Why the Left hates Self-Defense


PDA






Dr. Dickie
April 30, 2007, 11:28 AM
Yeah, he gets it.
http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7997_0_1_0_M

They view guns as the problem, not people who do evil things, Leftists are not big on recognizing evil to begin with, or criminals who have no interest in being governed by laws. To the gun-grabbing left, guns ARE the problem. Guns, you see, are tools, and millions of Americans use these tools every year to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property against robbers, rapists, murderers, etc. In fact, armed citizens stopped four of America’s school shootings, including one in Virginia in 2002. Those who want more gun control also claim to desire less crime. Obviously, if their desired aims of more gun restrictions were to be placed upon America violent crime would rise. So why do they not embrace, rather than fight against, law-abiding Americans owning guns?


Ah, here lays the ugly truth about the left my friends, they hate self-defense, and guns, more than any other tool, are used by Americans to defend themselves. Why, though, do those on the left despise self-defense? They are collectivists, and Socialists. They believe that people should think, and act, collectively, not individually. They also deeply believe in collective self-defense. The government should be responsible for your protection, not you.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why the Left hates Self-Defense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
April 30, 2007, 11:30 AM
Who is the "He" that you're referring to?

Dr. Dickie
April 30, 2007, 11:31 AM
Sorry, what an idiot, forgot the link:
http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7997_0_1_0_M

Doug Hagin

DOUGH:evil:

cbsbyte
April 30, 2007, 11:41 AM
Sorry, I disagree. I don't know a single liberal who would not use force to protect their family etc in a dire situation. Their issue is with using firearms in self defense. I respect their right not to believe in guns. On a side note, I bet you one could find many conservatives who also don't believe in using firearms.

eric.cartman
April 30, 2007, 11:52 AM
I don't know a single liberal who would not use force to protect their family etc in a dire situation.

You haven't lived in NYC, have you?

I have a friend there, who's solution to a armed robbery in his house is to install better doors and locks... he tells me that "killing" someone is not an option for him, and he feels that's exactly what a gun in his hand would do.

So, there are people who would not fight back. I know them personally.

cbsbyte
April 30, 2007, 11:56 AM
You haven't lived in NYC, have you?

No, I don't live in NYC, but I live in Massachusetts, near Springfield and thus know many liberals. Anyway, it all depends on the individual. Some believe in self defense others do not. Its their choice.

SamTuckerMTNMAN
April 30, 2007, 11:57 AM
DOUGH

?:neener:

Well...I like to keep the issue we have in common as shooters, the right to bear arms, and not offend the few liberals there are, and there are some, who reserve the right to a free country and protection, and empowerement in general. Although there are many good points, and there are days when I am so enraged with liberal socialist communists I would agree. However, the issue is too important to divide over political terms, we who are active in the defense of what we cherish, and what gives us the ability to disagree.

Common citizens
bearing arms
in large numbers

st

helpless
April 30, 2007, 12:30 PM
How do you hate self defense?

Leanwolf
April 30, 2007, 02:48 PM
CBSBYTES - "I don't know a single liberal who would not use force to protect their family etc in a dire situation. Their issue is with using firearms in self defense."

I know quite a few left wing liberals in Los Angeles, who would never use force to protect themselves or family. Over 35 years living in L.A., and talking with many of these liberals, I discovered long ago they think the only thing one should do when attacked is get the bad guy involved in "conflict resolution" dialogue. What I call "The Liberals' Rodney King Syndrome." ("Can't we all just get along?")

Afterall, "Violence against a bad guy just breeds more violence... and puts you down on the bad guy's level." Besides, you can just call nine-one-one and the police will come riding in on white horses to save you.

Frankly, if a left wing liberal wants to allow him/herself and family, to be brutalized, robbed, raped, bludgeoned, strangled, burned, knifed, shot, and murdered, I could not possibly care less.

My problem with all these cowardly, wimped out, holier-than-thou liberals is that they demand laws that forbid me to protect myself and my family... in order to justify their own cowardice.

As for some "conservatives" who are in the same camp, yep, there are a few... but the anti-self defense/anti-guns crowd is dominated by left wing liberals.

L.W.

hso
April 30, 2007, 02:57 PM
"liberal" and "conservative" don't map one to one for being for or against using firearms for self defense.

There were and are many folks that would be considered "liberals" by Southern standards that have no qualms about using firearms for self defense. There are many "conservatives" that would never consider using firearms for self defense in those same communities. Conversly, there are "conservatives" in the Western US who support the use of firearms for self defense and "liberals" that don't.

The issue is too complicated for the simplistic pigeonholing of people into "conservative" or "liberal" boxes and as long as we don't address the world as it actually is and not as we want to dumb it down to we'll never have much success reaching the vast majority of non-idealogues in this country.

Wolfsong
April 30, 2007, 03:32 PM
Afterall, "Violence against a bad guy just breeds more violence... and puts you down on the bad guy's level."

And that is just ONE flaw in the lib's argument. There are no "levels". We are all simply human beings who possess the potential and proclivity towards being violent. It is our nature. There is no such thing as "royal blood lines". We are all the same, poor or rich, black or white. God did not make create us as being better or worse than another. That is a choice WE make. But try and explain that to a liberal. Good luck...

Peace and God bless, Wolfsong.

38SnubFan
April 30, 2007, 03:49 PM
he tells me that "killing" someone is not an option for him, and he feels that's exactly what a gun in his hand would do.


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if a gun in his hand would cause him to kill someone in self-defense, then wouldn't that mean that "KILLING" (I prefer to say use whatever force necessary to stop the attack, which doesn't necessarily mean taking the BG's life), WOULD BE an option?

Cbsbyte, it looks to me like your friend has contradicted himself. Might want to talk to him about that. If he sits and really thinks about what he is saying, he might take a different view on self-defense, and thus maybe add one more person to our cause.

I'd probably be wrong, but hey, anything is worth a shot if it can do good as the end result.

-Matt

marshall3
April 30, 2007, 03:55 PM
I don't know if this "religious" remark is allowed here, but I'll try. Liberals in general don't believe in the innate sinfulness of man. They believe that all men are basically good. They believe that all people have a "spark of god" inside. I noticed last week that the VT students were mourning the death of the evil CHO, along with the other students. Why? Because he was human, too, and because his twenty years of goodness out-weighed his one day of badness. Liberals believe in the goodness of man, therefore it is wrong to defend yourself, and wrong to kill ANY other human being, because you are killing someone innately good, in spite of the evil they may be doing NOW.

In my view we are all sinners under the skin, but some people are given over to evil, and they need to always be noted and sometimes eliminated.

Koos Custodiet
April 30, 2007, 04:09 PM
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if a gun in his hand would cause him to kill someone in self-defense, then wouldn't that mean that "KILLING" (I prefer to say use whatever force necessary to stop the attack, which doesn't necessarily mean taking the BG's life), WOULD BE an option?

Cbsbyte, it looks to me like your friend has contradicted himself. Might want to talk to him about that. If he sits and really thinks about what he is saying, he might take a different view on self-defense, and thus maybe add one more person to our cause.


I think this whole liberal / conservative thing is a crock of shyte.

You have people who believe / know that if they had a gun, they would shoot the wrong people. They don't trust themselves with a gun. And therefore they don't trust *you* with a gun.

There's some kind of a magic wand that gets waved to make it OK for law enforcement to have guns, I still havn't wrapped my head around that (seeing as how half the families who get shot by the head of the household here in South Africa just so happen to have a police fellow as the head of the former household...)

*sigh*

Koos

wooderson
April 30, 2007, 04:16 PM
Several of you seem to be conflating "burglary" with "threat to self/family."

This is not the case. These are distinct events and should be treated as such.

Perhaps I'm one of those self-defense hating damn dirty lib'ruls, because I'm not going to shoot someone over my TV set. Or my dog. Or even some of my guns. Step toward me and I'll think about it. Step toward one of my kids (if I had any) and I'll do it twice.

RPCVYemen
April 30, 2007, 04:40 PM
Perhaps I'm one of those self-defense hating damn dirty lib'ruls, because I'm not going to shoot someone over my TV set. Or my dog.

Sheesh - next you're going to be calling for intelligent political dicourse with people might not agree with you!

What era are you from? The height of political philosophy and reasoning is calling someone a name! Opinion polls demonstrate that the mightiest intellectural jugeranaut is calling your opponent "Liberal". It so poweful wer just call it the "L word". How did you not learn this?

Where the heck do you get the idea that you're allowed to not fit an ignorant stereotype? Do you think that you're allowed to think for yourself? Who gave you that freedom? You must conform to stereotypes, or our electon process will fall apart.

Mike

Brian Williams
April 30, 2007, 04:46 PM
The problem with most liberals is that they think they can solve the problems of society by removing things that are "evil" and "Healing" those who choose to do wrong.

nra-life-member
April 30, 2007, 05:02 PM
I thought to protect yourself - you only need to dial 911.. At least that's what were told by certain folks..:uhoh:

RPCVYemen
April 30, 2007, 05:18 PM
The problem with most liberals is that they think they can solve the problems of society by removing things that are "evil" and "Healing" those who choose to do wrong.

Can you actually back up the "most" in this statement, or is this just something you heard?

I know a number of liberals, and I don't think one of them would agree with your generalization. For example, most of them support removing people who chose to do wrong things from society. It is true that many of them would call for treatment of non-violent drug offenders (but so would many people I think of as conservative).

Do you actually have some stats or surverys or polls to back up the "most" in your claim?

Mike

gotarheels03
April 30, 2007, 05:42 PM
I've heard plenty of people here in DE say they wouldn't use a gun (or other weapon) to kill in self-defense. Most of these people are fellow students at the University of Delaware. (another "Gun Free Zone":uhoh: ) It just dumbfounds me because we as humans should have self-preservation hardwired in us. I always just took it as a given that if someone was trying to kill / harm a person or that persons family, said person would instinctually use deadly force in return provided they had the means to do so.

It's scary to hear a college student say they'd rather fight and claw their way to safety unarmed than use a gun in self-defense to take the life of someone threatening their own life. The rediculous logic required to come to such a conclusion is beyond my comprehension. Sadly, I heard exactly that logic from some students in the wake of the VT shooting. All I can do is look at them and think "I really don't get it.":confused:

And more on topic, we can't make broad generalizations about self-defense attitudes of conservatives / liberals or left / right. My brother is a liberal Democrat, yet owns several guns and I doubt he'd hesitate to use them defensively. Then again he's an LEO so maybe he doesn't count as typical.

Highland Ranger
April 30, 2007, 06:04 PM
I agree with the liberal/conservative monikers - they don't fit here.

Folks who dislike guns on that irrational level are afraid, or maybe in a more positive light, too civilized to protect themselves. I support their choice to surrender that right for themselves and to appoint the government the job of protecting themselves and their familes.

What I strongly object to is them making that choice for me.

Springfield_1911SS
April 30, 2007, 06:14 PM
I thought to protect yourself - you only need to dial 911.. At least that's what were told by certain folks


they have it all wrong, it 1911 ;)

Werewolf
April 30, 2007, 06:18 PM
I've heard plenty of people here in DE say they wouldn't use a gun (or other weapon) to kill in self-defense.I've never been an anti. Been pro-gun all my life but I used to say I'd never kill anyone for taking my TV myself - until my home had been broken into 3 times and my daughters' cars broken into and/or vandalized multiple times.

You know what they say:

An anti is just a gunny that hasn't been mugged yet...

I daresay there's many an anti-gun woman out there that's been brutally raped that wishes she'd had a gun when the incident occured. I wonder how many of them are STILL anti's?

nra-life-member
April 30, 2007, 06:21 PM
That's it - :) 1911 - I knew I was close

oldgold
April 30, 2007, 06:49 PM
Afterall, "Violence against a bad guy just breeds more violence... and puts you down on the bad guy's level."

Eureaka; now I understand ! It's the caste system. Being a victum somehow puts you in a higher social status than all us lowly non-victims.

Not being a socially aware person I now realalize my short comings and shall take my rightful lowly status to heart.............. and d####ed proud of it.

harrygunner
April 30, 2007, 07:46 PM
Strictly from an intellectual perspective, a viable
moral code should increase the overall good.

I considered this issue when I was a child. I'm recounting here
as I thought of it as a child.

My first response was to declare my unwillingness
to sink to the level of the perpetrator.

Then, I felt uneasy as I considered the result
of such a position: I'd be dead and the perpetrator
would still be around.

So, I immediately switched and realized the world
is better off in a violent confrontation if decent
people survive and scum bags die.

For the rest of my life, I've stayed with the position
that it is morally correct for decent people to use
violence to survive a confrontation with a criminal.

I believe an argument with this simple core, on what
is necessary for a legitimate moral code, could cause
some to pause as they argue for non-resistance.

Can't guarantee it would overcome cowardice, but, if
morality is the only issue, they may reconsider.

1911Tuner
April 30, 2007, 08:00 PM
'Tis not the liberal who is the enemy. I know a good many liberals who are gun owners, hunters, shooters...and even a few who carry a pistol for self-protection, though many ascribe to the notion that no one "needs" certain weapon platforms, for they have no legitimate sporting purpose...but I'm workin' on that.

None that I know say that they wouldn't shoot in defense of life, limb, and family. Whether any of them actually would is a matter of conjecture, for none of us know what we'll do in the awful moment of truth unless we've already been there.

It's those who would rule who are after your right to bear arms for any reason...be it shooting skeet or self-defense. It's not about gun control and never has been. It's about people control. It's about power...and power is the great seducer. Power. Absolute power would be in the bag were it not for that pesky Second Amendment...so they take advantage of the liberal tendency toward the knee-jerk reaction in their attempt to garner support at the polls.

You see...(and I quote: )

"They may promise to govern well, but they mean to govern. They may promise to be good masters...but they mean to master."

RPCVYemen
April 30, 2007, 08:51 PM
I don't know if this "religious" remark is allowed here, but I'll try. Liberals in general don't believe in the innate sinfulness of man.They believe that all men are basically good.

I am not sure that the believe in the innate goodness of mankind is shared by all liberals. The "innate sinfulness of man" is (as far as I know) a strong belief of some Christian sects, but not of all. I don't know how non-Christians (liberal or conservative) feel about that.

They believe that all people have a "spark of god" inside.

That's odd - I would think that's a peculiarly Christian belief, based on the writings of that old liberal - Moses. For example, I would not expect secular liberals (or secular pacifists) to make an argument based on the "spark of G-d in every man" theory.

I noticed last week that the VT students were mourning the death of the evil CHO, along with the other students. Why? Because he was human, too, and because his twenty years of goodness out-weighed his one day of badness.

I mourn for Cho. He was a tormented man driven by demons (spiritual or psychological) to a horrible act. Had I been there with a weapon, I would have shot him to stop the killing - not because I hated him or would seek glory in killing him. I would have shot him to stop the killing - not because I had carefully weighed his relative goodness and badness.

I do believe that G-d created each one of us for some purpose - when he crated he life of that young man, I don't believe that G-d's intent was to have that man grow up and kill lots of innocent students.

I don't believe that G-d intended anyone to live in the pain he must have been in. So I would have shot him in a heartbeat, and then I would have mourned for the man G-d intended him to be.

Liberals believe in the goodness of man, therefore it is wrong to defend yourself, and wrong to kill ANY other human being, because you are killing someone innately good, in spite of the evil they may be doing NOW.

The religious pacifists that I know don't defend pacifism on the ground of the innate goodness of mankind. I don't know all religious pacifists, or all liberals, so there may be some who believe what you describe.

I think that belief in the "innate good" or "innate evil" of man has flip flopped among liberals and conservatives for centuries. At times, man is seen as a "noble savage", corrupted by society. At other times, man is considered an "inferior primitive", perfected only by society and laws.

The pacifists I know (largely Quakers) would argue that life is divine gift from G-d, and man may not take it away. To my eyes "Thou shalt not kill" is better translated "Thou shalt not murder" - but there are some folks who take it very serious, and their scriptures don't have an "expect in self defense" clause to that commandment.

As I say, I don't read the Decalogue that way, but they do. It's not so much the goodness of the killed that they are worried about - it's the goodness of the killer.

Mike

Standing Wolf
April 30, 2007, 09:03 PM
I used to know a few people who believed their lives weren't worth defending.

XLMiguel
April 30, 2007, 09:20 PM
I respect their right not to believe in guns.

Fine and dandy as long as they promise not to call someone (i.e. the cops) with a gun to come save them when there is danger at their door. I always wonder about the concept of personal responsibility relates to those types . . .

Me? I don't believe that all life is sacred. I do believe that there is Evil in the world, and that Evil is not dealt with by running away. Sometimes you must fight, and there are many things in Life that are worth fighting for. I have no problem with those who believe that violence should be a last resort (though sometimes, timing is everything -). Those who don't get that, are a waste of skin/oxygen and deserve to be 'food'.

Stevie-Ray
April 30, 2007, 09:50 PM
They believe that people should think, and act, collectively, not individually. They also deeply believe in collective self-defense. The government should be responsible for your protection, not you. My God, I never realized it until now.



Leftists are The Borg!:eek:

Notch
April 30, 2007, 11:50 PM
I stopped "respecting their right to not like guns" when it became obvious that theyy didnt respect my right to own guns. Respect is earned and they have not done so.

thexrayboy
May 1, 2007, 12:07 AM
One of the underlying issues with those who refuse to take responsibility for their own defense is the issue of feelings. They feel that an individual should not be allowed to make life and death decisions regarding the taking of a life. They forget that the criminal has made that decision already and they are at the mercy of the criminal. They feel that the criminal should be arrested and given the chance to be "rehabilitated", after all that is how they would like to be treated if they were a criminal. Those who would disarm us feel that they should not defend themselves and further more they feel that no one else should unless they have been given a badge etc. to authorize that act. The anti self defense crowd think guns should be banned because they feel that
the risk of owning one far outweighs the minimal benefits of owning one. The
common theme among all of the arguments against personal self defense and for disarming the populace is feelings. Logic and the statistical evidence that backs up logical argument are irrelevant. They feel what they feel and the facts of the matter are irrelevant.

This situation would be annoying at most in the past. However at this point in time these illogical, touchy feely emotional slaves pose a real threat to the safety and liberty of reality based persons. A hundred plus years ago people who thought this way were routinely removed from the gene pool as a result of their innate inability to defend themselves. In the past 100-150 years we have short circuited the filter on the gene pool to the point where we now have two separate species with identical physiologies but disparate mental makeups. One is the normal person who realizes that the world is what it is and we must respond accordingly or die. The other species, homo stupidicus
feel rather than thinks and will make choices that are basically species suicide and insist on taking us with them.

That is the essence of much that is wrong in our country. We have become so successful at controlling our environment and removing inherent dangers that we have allowed a subspecies to evolve and flourish that feel rather than think and wish to take all of us down their road to self destruction.

grampster
May 1, 2007, 12:21 AM
One of my best friends falls into the category of "liberal". He's got more guns than I do. His wife is so infuriatingly liberal that if I didn't lover her as a dear friend of 45 years, I'd slap her silly. I've changed my tune about labels since I got my first computer in 2000 and and stumbled onto a few gun boards, especially THR and TFL where there is a back and forth conversation. This is much better than just reading a short article that asks one to draw a conclusion in a few moments. We can't just stuff people into categories. I've been guilty of that. I work at avoiding doing that. I'm thankful that I've been exposed to many hundreds of folks throughout our country and the world who have enlarged my thought processes in that regard.

Some folks just really believe that humans are inherently good. I don't believe that for an instant myself. 63 years on this earth, with a father that taught me the value of paying attention to things is the reason why. I think people are inherently bad and need to be civilized. I could give you a lot of reasons and we could wrestle with that for a long time. I just give you the following to contemplate.

Children don't have to be taught how to be bad, they seem to come by it quite naturally. They do have to be taught to be good. If you think about this for awhile, I think you might agree.

Some folks just don't grasp that evil walks the earth. They think reason is the highest element of mankind. Maybe it is. But some folks just aren't into reason. That's why we need to be prepared to cover our own 6.

I read a report in the local paper a couple days ago. The reporter purported to interview some of the survivors at VT. In one classroom, a French language class, 12 people, including the prof., died and only a handful survived. The narrative seemed to indicate that at least one of the survivors related that he watched the shoes and legs of the shooter and didn't want to look at him. He actually laid on the floor and listened to him reload and did nothing. The shooter left the room and came back and shot a few more people and still no one did anything. The murderer killed himself in this room. If this account is accurate, and I don't know if it is, but if it is, how in the name of anything that is human, could anyone subscribe to pacifism?

Please don't misunderstand the above comment. I am not walking on the graves of the victims. No one really knows how they'd react to a situation like that. But I was struck by the commentary of the victim himself and I wondered about the morally relativistic society we are building in that law abiding people are not to be ready to challenge violence. There seems to be a denial by elements, educated elements, of our society that there are times for which we should not only be prepared to defend ourselves, but that we need to understand that evil actually does exist. I see a denial of this fact by a growing segment in the West: Everyone's opinion has value, no one is wrong, no one is bad, just misunderstood.

RPCVYemen
May 1, 2007, 10:54 AM
My first response was to declare my unwillingness
to sink to the level of the perpetrator.

There are many pacifists who adopt this position. They say - and I don't think that it is without merit - "If killing is wrong, should I permit an evil person to cause me to do wromg?"

Then, I felt uneasy as I considered the result
of such a position: I'd be dead and the perpetrator
would still be around.

Any intellectually honest pacifist understrnd this outcome. Every pacifiist that I have ever met has accepted that absolute pacifism can lead to dying as a response to evil.

So, I immediately switched and realized the world
is better off in a violent confrontation if decent
people survive and scum bags die.

Most pacifists do not agree with this step of your analysis. They would argue that the best witness for pacifism is dying in the face of violence. They would argue that's the only way that we will get to non-violent world.

Quakers, particularly early Quakers died fairly regularlty as what they would call "witnesses to the truth". They had found a particulare message in New Testament, and were willing to die rather than violate (their view of) Jesus's message.

Here is a sample of one Quaker's testimony as she was benig escorted to the gallows. I essence, she is dying as a witness to the evil of the law she opposed, in order that the law be repealed and other not die. She is dying for the salvation of those killing her - to prevent her persecutors from suffering from the "bloodguiltiness" of killing other people:

Nay, I came to keep bloodguiltiness from you, desireing you to repeal the unrighteous and unjust law made against the innocent servants of the Lord. Nay, man, I am not now to repent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Dyer

For the rest of my life, I've stayed with the position
that it is morally correct for decent people to use
violence to survive a confrontation with a criminal.

I agree with you.

I believe an argument with this simple core, on what
is necessary for a legitimate moral code, could cause
some to pause as they argue for non-resistance.

Don't confuse pacifism with non-resistence. For example, it's clear that Mary Dyer resisted an unjust law to the point of death. And I suspect that her actions were more effective than killing those about to kill her. There is some evidence that her willingness to die was an extraordinary witness and had a major impact on the development of religious tolertaion in the United States.

Quakers in particular would argue that they were bound to resist the point of death. The founder of Quakerism was beaten with some regularity for his preaching.

Pacifists of all stripes would argue that "what is necessary for a legitimate moral code" is to act morally. For many of them, kiling is not moral. They would argue that you cannot support a moral code through an immoral action.

Mike

baz
May 1, 2007, 11:08 AM
Several of you seem to be conflating "burglary" with "threat to self/family."

This is not the case. These are distinct events and should be treated as such.I didn't see that. I did see a reference to "armed robbery." IAC, I would bet that most of us agree that if the only threat is loss of property, then that doesn't justify shooting someone. Sheesh, that's the law, for goodness sake. But if someone breaks into my house, is armed, and I'm there, that's no longer burglary: it is robbery. And in that case, if I have the chance, I will act preemptively; I will not wait around to find out just what violence the person had in mind when they decided to bring along a gun. I will presume they meant me or my family harm, and will act to prevent it.

SWMAN
May 1, 2007, 11:47 AM
Whatever you all decide, just leave me and my guns alone!!!!

Brian Williams
May 1, 2007, 12:50 PM
No I can not back up My statement of most, but look at the social engineering that has gone thru the school systems of America, Look at what is allowed on broadcasting that is a substitute for reality. Look at the socialist agendas that are spouted by most politicians and the media and their claims that "They" want to help us.

Why is it my son cannot draw a rifle in class with out having to get permission first and why can't my daughter take her Swiss Army Knife to class? Becasue Drawing guns and having SAKs is evil and "we" the Liberal school system, need to change their minds.

cracked butt
May 1, 2007, 01:16 PM
Self Defense-
One of those dangerous ideas where a person is expected to be responsible for their own life and well being.

IllHunter
May 1, 2007, 01:21 PM
As I ponder the deep thoughts of some of the posters here, I review my own history and say, my nature is neither good nor evil, both reside in me and I choose which controls my actions. Mostly I am good, occasionaly I am bad. The yin and yang, the light and dark, the freedom of choice and the seduction of evil. And for pete's sake stop refering to the anti' s as liberals. They are leftists without a doubt, I know because I'm a liberal and I carry a gun.:neener:

RPCVYemen
May 1, 2007, 01:23 PM
Look at the socialist agendas that are spouted by most politicians

When you say "socialist", is that more or less just a name to call someone, or do you mean that you believe that most liberals are socialists?

Here's what I find as the definition of "socialism:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

My guess is that the percnetage of (American) liberals who would advocate true socalism is tiny - amost imperceptibele outside of academia. I would think of socialists as the kind of people who live on a kibbutz in Israel. And they can be heavily armed.

Why is it my son cannot draw a rifle in class with out having to get permission first and why can't my daughter take her Swiss Army Knife to class? Becasue Drawing guns and having SAKs is evil and "we" the Liberal school system, need to change their minds.

If you think it's only political liberals who want the stupud "No Tolerance" weapons at public schools, you are wrong. Most parents I have talked to (even some pretty conservative Baptist types) believe that "No Tolerance" policies about weapons in schools is a good thing. Unless they own weapons and shoot a lot (a very tiny percent of the American population), they drink the "No Tolerance" Kool Aid. I say "own weapons and shoot a lot" because I have had disucssions with hunters who buy the "gun free zone" policy about public schools. So there are folks who own weapons and buy the "gun free" stuff.

America has become gun shy. In the words of Pogo, "We have seen the enemy and he is us!"

If blaming that on phantoms (like "the socialists") helps you sleep at night, then that's fine with me. But it's also delusional.

Mike

PAshooter
May 1, 2007, 01:30 PM
Interesting and thought provoking thread. My $0.02:

As a Christian I've always struggled with the concept of original sin, and the philosophy that we are inherently sinful creatures. How, if we are created in God's image, can we be sinful? I can't resolve this inconsistency, so I move on...

I believe that good and evil exist, and that we have all been given free will by our Creator to choose which path we take. Most people, I believe, choose to follow the good. Most, but not all.

So what are we - the good - to do about those who chose evil? The pacifist approach doesn't work. If good cowers, or does nothing, in the face of evil, will not evil eventually triumph? Is this the world our Creator intended?

Who was it that said all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing?

Or to put it another way, those who beat their swords into plowshares end up plowing for those who don't.

Sorry - I chose good, and will fight to defend good against evil. It is the only logical choice.

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2007, 01:31 PM
Read my signature for my thinking on why they hate self defense.

jpk1md
May 1, 2007, 01:39 PM
The brand of American Socialism that troubles me most is one where the Liberal Lefties increasingly "allow" (for the time being) private ownership but at the same time continue to crank up regulation and increasingly expand taxes etc to accommodate their redistribution of wealth and ever expanding entitlements.

It does NOT encourage people, small business and hard work to better oneself and children....it does not foster the historical American Dream of a better like through persistence and hard work so that the next generation is better off/can go to college....instead it fosters the notion of a Nanny Gov't with ever expanding entitlements.

freakazoid
May 1, 2007, 02:14 PM
They are collectivists, and Socialists. They believe that people should think, and act, collectively, not individually. They also deeply believe in collective self-defense. The government should be responsible for your protection, not you.

I would have to disagree a lot with this part. I am an anarchist/communist, ie. "leftist", and I strongly believe in our inalienable 2nd Amendment right. Socialism isn't about people thinking and acting collectively, although many things are used collectively, much like Jesus taught. Socialism is just the transitionary period, although I do disagree with it, from capitalism to communism. Communism/anarchy, which is stateless and classless and which means that there is no government, is the true goal of socialists. The sad thing is that at the leftist board that I frequent there are a lot that believe in gun control, but there also are a lot, such as myself, that believe in no gun control. This just goes to show that the whole conservative/liberal thing doesn't really work on this issue.

Riz58
May 1, 2007, 05:42 PM
"I would have to disagree a lot with this part. I am an anarchist/communist, ie. "leftist", and I strongly believe in our inalienable 2nd Amendment right."

Freakazoid: Your position statement is logically inconsisten. As an anarchist, you cannot believe in any constitutional government; therefore, you cannot believe in constitutional rights.

As a communist, you believe that a totaliarian regime is required to bring about the communal "peace" you dream of - also the antithesis of anarchy. Despite almost one hundred years of effort, it was interesting that this peaceful, commual society never resulte - quite the opposite.

Finally ,anarchy has reigned in the past. The result is a form of goverance we call "tribes" People band together for what they see as their own common good, and then go take, steal, kill, or destroy that of another group of people because there is no "law" against it.

The early Christians tried communal living, and it failed miserably among a group that was very dedicated to each other. (See "Acts"), and Paul even rebuked many in the community saying that those who do not work should not eat.

Better re-examine the "philosophy" and try to be internally consistent.

freakazoid
May 1, 2007, 06:48 PM
therefore, you cannot believe in constitutional rights.

I believe in the ideas behind those rights. I believe in rights given to us by God.

As a communist, you believe that a totaliarian regime is required to bring about the communal "peace" you dream of - also the antithesis of anarchy.

I do not. That is why I am against the socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, although I do think that it is better that what we have now but I still strongly disagree with it. What you, and most people in general, think of

Finally ,anarchy has reigned in the past. The result is a form of goverance we call "tribes" People band together for what they see as their own common good, and then go take, steal, kill, or destroy that of another group of people because there is no "law" against it.

Are laws stopping people from doing that now?

The early Christians tried communal living, and it failed miserably among a group that was very dedicated to each other.

How so? Also the Amish live in a communal type setting yet they have not failed.

(See "Acts"), and Paul even rebuked many in the community saying that those who do not work should not eat.

Ok, doesn't hurt my belief any.

Acts 4:
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Anarchy in action^ :D

1 Samuels 8, The LORD God telling the people that only He is to be King over them.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=8&version=31

A basic idea about what we believe,
http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html

But this is getting a little off topic.

Alexfubar
May 1, 2007, 07:00 PM
Omit individuals and look at the Organizations.

ALL American Gun Control Efforts today come from the Left.
ALL American Gun rights effort are led by the Right.

Sure we all know common sense Democrats /lefties that wouold protect their families. But the Organizations that claim their support want to STRIP me of My Rights.

Voting for Democrats furthers the AntiConstitutionalist Gun banners amongst us. Sorry , but true.

harrygunner
May 1, 2007, 07:00 PM
RPCVYemen

I appreciate your responses. Good stuff.

Questions of morality, existence, what value and values we hold, are the questions
of the ages.

Some people spend time to consider basic philosophical issues, others live with their
accidents of birth, unquestioned.

I've decided diversity of thought in humans is like biological diversity.

It's been said any intelligent entity can hold inconsistent thoughts simultaneously.
This is similar to genetic mutations, leading to different and changing belief systems.

But, always, there is survival of the fittest.

That's why as a child, I decided to fight back.

sadhvacman
May 1, 2007, 07:06 PM
I would just like to point out something that christians often miss... regarding capital punishment and gun control.and that is... that it is a sin to commit murder. to kill is not a sin. In fact it is a commandment to kill rapists and murderers.

PAshooter
May 1, 2007, 07:40 PM
I must admit I've "skimmed" much of this thread, so please forgive me if I've missed something, but I'm intrigued by your beliefs freakazoid. As a Christian (in training) I think the faith-based community you seem to envision is a wonderful utopian ideal. Problem is, it has never worked out that well in practice... even in the time of the early Church.

I feel (and note the use of the word... it's an emotional, spiritual reaction) that smallish communities like this, composed of like-minded individuals guided by Christian principles could succeed. Your mention of the Amish is a perfect example of this. I'd love to be part of such a community. But a nation based on these ideals would never survive in today's world.

Even the Amish only survive today in their isolated enclaves because the might of a central government (and Constitutional guarantees) protect their way of life.

I'm convinced a much better (i.e. workable) approach is the Constitutional Republic our Founding Fathers thought they had created. It protects the rights of groups such as those you envision, as well as many other divergent philosophies. Trouble is, the ones running the show these days have completely lost sight of this original intent. They pander for votes in order to stay in power... and in the process trample whatever rights get in their way. That drives us toward Socialism (State control of all wealth and distribution of same as the state sees fit) and totalitarianism (outlaw every act and behavior that doesn't further the State's goal).

I'm rambling, I know. My personal belief is that we need to dissolve the government and start again with First Principles... the Constitution (as ammended) and little more.

Yeah... like that'll happen :D

freakazoid
May 1, 2007, 07:49 PM
Even the Amish only survive today in their isolated enclaves because the might of a central government (and Constitutional guarantees) protect their way of life.

I believe that it would survive without it.


I'm rambling, I know. My personal belief is that we need to dissolve the government and start again with First Principles... the Constitution (as ammended) and little more.

I'm all for that, :D

Yeah... like that'll happen :D

lol, :(

Turkey Creek
May 1, 2007, 07:52 PM
Somehow I can't get over the idea that those who choose to die rather than fight to save themselves or anyone else, think that they are in a higher level of civilization than those that choose to fight- And what's worse is that they really really like this idea because it elevates themselves in their own minds irregardless of any other circumstance- Basically a holier than thou, better than thou attitude, which IMHO borders on a mental illness-

On a personal level, if this is the way they choose to be, no skin off my nose- The problem lies in the fact that the majority of this kind wants me to follow their rules because I am a dolt and a barbarian- They feel it is their duty to make me see the light- Sorry, but if you leave me alone I'll be more than happy to ignor you and let you go on your way, but the second you try to impose your will on me we have major problems- Somehow this "better" person cannot seem to live and let live- I must live in their world no matter what- Ever notice how the "enlightened" have zero tolerance for anyone who doesn't fall in step with them?-

PAshooter
May 1, 2007, 08:00 PM
I believe that it would survive without it.

I do not. I think they would be overrun by the evil forces in the world.

It takes force to overcome evil... and they are not willing to exert that force.

Believe me, I have great respect for their beliefs and their way of life. But I ask you, why are there not thriving Amish communities in other parts of the world?

I guess I find myself aligned more with the Spartans... some of us must be willing to die for freedom in order for others to enjoy that freedom.

freakazoid
May 1, 2007, 08:14 PM
I do not. I think they would be overrun by the evil forces in the world.

It takes force to overcome evil... and they are not willing to exert that force.

Not if there are individuals/militias willing to protect them. But anyways, the Amish is just one example, no reason to think that other communes would go unarmed.

PAshooter
May 1, 2007, 08:17 PM
Not if there are individuals/militias willing to protect them.

I pray that I would have the courage to be a part of that militia. We're not that far apart, freakazoid.

Peace.

SuperNaut
May 1, 2007, 08:23 PM
I'd love to say that my friends on the left do not fit the generalization of the OP, but sadly many do.

That said, I refuse to write them off, and I refuse to sit on my ass and do nothing. The cheap and easy political characterizations in this country have got to stop. We play into the hands of the manipulative and powerful when we bicker amongst ourselves over trivialities.

The Siren Song of safety in the bosom of the State is strong and has been persistently sounding for decades. It will take a long time and a lot of work to overcome. The time for blame is over, it is time for action. I think I'm up to the challenge, how about you?



Also it is quite possible to be philosophically sympathetic to ideas that are not practical. I am quite sympathetic to anarcho-individualist ideas, but my experience has shown me that The Founders struck a good balance between individual freedom and social order. So I am an anarchist at heart but a Jeffersonian-Style Constitutionalist in practice.

freakazoid
May 1, 2007, 08:42 PM
The time for blame is over, it is time for action. I think I'm up to the challenge, how about you?

Yup. Actually at the last Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot I had handed out papers with different quotes about firearm ownership, the role of the government, freedom, etc. out. Most of the quotes was from Jefferson but there where a few other people as well I think. Not much but just trying to raise an awareness about what Americas Founding Fathers had originally planned, compared to what it is today. Many thanks to Oleg Volk for allowing me to use some of the pictures from this wonderful site, :D :D

but my experience has shown me that The Founders struck a good balance between individual freedom and social order

To bad it no longer represents what they had envisioned.
To quote Benjamin Franklin,
Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

full of awesome quotes, http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/benjamin+franklin :D

Archer1945
May 1, 2007, 09:09 PM
I have to agree with Bryan Williams about the Socialist agenda. Unfortunately I can't remember the person's name, just that he was the leader of the Communist Party in the US for many years. He said, and this is almost a direct quote, "Americans will never accept socialism if it is called that, however if we call it "liberalism" they will turn the country socialist of their own free will. Guess what people who should know better have let the news media get away with redifining socialism/communism as "liberalism".

And for you who keep saying it is the "LIBERALS" who are anti-gun I'd suggest you take time and study some history. The most LIBERAL document ever written is The Constitution of the United States of America. The men who wrote it were anything but CONSERVATIVE. If they had been the conservative, the way a good many people on this forum define the term, we would not have the Constitution and we would probably still be part of the British Empire. Actually the United States as we know it would not exist, part of it would be English, part French, part Spanish and part Russian.

freakazoid
May 1, 2007, 09:34 PM
Communist Party in the US

Which one? Bob Akavian is the chairman of the RCP. But most of the leftists at the forum that I hang out in don't think much of them.

gunsmith
May 2, 2007, 08:11 AM
I didn't read the whole thread so I do not know if they were mentioned, but the "Spartacus Leauge"(SIC?) are Trotsky and pretty solidly pro gun.
I remember in the 1980's they were the only ones (in NYC) saying that subway workers have the right to armed self defense when a Transit worker shot a mugger and got arrested....nope...sorry...no links to show you.

beaucoup ammo
May 2, 2007, 10:48 AM
"Ah, here lays the ugly truth about the left my friends, they hate self-defense..."

That is woefully, tragically and embarrassingly wrong. The brush used to paint that stroke must be a mile wide. Having been in broadcasing for 35 years, I had the great pleasure to discuss the topic of self defense with General Joe Foss, Charlton Heston, Chuck Yeager (the General is still active and living in the Texas Hill Country) and others with a considerably more realistic grasp on reality that the person responsible for the above quote seems to possess.

This isn't totally dismiss the man's article or purpose..far from it. However, this type of statement only leaves one open for a blind side "left" from any anti who's half awake, IMO.

It's never good to speak in such flip generalities as this. You'll never win an argument much less a convert.

There's a photo of "Howard Beale" (I'm mad as hell...") on his web site from "Network." I agree with Finney's character in the film. I get so mad at times, the thought of opening the window and yelling out the famous phrase is very tempting!

The internet works quite well, also. But, when you commit an opinion for public consumption it's not a bad idea to avoid statements that defeat your intent and make you look inept.

When we go up against the anti gun left we should consider what effect our effort will have and how we'll be perceived, IMO.

Wayne D
May 2, 2007, 10:48 AM
Somehow I can't get over the idea that those who choose to die rather than fight to save themselves or anyone else, think that they are in a higher level of civilization than those that choose to fight- And what's worse is that they really really like this idea because it elevates themselves in their own minds irregardless of any other circumstance- Basically a holier than thou, better than thou attitude, which IMHO borders on a mental illness-

I think you have summed it up perfectly.

Baba Louie
May 2, 2007, 11:11 AM
There are liberals.

There are conservatives.

There are pacifists.

...Isolationists.

...Collectivists.

...Anarchists.

...Morally Superior.

...Cowards.

...the Weak and Meek.

...Bullies and Warmongers.

That's why as a child, I decided to fight back.
The broad paintbrush of saying the "Left" hates self defense is "too" broad a brush for me to use... even if it is true at times. But harrygunner's above quote fits me to a "tee", even if I fall into all of the above classifications (and I would surmise that each of us, at some point in our lives, have and will fall into each group for a brief moment or two).

Well, I really really try hard not to fall into the "Bully/Warmonger" classification, but I do remember saying something about needing to send our troops into Iraq to fight... but that's another topic for another day.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why the Left hates Self-Defense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!