously, tho. Hillary won't get nominated. She REALLY doesn't have the support, at least outside of NYC, and she is sooo vulnerable it would be insane. The netroots doesnt' like her, and I can't find anyone I know that thinks she would be a great prez.

Actually, the straw poll I saw on KOS last week had Hillarywas 4th choice, behind wes clark, kerry and bill richardson (in no particular order--and I can't seem to find that poll). She has a HUGE warchest, but no legs and not a lot of soldiers on the ground.

JJpdxpinkpistols

February 7, 2006, 12:47 PM

One real difference is visible support for gun rights in the Republican party and an unmistakable lack thereof in the Democrat party. If the Democrats want their party to be seen as anathema to gun ownership, they can suffer the consequences.

and the wheel goes round and round and round and...

RealGun: you aren't listening, my friend. That is changing. Slowly. From the bottom up, not from the top down (which is how we got here in the first place).

Clinton bloody well pounced on anti legislation after Columbine and Springfield in order to get folks voting for his pet projects...and look where it got us. Over time,t he party bought it. Now, that tide is shifting...not cuz either Clinton suggested the turn. Not cuz Kerry went out and tagged a duck. Its turning cuz the party BASE is demanding that change in exchange for votes and money.

Cynically: I will not vote for any candidate (outside of President) that is not *pro-2a*. Which means that I occasionally have to either write in candidates, or vote for the Republican. In one of the local races, I will be voting for a *GREEN* who is pro-2A, anti-awb.

Dateline Eastern Oregon. Bend Democrats hold out for pro 2a statement in Demo Party Platform. They "get" it, to the chagrin of the chief Anti in the state, who doesn't "get" it at all--she shares office space with HCI :banghead:

Montana, New Mexico, Idaho as well have made HUGE strides to can the anti-crap and get real on the 2a.

The only thing the state party of Oregon *hasn't* done--despite requests-- is to actually yank party support for antis in office. But they aren't pushing them either, and a good number of them have noticed the lack of support and are either moving on to the private sector or are moving to other positions in an attempt to solidify their name/brand and secure long-term funding. They are having some trouble at that.

cookekdjr

February 7, 2006, 12:47 PM

scottgun

February 7, 2006, 01:09 PM

Pro-gun liberal? Probably means that your core values include:

1. Care & concern for the elderly, children, and veterans.

2. Protection of the environment and natural resources

3. Affordable health care for everyone

4. Equal rights for all people (*note* that includes women)

5. A general concern for working families (as opposed to big business).

6. You recognize that unless the little people can arm themselves, they will be helpless to defend themselves.

7. You don't think that government exists to make it easier for big companies to screw their employees and consumers.

-David

or more accuraltely described

1. redistribution of wealth from those who earn to those who dont
2. shutting off wilderness to the public
3. more wealth redistribution
4. special rights for some people who are more equal
5. anti coporation
6. pro gun
7. more anti corporation

so based on your principles you are against corporations and for redistrubution of wealth, thats not a good formula for a free and thriving society.

CoachVince

February 7, 2006, 01:33 PM

I have another solution. Get civil govt completely out of the marriage business, other than to enforce mutually agreed to contract rights, just like any other private agreement. That also means MANDATING perks for spouses in employment should be completely eliminated. Govt sanction on marriage is only about 150 yrs old anyway. The date from memory so don't trust it too far.
I've mentioned gov't involvement in marriage as a violation of the separation of church and state in the past to friends; if the gov't extended NO benefits to any union, or FULL benefits to all unions, they would be unbiased. But, by recognizing SOME unions, they are confusing ethics with morality.

I don't want to get tied up in religious posturing; I'm just saying there are those of who respect gay marriages; despite my faith saying homosexuality is wrong, I still recognize the commitment of two people to each other.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, I just think its a more honest way of dealing with the issue (to have gov't not involved in marriages).

dmallind

February 7, 2006, 01:33 PM

This redistribution of wealth thing is almost always looked at in one direction only, assuming "they" are taking wealth from "us".

Is it not redistribution of wealth to:

Use taxes disproprotionately raised in cities and densely populated suburbs to build and maintain roads in the boonies?

Give tax incentives to corporations to provide jobs near you rather than near other people?

Provide taxpayer-financed services to your tax-free church?

Give large tax breaks for people who overextend themselves on mortgages?

Offer no-bid contracts that overpay for basic commodities to defense contractors, who are after all paid for by taxpayer money?

Keep open inefficient, redundant or ineffective military bases and weapns programs even in your state?

Specifically disallow government purchases from negotiating the lowest possible price for prescription drugs (sure it's debatable whether they should buy them at all, but given that they do wouldn't it be less |"redistribution" if they bought more cheaply)?

If you are an absolutely pure fiscal Libertarian then you would oppose ALL redistribution. That viewpoint is IMO wrong but is at least intellectually consistent. More typical Republican style opposition to redistribution (and I want to stress this is a general point - I have no idea what your personal basis for this opinion is) is really nothing more than "let me keep the subsidies I want but nobody else can have any".

scottgun

February 7, 2006, 01:43 PM

"let me keep the subsidies I want but nobody else can have any".

That should be reworded as "let me keep the income that I earn and don't want stolen from me". My income is not a subsidy, when the government redistributes it then it becomes a subsidy. The person who receives a subsidy did not earn it yet they feel entitled to it. A healthy econony and society can not survive with a majority of people who feel they are entitled to something they did not earn.

And for redistribution of wealth, some is necessary and too much is tyranny, kinda like government itself.

dmallind

February 7, 2006, 01:52 PM

That should be reworded as "let me keep the income that I earn and don't want stolen from me". My income is not a subsidy, when the government redistributes it then it becomes a subsidy. The person who receives a subsidy did not earn it yet they feel entitled to it. A healthy econony and society can not survive with a majority of people who feel they are entitled to something they did not earn.

And for redistribution of wealth, some is necessary and too much is tyranny, kinda like government itself.

So I assume then that you DO consider it redistribution to have your roads, church, possibly your employer, subsidized from general funds, and would be willing to forego these subsidies?

BTW on a state level has anybody here seen which states are net payers and net welfare queens from overall Federal tax dollars? Might surprise some of you in those "rugged individualists here - gub'mint's just evil" places.......

AHH what the hey I'll just provide the link

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

scottgun

February 7, 2006, 02:13 PM

dmallind

February 7, 2006, 02:37 PM

Tax breaks or tax free status is not a subsidy. Not having to pay taxes is not the same as receiving money from the government.

Corporations don't pay taxes, well they do directly, but that is a cost of doing business and it just gets passed along to the consumer. So anyone who says that corporations need to pay their fair share of taxes are saying that the price of goods and services needs to be raised so that the government can redistribute it.

Churches don't operate for profit (in theory), so having tax free status allows them to operate without a economic impact. This isn't a benefit, just as not getting mugged one day being a windfall.

Yes, I would forgo services in exchange for keeping my own income. I drive a jeep and don't need paved roads, in fact I would prefer it. :)

I disagree - it's EXACTLY the same as receiving money from the government. The government is saying "you should have to pay X in taxes but we'll cut that back to X-Y because we want to subsidize your activity". Anything that reduces expenditure increases net income - the effect and the intent is exactly the same as if the goevrnment said "Pay X in taxes but I'll write you a check back for Y because I want to subsidize your activity"

Like most people here I work for a corporation. Like many people here I am in a policy-setting role in that corporation. Not ONCE I assure you, in many meetings and committees I have sat on regarding pricing, has the idea of reducing prices because of a tax break been raised. In fact all marketing and operational decisions are based on gross margin first and EBIT second. Taxes are part of neither of course. Certainly net income is part of our financial results, but it is quite significantly removed from individual price setting. It is possible that given absolutely huge tax breaks, my employer and its competitors would be slowly forced to reduce prices based on previously non-viable competitors being willing to sell at a lower gross margin because of the increase in net income vs EBIT with a lwoer tax rate, but something other than taxes was making them non-viable before that, so the natural conclusion is we would remain equally at a competitive advantage given equal tax treatment, and still be able to retain much of that tax break as net income to shareholders. Trust me we would not reduce consumer prices out of the goodness of our hearts, so I feel the pricing effect of corporate tax breaks is significantly less than you imagine.

I am far from a "soak the corporations" guy. I'm an investor and corporate manager so it would be rather silly of me to be one. However I believe an equal and reasonable tax position is far preferable taking in a macro view compared to the "expansion by auction" situation we see with local, state and even federal tax breaks today.

Barbara

February 7, 2006, 02:38 PM

Again, you're confusing liberals with leftists. One can believe problems exist without believing government is the solution to those problems.

JJpdxpinkpistols

February 7, 2006, 02:48 PM

Yes, I would forgo services in exchange for keeping my own income. I drive a jeep and don't need paved roads, in fact I would prefer it. :)

Yes, I would forgo services in exchange for keeping my own income. I drive a jeep and don't need paved roads, in fact I would prefer it. :)

My, how RUGGED of you!

Seriously, you need the roads, even if you don’t think you do.

I assume that you buy:
Food…tomatoes don’t grow in Denver in December. Ok…you don’t buy food at the grocery store! Cool!
Gas for your Jeep: That doesn’t get pumped and made in Denver…ok..you use biodiesel made from French fry oil!
Fries: came from Idaho, by truck. Ok you Farm, then!
Tractor: didn’t get delivered by donkey. Roads got it there. Signs regulated the truckers, and the state police made sure that said trucker stayed inside the speed limit, so they wouldn’t tip over you topheavy-french fry smellin’ vehicle ;-)
So now, without the roads we are down to subsistence farming, right? How did you get your seeds…all heirloomed, right? Nope? Shipped, then. Truck. Roads (and possibly some plane).

Enough about food, tho…can you tell it’s time for my lunch?

Roads make the electricity you use viable. Without them, how would cable get to your electrical company? Much less the computer you use to post with 
Roads made the dams used to generate your electricity possible (unless you generate your own electricity…in which case you used the shippers/etc extensively to get the supplies to build the system, and those use roads.)

Then there is clothing so you can be warm while substence farming, or warm driving that french fry smellin’ jeep in the CO winters ;-)

No matter HOW we cut it, we are tooo big to go back to zero taxes, zero interoperability, and zero dependence on another. Waaaaaaaay too big. I would say that we passed that point around the time the civil war ended, and I don’t think that anything short of a massive depopulation would be getting’ us back to that place any time soon.

Are we giving too much to an overbloated beauracracy that needs to have some of it’s limbs amputated? Heck yeah! Can we eliminate the income tax? No. Sorry.

Now, lets see if we can cut down some of this pork…These here piggies are getting’ fat an’ noisy. Hand me that knife ;-)

scottgun

February 7, 2006, 02:51 PM

dmallind - if I was getting mugged every day and then one day I didn't get mugged, the mugger wouldn't be giving me any money.

And for corporations, of course they won't reduce prices if they receive a tax incentive, but they might hire more employees, purchase capital and expand overall. Taxes are a part of doing business and get absorbed, but continually increased taxes will have an effect on a business. Its not a level playing field in a global economy where American companies are hindered by regulations and other foreign companies are not.

But I'll have to agree to disagree as to not completely side track this thread.

RealGun

February 7, 2006, 03:04 PM

RealGun: you aren't listening, my friend.

I am listening to the sounds of silence. What you may be doing in Oregon is wonderful, but until there are more than 13 people (Democrats) in all of Congress with decent gun rights ratings (GOA) and until there is news from blue states other than about new gun restrictions, Democrats will be fairly characterized as anti-gun. The few exceptions are noteworthy, but I will assume they are Democrats only because of the districts or States which they represent. One has to be careful who their friends are.

On another note, could I ask you to help keep this thread on topic. The issue is the meaning of labels, specifically "liberal" and by natural contrast, perhaps "conservative". Your other issues may be interesting but serve to hijack the thread.

RealGun

February 7, 2006, 03:09 PM

Again, you're confusing liberals with leftists. One can believe problems exist without believing government is the solution to those problems.

I don't recall seeing use of the term "rightist". If there is a leftist, is there a rightist? If leftist is a pejorative, would rightist also be considered dishonorable. I am assuming one would not apply the label "leftist" to himself.

dmallind

February 7, 2006, 03:20 PM

However since much of the concept of liberal vs conservative comes down to economic policy, it's a valid discussion I think.

Your mugging example isn't. Rates of muggings are not written into statute like tax rates are, so a reduction in mugging is very different indeed from a reduction in taxation, colorful analogies that link the two notwithstanding.

That said to get back to the real question - it's so simple it escapes many people. A pro-gun liberal (or leftist or pinko commie fag subversive or socialist or democrap or whatever the epithet du jor is for those not on the far right) is quite simply someone who has those political views but also espouses at least some level of civilian gun ownership and/or who enjoys guns themselves.

It's not that difficult a concept once people get past the idea that a disagreement on one policy position implies a black and white disagreement on all others. People who do that or who make that assumption - on the left OR right - are simply blind partisans. Most people in the general population are not like that. I despise labor unions. I want welfare recipients to work for their subsistence. I am pro-death penalty and believe in free trade for profit. I am, obviously I hope, a gunowner and believe that civilians should have the ability to own firearms. That however does not stop me from supporting positions on other issues that are more traditionally Democratic ideas - not worth listing here as it's just an invitation for flamefests.

One other concept hard for many THR posters to accept it seems (and intuitively enough given the whole damn point of the site!) is that pro-gun does not necessarily mean the gun issue overrides every other issue. I am not a single issue voter on ANYTHING. I can understand, with some effort, people who are, but I'm not one and neither are a goodly portion of the electorate. It is possible, trust me, to be pro-gun and not have guns be the be all and end all of your life and politics.

Barbara

February 7, 2006, 06:18 PM

My friends who are leftists usually admit to being such. Sometimes they call themselves progressives or socialists? They tend to think the government is the solution to every problem. My rightwing buddies tend to call themselves that. They tend to think there are no problems except the government.

Myself? I think they're all full of it. :)

I support gay rights, I support the rights of people with whom I disagree, I think George Bush is a fascist, and so on. I think racism exists (on both sides) and needs to be faced. I think women put up with too much crap because they're socialized to do that. I think we beat the hell out of the environment and its going to come back and bite us in the ass someday.

On the other hand, I'd probably be termed fiscally conservative. The Federal government should be building roads and defending our borders. I've seen few problems that were improved through bureaucratic intervention (although I'm more ok with government involvement on a state and local level..you can still vote with your feet if you don't like it.)

The thing is, folks are ok with my beliefs as long as I call myself a libertarian, or conservative, and hold the exact same views, but they get all knotted up if I call myself a liberal. Which is ok with me. :)

Silver Bullet

February 7, 2006, 06:52 PM

BTW on a state level has anybody here seen which states are net payers and net welfare queens from overall Federal tax dollars? Might surprise some of you in those "rugged individualists here - gub'mint's just evil" places.......

AHH what the hey I'll just provide the link

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

That chart shows that states with large areas relative to population get more money back per capita (for example, highways) than states with high population or high density. What point did you think you were making ?

dmallind

February 7, 2006, 07:27 PM

Really? Didn't know I lived in such a dense state. Seems a lot emptier in toto than KY, AL, LA, etc In fact it looks like MN is about 21st in density but 4th in not getting that "redistribution" back. I think you are reading in too much to a limited sample. While population density plays a part, so does per capita income, education level of inhabitants, attractiveness of the location to business (often based on the education thing), political clout at the Federal level, and relative ability to balance state budgets

But in reality the point I wanted to make was that redistribution of wealth takes many forms, and all too often people ignore that redistribution when it's in their favor then scream bloody murder when it isn't.

If you want an end to redistribution of wealth can MN get your 23c for every Fed tax dollar redistribution/welfare back? We'd only need another 7c from some other beneficiary of redistribution to be fair then.

After all taxes and wealth distribution is the problem, right?

Or isn't it now?

antsi

February 7, 2006, 08:07 PM

1. Evidence the condition of our rights today, after a half century of this issue being the domain of the Right.

2. I'm seriously considering registering as a Dem and getting active in the party.

1. We've had a couple hundred years of the firemen being in charge of putting out fires, and still buildings burn down. Therefore, I'm advocating putting the arsonists in charge of the fire department.

2. I'm sure the Democrats would welcome your support as a gun owner and embrace your gun rights, right up until the moment they get elected.

Coronach

February 7, 2006, 08:42 PM

1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.We have noted that the civility of L&P has been plummeting of late. Correlated with this is yet another resurgence of political posts that do not meet the criteria as outlined in the rules of conduct. Just because a post is 'political' does not mean it belongs here. It must address firearms issues or civil liberties issues directly. "Civil liberties are in danger because Bush lied, people died!" and "we will lose all of our guns becuase Hillary has anger issues!" will not cut it. Post directly, not obliquely, about how a given topic has an impact on RKBA or civil liberties.

Thank you,

Staff at THR