Any other liberals?


PDA






Mcuraddoc
September 21, 2008, 11:54 PM
Thank you all for answering my questions about my new hand gun. I appreciate your candor and honesty.

To be very honest, buying a hand-gun was not an easy decision. I have long been an advocate of a heavily regulated gun industry. However, recent events have lead me to realize I can't expect the police to be everywhere all the time. I had to be able to stand up for myself. I still wrestle with this choice I've made.

Are there anyother folks out there who have wresteled with the decision to arm themselves?

If you enjoyed reading about "Any other liberals?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
September 22, 2008, 12:00 AM
No. But I'm a definite social liberal, economic liberal to moderate, and a loather of so-called "neo-conservatism". Does that count? :D If it helps, us "gun nuts" have long realized that a person on the 'wrong' side of the gun issue is just someone who hasn't been mugged yet, or otherwise been hit on the head with an incident that shows the deep need for self-defense tools. The major political party typically associated with "liberalism" in this country (starts with a D) is definitely on the wrong side of the gun issue, at the national level.

eflatminor
September 22, 2008, 12:00 AM
I suspect very few. We're mostly Conservatives and Libertarians. Regardless of who we vote for, we tend to be united in the idea that what's best for the individual should be left up to that individual, not anyone else and certainly not the government. This applies to everything from personal protection to retirement savings to health care. Nothing boils the blood quicker than a government official that seeks to regulate my activities, activities that do not harm another in any way, because they think they know what's best. History shows again and again that they do not.

RonE
September 22, 2008, 12:08 AM
I have never had to wrestle with the choice of gun or no gun. My conscience and choice has always been clear: Guns are good, use them, don't abuse them.

esheato
September 22, 2008, 12:12 AM
Mcuraddoc,

May I ask what events have swayed your opinion?

Thanks,

Ed

Mcuraddoc
September 22, 2008, 12:13 AM
Folks-

Thanks for your support. I'm getting better with the use of my gun and a local range (Shooter's World for those folks in Az.) has been doing well at educating me so I don't shoot my face off or loose my sense of respect of the power I've recently choosen to take resonsibilty for...

SuperNaut
September 22, 2008, 12:16 AM
I'm philosophically an anarcho-capitalist but a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist in practice. Since I agree with a lot of what Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Voltaire, etc. have written that also makes many of my ideas lean towards classical liberalism. IOW the Founding Fathers had some great ideas derived from some great teachers.

This currently fashionable neo-liberalism that seeks to control speech, thought, behavior, markets, religions, etc,. is an abomination IMHO. Stop struggling with your decision to arm yourself, you are beginning to cast-off no small amount of brainwashing. Taking ownership of your own protection is actually you taking ownership of your own destiny.

Congratulations.

kcshooter
September 22, 2008, 12:17 AM
I also have never had to think twice about owning a gun and being prepared to defend myself.

I do find myself of the liberal side of social/econ issues quite often. I also find occasionally I have somewhat conservative values in some areas. I never sway too far from the middle either way. When asked I usually reply "I'm a moderate liberal who votes third party or votes only on the issue". I most frequently align myself with libertarian politics as a whole, but never call myself libertarian, and certainly never a democrat or republican.

I don't see how any political alignment can fall in with denying people a right to doing everything and anything they can to stay alive when under attack.

Prepster
September 22, 2008, 12:17 AM
I'm a paranoid libertarian, so I suppose socially I'm quite liberal. I'm kind-of like you! Yay!

Mcuraddoc
September 22, 2008, 12:19 AM
I've choosen to spend my life caring for victims of Trauma. I spent 8 years in post-graduate education studying how to care for trauma patients. Every 4 years, as part of my Trauma Re-Certification, I have to do a 3 week ride-along in the back of a medic's rig.

The last time I had to do this, I was in Detriot. I was trying to intubate (or manage an airway) for some gang banger that had been shot in the chest (later died in the Trauma bay). Anyway, during my attempts to intubate, I was lying on the asphault and Detroit PD wasn't able to keep the scene secure. We got jumped. That was 4 years ago...

I can't expect anyone to manage my safety except me. The local PDs, ATF, DEA and Sheriff's offices are streatched too thin and I won't put anyone's life in front of mine...how good am I to the patient I'm trying to help if I'm dead?

Thanks for asking....

Loomis
September 22, 2008, 12:26 AM
Liberal, libertarian, liberty...all start with the same 4 letters. Yet the first of those three words is somehow completely different than the other two. It wasn't always that way. The democrat party has been hijacked by communists, environmental fascists, and alternative lifestyle freeks. The democrat party is quickly becoming the party of anti-americanism.

It's really sad. I hope the libertarian party replaces the democrat party soon.

no_problem
September 22, 2008, 12:38 AM
<<I was lying on the asphault and Detroit PD wasn't able to keep the scene secure. We got jumped. That was 4 years ago...>>

I am sorry to hear this. It is sad that you were trying to help one of them and in the process, you got jumped. It is not a difficult conclusion to make: There are simply some people in society that cannot behave in a civilized manner. And the only one responsible for your safety is you.

There are many people out there who are decent, but there are yet more who will take advantage of your decency. It's simple, you have to protect yourself.

Mr_Rogers
September 22, 2008, 12:51 AM
I love clean air, water with healthy fish, to see the mountains, to feel that the person doing the work is paid a rate commensurate with the value of the time he spends at work.

I see the attitude of "don't tax me" while some poor individual dies of cancer they can't afford to get treated, through no fault of their own, as crass selfishness.

Guess that makes me a liberal.

I still own enough hardware to constitute an armory.

theotherwaldo
September 22, 2008, 01:00 AM
Lotta folks have forgotten that a third of the country used to believe that (D) stood for Dixiecrat. 'Course, that was before Slick Willie (Gag).

Kind of Blued
September 22, 2008, 01:07 AM
I'm a left-leaning Libertarian who thinks one should be able to buy machine guns at the hardware store...

snipe300
September 22, 2008, 01:13 AM
It is so nice to hear from a self proclaimed liberal that won't just outright bash gun owners. Just for the record, I tend to be a conservative in reference to interpreting the constitution, but I don't necessarily agree with any one party on all issues.

makarovnik
September 22, 2008, 01:16 AM
Guns and health care for all.

Vaarok
September 22, 2008, 01:18 AM
I don't care what your political alignment is, I care what your stance on firearm ownership is. And it's on my side, so you are okay by me.

Deus Machina
September 22, 2008, 01:18 AM
Republicans accuse me of being liberal, democrats peg me as conservative. I'm unaligned, officially, and figuring out who to vote for sucks.

I'm a big believer in personal rights and the idea of 'live and let live', and understand that the former point is more important than the latter at the worst times. Unfortunately, the people charged with your safety can't provide it.

Throw off the 'dealer of death' image of firearms the far left have drilled into you, and consider it insurance. Or preemptive intubation. Take it to the range and, if it strikes you, take up target shooting and have fun with it.

It's just an object. You control it.

KP89
September 22, 2008, 01:23 AM
It depends on the issue, I pick and choose what things I support verses a singular present ideology.

I am an eco-libertarian/eco-liberal/conservative cross.

danweasel
September 22, 2008, 01:32 AM
I hate all politicians equally. I believe that people should care more for each other than they care about money. Or if someone does drugs. Or humps guys. Who cares as long as it's not in the street? Does it make me a liberal if I think that GWB is stupid? Or that american politics is a joke? Because people have called me one. I will never forgive the people that voted for some A-Hole to run this country into the ground TWICE, just because his (moronic I agree) opponents were not "badass" enough.

Look at the elections, what a childish whine fest. "Your a racist!", "Your a sexist!" What does this matter? Reality TV for the people who just can't comprehend American Idol.

So Yeah, I own an AK and live in Alaska, I am also a soldier in the US Army.

I just think that we need to grow up or this country is done.

pax
September 22, 2008, 01:35 AM
Are there anyother folks out there who have wresteled with the decision to arm themselves?


Yes, but in a moral sense, not so much in a political sense. You'll find a lot of my musings on those topics on my website, if you're interested. (Link's in the sig line.)

pax

JCMAG
September 22, 2008, 01:35 AM
I don't know much about political parties. I find the less I know, the happier I am.

I know a few things for sure: The government is irresponsible by design. It is a relatively small group of people attempting to enforce one standard onto 300 million people.

If this is for basic laws, good. If it is for the collective national defense, good. If it is for organizing international trade, good.

If it is telling me how to live and what to believe, bad.

I am no party other than that of the citizenry of the United States of America and I'll be damned if any politician is going to write some irrelevant law that says my life and the lives of my loved ones aren't worth protecting.

Put that in whatever party you want to, categorization doesn't change the thing itself.

J. C. Mag

. I will never forgive the people that voted for some A-Hole to run this country into the ground TWICE, just because his (moronic I agree) opponents were not "badass" enough.

Aw, shucks, Danny. And here I don't suppose that we've ever even met. Give a guy a chance ;)

plexreticle
September 22, 2008, 01:45 AM
Taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor = Liberal.

Taking money from the middle class and giving it to the rich = conservative.

I'm for not taking anymore of my money and restoring some of my rights. That candidate wasn't nominated unfortunately.

OldCowHand
September 22, 2008, 01:54 AM
Are there anyother folks out there who have wresteled with the decision to arm themselves?
I think everybody wrestles with that decision in some fashion. I grew up in a household that didn't have toy guns -- only real ones -- and I've owned weapons since I was 11. Yet even I have asked myself the questions:

Am I willing to kill, swiftly and without compunction, someone who is trying to kill or seriously injure me or one of my loved ones? (If the answer here is "no," that's okay, but don't bother with any of the remaining questions -- they're pre-empted by this answer).
Am I able to use [fill in the tool of choice here: shotgun, revolver, knife, etc.] effectively and instinctually to stop an attacker with minimal endangerment of innocent bystanders? If not, am I willing to train until I am?
Am I confident of my ability to identify a situation that justifies my use of deadly force in time to bring that force to bear?
I don't think this is a liberal-versus-conservative thing. It's way more visceral than politics. It comes down to how important we think our survival is, and that of our loved ones, and whether we're willing to prepare ourselves to stand for what we have come to view as of primary importance.

Mcuraddoc
September 22, 2008, 02:08 AM
Hey, bud-

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your focus and how clear you made it.

Ryan

fjolnirsson
September 22, 2008, 02:24 AM
Originally Posted by Mcuraddoc
Are there anyother folks out there who have wresteled with the decision to arm themselves?

Yes, I did.
I was once a hard core Liberal, on many issues. I didn't even think police should be allowed to carry guns. Ultimately, firearms led to my political transformation, as a result of CAs restrictive laws. Now I'm, as another poster said, a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist.
Welcome, and congratulations on your decision. Ultimately, I believe you will sleep easier for it.

ArmedLiberal
September 22, 2008, 02:45 AM
What a Great Thread. What a Great Forum.

I'm like Pax, I have always believed in gun ownership as a political right, but do wrestle with living my life armed, cocked and loaded every minute. I highly recommend her website http://www.corneredcat.com

There are many scenarios that one might imagine where I would use deadly force without hesitation, but many also that would give me to pause and look a second time.

I have started to actively arm myself, and to become proficient with firearms lately out of a sense that our world, our United States is lurching towards chaos, collapse and the end of the day to day peace we have taken for granted for all our lives. I don't think firearms and ammunition will be for sale after gasoline and groceries stop being readily available.

I have a lot of opinions and am not easily pigeonholed in our present, pitiful political framework. I believe that our survival as a species requires caring for and loving one another and finding new ways to let go of hate, war and oppression.

But please don't expect to survive if you're crashing through my front door looking for robbery, rape and murder.

Here are some books that I've read lately that speak much of what I believe.

Dimitri Orlov, Closing the Collapse Gap http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23259

Larry Niven (and that other guy) Lucifer's Hammer

Joe Bageant Deer Hunting With Jesus

Robert Heinlein The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (and many others)

T. H. White The Once and Future King


AL

HIcarry
September 22, 2008, 02:50 AM
Mcuraddoc,

In my 25+ years of hanging out in ambulances, helicopters, airplanes, and EDs trying to help save the victims of GSWs, I have had many a discussion with collegues who couldn't understand my position on firearms. Many healthcare providers have been conditioned by the medical establishment to feel like guns are "bad" so it isn't difficult to understand why the decision to purchase a firearm, and provide for your own safety and security, was a hard one.

If there is one thing I learned from working in EMS/ED, is that many times luck favors the prepared. Be it the individual who had the fire extinguisher, or the store that purchased the AED, being prepared is always better. Will it prevent all situations from going "bad?" No, but it's better than letting it fall to pure chance. I also find that more and more healthcare folks are receptive to firearms. Certainly not the majority (yet...) but more than I have noticed in the past, so you are in good company. Just a couple of months ago, I was in the ED checking out the schedule and mentioned that there was a handgun class I was teaching...about 6-7 folks expressed an interest in taking it (it is a requirement here before you can purchase a firearm) before I left.

Keep up the practice and consider taking some "expert" led classes. It will increase your confidence and abilities. Dry fire (please read up on it more) is also a great technique to increase skills and accuracy.

Good luck.

Aloha,

bogie
September 22, 2008, 03:20 AM
I'm a Classic Liberal, and am fiscally conservative.

The religious control fanatics are in the gun culture, and pretty loud about it, but overall, I think they're really pretty far in the minority.

MT GUNNY
September 22, 2008, 03:31 AM
Isn't this amazing! Diverse political views coming together cuz of one Interest shared among them, Talking civil to each other.

Why cant congress come together for love of America?

Dr. Fresh
September 22, 2008, 04:56 AM
I love how 2nd Amendment rights bring people together. I'm usually wary of anyone I meet who calls themselves a liberal, because I assume they are anti-gun. When I find out otherwise, I'm buddy-buddy with them, although I don't agree with everything they say.

Nematocyst
September 22, 2008, 05:31 AM
...to become proficient with firearms lately out of a sense that our world, our United States is lurching towards chaos, collapse and the end of the day to day peace we have taken for granted for all our lives.Once upon a time, I was even further on the edge of spectrum than liberal, into green.
I began to question guns even though I had grown up with them.

Yet, I saw through something that wasn't real in the political realm.

After I had sold all my hunting weapons out of financial need, after an attempted break in by an angel-dusted madman while in grad school, I bought a revolver (the next morning). That was 20 years ago. Never looked back. Now I own 5 carefully chosen tools - 3 levers, 2 revolvers. May add another shotgun (sold a 12 ga 870 a year ago).

I, too, think the planet is heading into chaos, but perhaps for different reasons than for some (not interested in discussing that here).

These days, I totally ignore politics, which I consider to be one of the great evils of existence. In the bigger scheme of things, it makes less difference how (or if) one votes than how one treats others (with respect), and whether you own guns and use them safely and responsibly.

Otherwise, politics is mostly a mass media spectacle.

I mean, really, none of the current presidential candidates will even try to follow through with their promises,
and if they try, they would only partially succeed. Reality prevails in DC just like on the streets of Detroit.

Catherine
September 22, 2008, 07:01 AM
I am a PRO Constitution lady.

I think that the neo con artists who took over the Republican Party, well, I can't go THERE. :fire:

I think that the 'other side' who took over the Democrat Party, well, I can't go THERE. :fire:

I am Conservative - fiscally conservative BIG TIME. I am conservative in many issues because that is ME but liberal in others. I may not like your book or movie or art but I would not restrict your FREEDOM to read it. Don't use or WASTE my taxpayer money on such things too! You remember some famous art funded by TAX dollar money cases in those issues too. UGH.

I think that we waste too much money on STUPID stuff - PORK and on wars while we ignore real issues and SOLUTIONS. Ike warned us about the MIC and tons more. He was right. So was someone else about getting rid of the FEDERAL RESERVE. The corporations and their SHILLS have ruined BOTH parties along with their INFLUENCE in many, many issues vital to us and OUR ECONOMY. ALL issues including health issues.

I am a Christian but I don't SHOVE it down anyone's throat. I don't go to 'church' or belong to any specific 'religion' anymore because I think that most of them are apostate and IGNORE the real mission of the "Golden Rule' while they push candidates that are not really 'Christian' or Jew or Muslim or x, y or z religion but claim to be GOOD and snooker in the neo cons/rinos. I do READ my Bible and pray to God and I have read many religious books including some of the Koran - Qu'ran. I have friends in ALL religions or lack there of and we get along as in all nationalities. I cling to my guns, my Bible, other books and my own personal beliefs in MANY issues. Not always popular issues to Reps or Dems too! Ha!

I am a classic Libertarian in many, many ways - part conservative - part classic liberal in the sense that the government (Dems and Reps that ruined this Republic!) has no business in MY personal life as a married lady nor do they have any right to stick their stinking nose INTO YOUR LIFE or in anyone's private life as long as they are NOT hurting anyone even though I PERSONALLY DO NOT THINK OR BELIEVE as YOU DO or anyone else does NOR do I choose to LIVE MY LIFE the way some people do.

I know many old fashioned Dems who believe in MORE gun rights and ALL liberty issues as many so called neo con artists - cough. The ones who go on about gun rights but CAVE IN and COMPROMISE in other Constitutional issues and "RIGHTS"!

I know many REAL old fashioned Reps who are real PRO GUN people and who know that this country is screwed UP and how the 'Right Wing' was taken over or went WRONG. NO offense. They see how the Constitution has been shredded and/or perverted by BOTH parties.

I happen to think that BOTH parties stink. No offense.

My candidates usually do not make it because they believe in the Constitution and the rule of law - no bs politics. Legal immigration not illegal aliens and the companies that hire them.

Help the needy but don't give them a FREE ride for their entire life nor their offspring. I don't believe in welfare including CORPORATE welfare.

The tax system needs to be FIXED big time. BOTH parties have screwed that up.

The alphabet agencies need to be fixed or dumped down the toilet of no return.

The 'police state' needs to go back to the OLD WAY and become peace officers.

The borders need to be protected and laws enforced.

You do NOT have to always make more laws and more ACTS - try enforcing what is already on the BOOKS and/or go back to the basics!

You can be a REAL conservationist, support healthy living, healthy wildlife and elk, deer, moose, etc. herds and protect the land - most HUNTERS and FISHERMEN do this already.

The corporations and GREED have taken over BOTH parties and the R or D does not mean jack squat in this day and age.

PRO gun = PRO LIBERTY in ALL ISSUES.

Fiscal responsibility means something or should but we do not have it!

Putting America FIRST along with American workers should mean something but we got SCREWED by sell outs in BOTH parties.

They both lie and steal - both parties.

So, I am more of an Independent because the 'party' or parties LEFT me along with tons of other FED UP Americans.

Quote:

"America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Claire Wolfe

Catherine = PRO GUN and PRO LIBERTY
PS: They want to cause chaos, division and hate = BOTH parties and they pick one or two issues to do this. Most people FALL for it too. I see this all of the time. Most gun people are their own worst enemies. They will be pro gun and ignore ALL of the other issues which have taken away their LIBERTIES in many issues. They don't always put America FIRST - BOTH parties!

Catherine
September 22, 2008, 07:10 AM
I used to be a real political junkie and I still am to a degree.

I always KNEW that there was NO perfect party or candidate.

I always knew that in most cases after the primaries... it boiled down to a lesser of the evils in BOTH parties.

I happen to think that it is a real shame.

You may think that you have a PRO GUN and PRO LIBERTY CANDIDATE - putting America First and the Constitution but you really don't have that. After all, if YOU did, you would have said so called PRO GUN person and PRO LIBERTY person call for the END of the BATF, the Pat Acts, other new rules, regulations, etc. REAL honest reform and back to the basics!

Don't blame me, sigh, I was for RON PAUL in 1988 and was for him this past year. I was VERY disappointed in how his campaign was run but proud of him in MOST issues, not all of them, proud of many people including MOST of the military people who were for him.

He was a REAL pro gun candidate - pro gun Constitution man.

Politics is a joke and most of it is evil (Money talks and bs walks!) because it is NOT always for YOU, the middle class, PRO GUN person in ALL issues.

Catherine

SCKimberFan
September 22, 2008, 09:17 AM
Catherine -

If you and I were to join eHarmony.com, they would probably match us up. :) I could not have said it any better.

deaconkharma
September 22, 2008, 09:33 AM
"It comes down to how important we think our survival is, and that of our loved ones, and whether we're willing to prepare ourselves to stand for what we have come to view as of primary importance."- Cowhand

I think more and more of America is coming around also to our way of thinking.
We have two choices with the two parties of today, Police state, or Welfare state (and will likely end up with both if they have their way).

To the original Poster Mcuraddoc: Ask yourself if De-clawing a cat and then releasing him into the wild is a humane thing to do. Most of us would say no, that is terrible. Why? To answer the question, well, he can't defend himself. Ahhh... There are animals out there we too must defend ourselves against and to put us into the wild "de-clawed" is just as insane.
Now learn HOW to use it and WHEN to use it SAFELY and keep yourself and your pack safe.

You've taken your first step into a larger world - Obi-Wan Kenobi
;)

RPCVYemen
September 22, 2008, 09:55 AM
I'm a Classic Liberal, and am fiscally conservative.

I think I'm pretty much of a Classic Liberal - which doesn't match anyone in politics today. :)

I think that probably means I am a bit of a liberatarian - what my friend calls "Little Ell Liberatarians".

I am fiscally prudent - but unlike the Republicans, I don't want the government forcing anyone's religious beliefs down my throat. I don't want public school teachers teaching religion to my daughter in biology class. I don't want the government in my bedroom - or anyone's bedroom. I don't think the government should be at all involved in sanctifying any marriage - that's the job of religions. I think that the government should be restricted to recognizing civil unions between consenting adults, and should do so as a matter of public policy, without regard gender.

When I say fiscally prudent, I mean that out taxes must be equal to our expenditures. that I think that we need to be honest about what programs will cost, and pay for them. I am opposed to tax cuts while we have trillions of dollars in debt. I am not opposed to raising taxes to pay for stuff we already bought - though I am none too happy about using tax money to subsidize the golden parachutes.

I am more concerned about seeing my tax dollars well spent than I about about lowering taxes - most of the folks I know who call themselves "conservative" are in favor of massive subsidies for corporations, while screwing the public schools - that doesn't make any sense to me.

I want someone to offer a solution to the health care crisis (and Social Security), etc, and tell me the truth about what it costs. Any who tells me that we are going to fix either problem without raising taxes ir probably a lying scumbag - but I will listen to anyone who provides a real solution to either problem. I would probably be willing to pay 10% higher taxes to solve those problems, if I thought that the solution was real.

I belong to the NRA and the ACLU - and I am angry that the NRA seems so happy to fund those who are hell-bent on destroying the Constitution. The NRA seems to throw money with both hands at the theocrats and totalitarians - as long as they mouth support for the Second Amendment while they are funneling tax dollars to their favorite churches, forcing their prayers on public school kids, forcing my daughter to worship their understanding of Scripture in biology class, etc.

I consider the right to keep and bear arms one right in a complex system of rights created by our founding fathers (the notion of "natural rights" strikes me as moronic twaddle). All of those rights are interdependent - for example, without due process, the Second will fall with all the rest.

I think all of that makes me a Classic Liberal with a gun. :)

Mike

BruceRDucer
September 22, 2008, 11:26 AM
Mcuraddoc

Me too.

My "spiritual principles" tended to establish the following criteria:

1. If I shoot people, how can I save them?

2. That presupposes they want "saving".

3. In fact, many don't want saving.

4. In fact, many just want to butcher me.

5. Therefore, self-defense is a legitimate option.

:what::what::what::what::scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny:

HGUNHNTR
September 22, 2008, 11:34 AM
I am a pro gun liberal, however, I have never really wrestled with owning firearms as I have owned guns and shot since age 4.

Regadless of social views, it seems firearms ownership (the right to self preservation) easily bridges the gap between conservatives and liberals. We should all have the right to self defense, regardless of our political views.

SuperNaut
September 22, 2008, 12:20 PM
We should all have the right to self defense, regardless of our political views.

Exactly.

Transforming gun ownership into a political issue is a massive victory for Statists. No matter what political robe they don.

lysander
September 22, 2008, 12:30 PM
Most of the membership here at THR would classify me as a "liberal." I suppose that I am.

I have never had an issue with private citizens owning arms. Nor have I ever struggled with owning them.

Firearms are tools. No more, no less. Owning a saw, a square, a hammer and a bag of nails doesn't make one a carpenter any more than owning a gun makes one violent and/or dangerous.

Private firearms ownership is certainly not something that is incompatible with paleo-liberal ideals. Nor do I think that it must be incompatible with neo-liberal political solutions.

Andy-Y
September 22, 2008, 12:40 PM
Catherine,


+1,000,000

I certainly couldn't have said it any better myself!

novaDAK
September 22, 2008, 12:47 PM
If this is for basic laws, good. If it is for the collective national defense, good. If it is for organizing international trade, good.

If it is telling me how to live and what to believe, bad.

I am no party other than that of the citizenry of the United States of America and I'll be damned if any politician is going to write some irrelevant law that says my life and the lives of my loved ones aren't worth protecting.that just about sums it up for me too. I do lean towards the conservative side but that is only because I can't stand the leftists who want to turn our country into a marxist nation. And I can't stand the far right either, the ones who want to turn our country into a facist nation.

No thanks to either. But I sure as hell can't stand the jokers in congress right now. If Bush gets a 3 on a scale of 1-10, congress gets a negative 5.

K-Romulus
September 22, 2008, 01:23 PM
Hi:

I'm a center-left type (Mark Warner/Bill Richardson kind of Democrat) who got over "over thinking" firearms. I probably support more gun control that 90% of THR, but I'm still with them on the important issues ("assault weapons" bans, magazine restrictions, fair-issue CCW, "30-30cal cop killing bullets," "microstamping," etc.).

To be very honest, buying a hand-gun was not an easy decision. I have long been an advocate of a heavily regulated gun industry. However, recent events have lead me to realize I can't expect the police to be everywhere all the time. I had to be able to stand up for myself. I still wrestle with this choice I've made.

There's nothing "wrong" with your experience - it sounds like when I bought my first gun. Bringing a firearm into your home/life is a big deal, despite what some may tell you. It is NOT something that anyone should "just do." It sounds like you made a carefully thought-out decision.

Sean Dempsey
September 22, 2008, 01:43 PM
I am sure this thread will be locked soon, but I have a serious question:

I suspect very few. We're mostly Conservatives and Libertarians. Regardless of who we vote for, we tend to be united in the idea that what's best for the individual should be left up to that individual, not anyone else and certainly not the government. This applies to everything from personal protection to retirement savings to health care. Nothing boils the blood quicker than a government official that seeks to regulate my activities, activities that do not harm another in any way, because they think they know what's best. History shows again and again that they do not.


I don't consider myself a member of any certain party, and I am not very active politically, but the bolded part of the paragraph above, it's seems to contradict Conservative and Libertarian views on Gay Marriage, Gay Adoption, Abortion, and legalized drug use.

And maybe I am off base, I just don't see conservatives defending the gay "individuals" right to get married, or adopt a child and raise it with 2 gay parents.

CountGlockula
September 22, 2008, 01:48 PM
Are there anyother folks out there who have wresteled with the decision to arm themselves?

Taking a basic handgun class and continuing on being educated on responsible gun ownership will cure the ignorance.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
September 22, 2008, 01:59 PM
Taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor = Liberal.

Taking money from the middle class and giving it to the rich = conservative.

I'm for not taking anymore of my money and restoring some of my rights. That candidate wasn't nominated unfortunately.

plexreticle - I'm not worthy! Awesome quote; thank you. :)

I suspect very few. We're mostly Conservatives and Libertarians.

Libertarians are quite liberal (on most issues). Just depends on how you define "liberal" - I'd guess there are 1,000 different ways, so it makes no sense to use the word unless and until we can agree upon a definition.

jackstinson
September 22, 2008, 02:19 PM
I've been called a liberal and worse.
But I've never wrestled with gun ownership because I started shooting guns for some time before I ever had a thought about voting. Although I was in the first group of 18-year-old voters...remember...when Nixon was re-elected? I was 19 then...but Nixon wasn't my fault! ;).
I didn't carry for a long time though. I've always been able to access situations and be cool. Then a road rage incident happened which strongly illuminated that there are times when prudence, awareness, logic, and everything else one may do for one's own safety just plain falls apart. One cannot predict the actions of crazy people and criminals. My mind was made up by the time I got home that day.
Within three weeks of the incident; I got CCW training, my CHL and put a pistol in my pocket.

jimmyraythomason
September 22, 2008, 02:25 PM
Political,social and financial CONSERVATIVE here. Always have been, always will be! I now vote Republican and regret every vote I ever cast for a Democrat. I believe a liberal gun-owner will either cease to be liberal or cease to be a gun-owner(because of the liberal politicians that they put into office).

30 cal slob
September 22, 2008, 02:28 PM
RKBA is pretty much the most important political topic to me.

Could frankly care less about a whole heck of a lot others (i guess that makes me an apathetic liberterian on most subjects :p ).

bflobill_69
September 22, 2008, 02:48 PM
Quote:
"However, recent events have lead me to realize I can't expect the police to be everywhere all the time."

...understatement... I respect and appreciate the efforts of law enforcement - BUT, even our US SUPREME COURT has stated it is not their responsibility to protect us... its OUR responsibility

Hell in my county, particularly if you live in a rural area - response time is in excess of 2.5-3hours...

Bflobill_69

SSN Vet
September 22, 2008, 03:25 PM
just watched the new John Adams biography (which I highly recommend)....

back at the turn of the last century, Jefferson and his crowd who favored a week Federal government and trusted the inherant goodness of man to provide for social harmony, were called ..... Republicans!

If I understand correctly, prior to FDR, the Democrats were largely Libertarian in their politics.

Funny how these terms change in their meaning and can be spun into meaning anything you want.

I prefer to be "unlabeled", but the minute I open my mouth on any issue, am promptly tagged with one.

IndianaBoy
September 22, 2008, 04:24 PM
I see two types of politicians.

Those who see me as a productive citizen, entitled to freedom to earn a living, defend myself and my family, and live an unfettered existence.

Then there are those who see me as a subject to be lorded over, my vote bought with promises of free healthcare, housing, and protection... just as long as I give them power.

Nothing is 'free', except charity by kind people. Politicians are not kind people.

I find myself more and more disgusted by the entirety of our elected.

Mark Twain had it right. "There is no distinctly criminal class, save congress."

Walkalong
September 22, 2008, 04:28 PM
I am kind of like someone else. Help those that help themselves. To hell with the ones that won't try and want someone to do it all for them.

Oh Yea, and guns for everybody who hasn't done something stupid to lose their right to own them. You know, criminals. :)

Is this still open? We must be playing nicely. :rolleyes:

gripper
September 22, 2008, 04:45 PM
I'll be honest... I am a bit of a libertarian right wing neanderthug,but the majority of honest liberals more often than not are at least able to intelligently discuss (if not necessarily agree) with my own beliefs. This stands in sharp contrast to the leftards who think my rights consist of meekly submitting to violence,or conforming with the adminstrative whimmsy of the Leviathan State.
The classical Liberal (vs. the current iteration ) has more in common with th elikes of me/us than you would think if all we do is adhere to labels.

bogie
September 22, 2008, 04:58 PM
The right to self defense, and hence the right to firearms ownership, is not a political topic.

Or, at least it wasn't until folks made it one.

You'd think that they'd learn... It's been 40 years since GCA 68, and it hasn't worked.

Catherine
September 22, 2008, 05:12 PM
SC Kimber Fan,

Thank you and thanks to the others.

I 'held' back what I REALLY wanted to say and what I think because it is not allowed here.

PRO GUN ISSUES and ALL liberty issues boil down to gun rights and how much the 'State' as we know it will screw you, screw up your LIBERTIES which include gun rights PLUS how much CONTROL the 'police state' will gain even more CONTROL of your life.

Gun control = control. Period!

Your right to self defense with any TOOL, including a GUN and/or GUNS, is NOT a liberal or conservative or right or left or small l or big L Libertarian issue.

Blessings to all of you.

Catherine

springmom
September 22, 2008, 05:18 PM
Yes, I did. It took moving to Houston for me to realize that if I needed a cop, he would show up LONG after the point I needed protection. Something about the nightly news being a body count got me to thinking it might be just as well that I be able to take care of myself.

It is an amazing thing, the empowerment that comes from that ability. I no longer slink furtively to my car at night. I am certainly looking around to be alert to trouble, but the very fact that I *am* able to take care of myself despite my arthritis and ill health makes all the difference in the world. And oddly enough, makes me less desirable as a target. How you look to the criminal who is watching you can make all the difference between him thinking "no, that's more trouble than I want" and "heh heh heh, easy meat".

Congratulations on your decision. It is the right one, and while, God willing, you will never need to use it in self-defense, or in the defense of a loved one, it is a good thing to take that responsibility and be able to do so.

Springmom

Gentleman Ranker
September 22, 2008, 06:48 PM
Welcome to shooting, Mcuraddoc. Good to have you.

IMHO Liberal <---> Conservative (or whatever other terms you like) is a pretty blunt instrument for measuring political opinions. In the US, the electoral system is structured so that if you want to play serious (political) ball, you have to be in one of the two major leagues, but that says more about the system than about any one person.

I could probably be thrown out of any political party meeting if the right (wrong?) subject(s) came up, but historically I've been more liberal than not, and would probably be so labeled by most of the people here. Nevertheless, I am strongly pro-RKBA. Many people consider RKBA a "conservative" issue, but I agree with Our Respected Host Oleg that it is a human right and not some partisan policy preference. I would like to see many more people, of all political views, be so persuaded.

Again, welcome.

regards,

GR

FMJMIKE
September 22, 2008, 09:47 PM
I am pro gun rights but probably considered a liberal by many here since I am voting for Mr. O this year. I consider myself to be a moderate though. Oh....I am not worried about anyone taking my guns.........Not even Mr. O. From my cold dead hands.............:scrutiny:

DaveBeal
September 22, 2008, 10:28 PM
I'm a social liberal and fiscal moderate who's been a registered Democrat for 15 years. I own several firearms and enjoy shooting. I don't CCW because I don't personally feel the need, but reading this forum over the last year has given me much insight into the thinking of those who do.

One of my first posts to this forum was a statement that "concealed carry is a bad idea because of the danger to bystanders". (You can imagine what kind of reception that got. :eek: ) I no longer feel that way. You all have convinced me that responsible people should have the right to defend themselves by whatever degree of force is necessary.

On the other hand, I don't personally see RKBA as an issue of major political importance, and I plan to vote for Obama. I don't think his election will result in any gun bans except possibly a new assault weapon ban, which wouldn't trouble me much. Given what's going on in Iraq and Wall Street, I think there are many more important problems facing the US right now than whether I'm allowed to own an AR-15.

Tacbandit
September 22, 2008, 10:40 PM
"Given what's going on in Iraq and Wall Street, I think there are many more important problems facing the US right now than whether I'm allowed to own an AR-15."



Just a foot in the door...then you'll be wondering why you can't buy all sorts of guns...we need to protect what rights we have left...However, either way, I won't be concerned with whether or not I'm allowed to own an AR-15, either...
By the way, the "important problems" haven't even started yet...:scrutiny:

Tacbandit
September 22, 2008, 10:44 PM
"I now vote Republican and regret every vote I ever cast for a Democrat. I believe a liberal gun-owner will either cease to be liberal or cease to be a gun-owner(because of the liberal politicians that they put into office).""





Well put...exactly what I was trying to say before....:scrutiny:

biggiesmalls
September 22, 2008, 10:45 PM
nope, right wing nutjob here reporting for duty.

tigre
September 22, 2008, 10:50 PM
I thought of myself as a liberal as a teenager, but it turns out that I'm just extremely socially liberal and didn't really understand most economic issues. The more I learn about that end of things, the more I realize how interrelated social and economic issues are, and have come to see through the left's class warfare ideology and parked myself squarely in the individualist libertarian camp (which can be a rather disorganized camp, as you'd imagine). I'm not a single issue voter unless you count freedom as a single issue, and I can't support either major party candidate for President, but I do believe that the right to self defense is the foundation of all other rights.

Neener Neener
September 22, 2008, 11:01 PM
This may have been asked already, but I am too tired to read all the replies. So, I will ask, your scenario occurred while you were on duty, right? I wouldn't think you would be allowed to carry while on the job. I am guessing it just opened your eyes to the possibility it could have happened while you were just out and about?

Mcuraddoc
September 22, 2008, 11:07 PM
Hi all-

I have read what you guys/gals have posted. Thank you for your thoughts. It seems there are other liberals (or at least lean that way) who have made the same choice I have. And, the person who posted the comment about the role of the local police and what The Supreme Court, good information. I didn't know that.

It also seem like other folks who treat victims of GSWs have choosen to arm themselves, too. It sounds like I'm not the first guy to make this decision.

Thank you all for your thoughts! I'm glad I happened across this community!

:D:D:D:D

XD-40 Shooter
September 22, 2008, 11:15 PM
Staunch Conservative here, fiscal, social, foreign policy, advocate for individual liberty, tell the govt to get the hell out of my life.:D

I think liberal gun owners are in a real conundrum, especially with Obama as the candidate. The very people liberals vote for, seek to destroy our Second Ammendment rights, but they try to decieve people with "reasonable regulations". Who gets to decide what's reasonable, ultra left wing Democrats?:uhoh::barf:

For folks here who don't believe Obama will go after our Second Ammendment rights, I invite you to go to www.gunbanobama.com.

I'm with other folks here as well, the 2nd Ammendment is of utmost importance to me, its one of the core issues that decide my vote.

ranger335v
September 22, 2008, 11:27 PM
"...I see the attitude of "don't tax me" while some poor individual dies of cancer they can't afford to get treated, through no fault of their own, .."

I agree, so far as what you say, "though no fault of their own". Those we can help and, if evidence is correct, we do help, a lot, and gladly so.

Unfortuantely, by far the most of those who live in deep poverty do so as a matter of choice. Since I have limited means to care for my own family, demanding that I should stand in line to pour my means down a poverty rat hole and deprive my family of my means is silly. Seeking a benevolent govenment to tax me so they can give it to those who refuse to do what they could do to take care of themselves is not selfishness, it's realistic.

Consider that the vast majority of those in poverty are poorly educated in spite of a free public education being offered to all, in fact demanded to all. But the "professional poor" chose, of themselves, to live in that life style. They disdain education and have no work ethic, without which their lives will not change.

Don't tell me that some school systems are not as good as others. However true that may be, any education is better than no education and personal effort to learn overrides many obsticles. I didn't attend fancy schools either. We had no AC, no ETV, no computers at all. We had schools with bare wood floors, torn books, limited liberarys and few recreational activities. But we invented computers, took man to the moon and back and defeated communism's most massive state without firing a shot.

It was because WE WORKED! We never sat on our fat fannies and whined about how hard life is with only free housing, food, etc. to help us get by while surrounded by cable TV, CD and DVD players, Boomboxes, autos, cigerettes and wine. And worse. They destroy the free housing given them for kicks, I've seen it. So, my sympathies don't run too deep for those who refuse to help themselves.

Do I have sympathy for the little kids? Sure. But, given their parents and the determined bad community environment, what can I, or the gov., or anyone else do about changing it? Nothing at all! We HAVE tried and the percentage of those living in poverty is virtually unchanged after some fourty years of trying.

They are hopeless "victims" of themselves and will remain so until THEY change. That won't happen until they and THEIR "leaders" quite demogoging others and avoiding the issues. They will have to get off their duffs and get their kids into school and have them go to work if they ever want things like the rest of the nation, those who do work.

They have to learn to go to work, even if they "don't feel like it." Even if their education doesn't qualify them to run the place. Stay there, where ever it is, all day, every day, even if they feel the boss "disses" them". And never quit a job until they have another in hand.

Honest work is not beneath anyone. Work builds character and self image based on accomplishment, not psyco-babble froth. Work isn't for recreation or ego stroking, it's the way for the poor to earn a living and care for themselves and their own families. If they do that, they too will soon resent being robbed to care for the lazy who won't do a thing for themselves.

And even touchy-feely liberals should understand that.

longdayjake
September 22, 2008, 11:32 PM
This life is filled with many simple truths that never change and never will. One is that real education usually stems fears. When I say "real" education I mean the kind that you can actually take with you and use in day to day life. Not the kind of education that so many university professors advocate and preach today. Though someone may tell you that guns are dangerous or may show you some statistic that is skewed to make you think the way that they think, the only true education that exists out there is the one that you have personally proven. Are guns dangerous? Well, you are now an owner of a gun and have complete control over it. Rather than think about what horrible stories you have been told, go and make some stories of your own. I personally hope all your stories will be good ones and that you can let go of what you have been told or taught to believe by the media, left, or what-have-you. Learn about them. Take them apart. See how they work. And educate yourself as much as you can about everything there is to know about what you are doing. It is usually the uneducated people that not only don't know how to do things, but are also willing to let others who say they know to do it for them. That is when you see your rights begin to be taken away in the form of regulations, taxes, and social welfares.

Now prepare yourself for some more preaching.

Now, with that I personally cannot find much in common with the founder's writings on liberty and the "liberal" people in our country. That being said, there is not much in common with conservatives either. One cannot dispute that this country has changed since its conception, but liberty will always be my biggest motivation in who to vote for. In this case I think it will be for Sara Palin and McWhatshisname. Simply because the other side has been outspoken about taking my rights (guns), money (taxes), and in so doing my freedom. Nothing could be farther from the founder's conception of this new nation. Part of your reason to buy a gun was so that you could personally protect your three main rights: life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. You admit that you recognize that government cannot always guarantee those things. You were forced to personally guarantee those rights and freedoms. Now the question I ask you is does much of what neo-liberalism stand for allow you to personally guarantee those rights or does it try to force them upon you? Educate yourself on how successful "liberal" programs are. I think you will find that they are about as idealistic as having a cop next to you when someone trys to mug you. The government cannot help everyone everytime. Ultimately you have got to help yourself to get anywhere in this world.

lee n. field
September 22, 2008, 11:47 PM
Any other liberals?


11 posts, and you signed up yesterday. Welcome stranger.

Any questions, feel free to ask (or use the search function. Lots of questions get asked over, and over, and over, and over.....). Oh, you're the guy with the Jennings 9.

Political threads are generally encouraged to be taken up at THR's sister site (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/). So, before this get's closed, I'll get in a comment or two that I hope you will find civil.

Given experiences I had during my formative years, I figure I could have either turned into a flaming statist Gore-voter type, like my late Mom, or something completely different. I went "completely different". My attitude about guns is an integral part of that.

Current political self-identification is "pessimistic Calvinist with libertarian sympathies". Ultimately optimistic, but that's eschatological. "This age" pessimistic, we humans being what we are. Details of how that works out my appear conservative to you, but they really aren't.

I have long been an advocate of a heavily regulated gun industry.

Ummm...that's what we have.

Are there anyother folks out there who have wrestled with the decision to arm themselves?

Wrestle with it? Not at all. It is my right.

Wes Janson
September 23, 2008, 12:48 AM
When I first entered higher education and went to a liberal arts college, I was arguably an extremely right-wing conservative, somewhere in the 1-2% minority of the school (a place where people referred to one particular guy as "THE Republican").

When I left and transferred over to a community college, I suddenly became the wild left-wing liberal in the classroom, without having ever actually changed any of my views in the slightest.

In the end, I'm just a cynical pseudo-secular humanist libertarian who believes in that dangerous and crazy notion of freedom: that people should be allowed to do what they wish so long as they refrain from interfering with the right of others to do the same. The cynical part comes in with the realization that society is fundamentally a product of human nature, and thus many others do not share the same perspective as me. Thus we have the 1911.

owlhoot
September 23, 2008, 01:00 AM
Winnie Churchill said something to the effect that a man of twenty who is not a liberal has no heart and a man of thirty who is still a liberal has no brain. Of course in contemporary politics democrats and republicans are just opposite sides of the same coin, and the coin, in all probability, was borrowed from China.

sailortoo
September 23, 2008, 02:40 AM
This should not be political at all:
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) asserts that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
signed - Thomas Jefferson
I live by this statement, and have never questioned the Right to bear arms, only the restrictions placed by government. Too many of the general population have been "trained" to fear and/or hate guns, which is totally irrational - they are tools only - how they are used is up to the "bearer".
sailortoo

Mauserguy
September 23, 2008, 02:41 AM
"I still wrestle with this choice I've made."

I have to say that I just don't understand this ankst. I look at owning a gun like owning a car, I'm not hurting anybody by owning it, so I am not imosing on anybody or infringing anybody's rights.

As far as the car goes, I don't believe in global warming, so I really don't care about my carbon footprint. I'm not hurting anybody, so I expect to be left alone. I smile alot and like life. I guess I'm just one of those bitter guys who is clinging to guns and religion.
Mauserguy

Dr. Fresh
September 23, 2008, 03:12 AM
Given what's going on in Iraq and Wall Street, I think there are many more important problems facing the US right now than whether I'm allowed to own an AR-15.

It's not about you. It's about all future generations of Americans. The National Firearms Act was put in place to battle prohibition-era gangsters. That issue solved itself with the end of prohibition, and Americans have been paying the price ever since.

Gun control laws do not go away (AWB notwithstanding). Wars come and go, economies rise and fall, rights are forever.

capnswole
September 23, 2008, 03:15 AM
Regardless of who we vote for, we tend to be united in the idea that what's best for the individual should be left up to that individual, not anyone else and certainly not the government. This applies to everything from personal protection to retirement savings to health care. Nothing boils the blood quicker than a government official that seeks to regulate my activities, activities that do not harm another in any way, because they think they know what's best. History shows again and again that they do not.

can i get an AMEN

AlaskaErik
September 23, 2008, 04:35 AM
My father was an avid shooter and reloader and guns were a normal part of life growing up in Alaska. When I graduated from high school, I went straight into the Marine Corps. Firearms have always been a part of my life and will continue to be. As for political beliefs, I think of myself as more libertarian than anything else. So for me, there was no cognitive dissonance when it came to firearms and self defense.

Hoplophile
September 23, 2008, 04:53 AM
Dirty, stinking liberal here. I support gay marriage, social programs, you name it, I support it.

Except gun control, which, in my opinion, runs completely contrary to the liberal beliefs. If we can't tell two people not to get married, why exactly can we tell them what tools they may or may not own? Would we deny them a fire extinguisher? If not, then why a firearm?

I do not and never will support any form of gun control. An armed society is a polite society. I won't say for sure that more guns = less crime...but I can definitely see a trend when I look at the graphs. A liberal I may be, but I still listen to logic.

AlaskaErik
September 23, 2008, 04:56 AM
....I plan to vote for Obama. I don't think his election will result in any gun bans except possibly a new assault weapon ban, which wouldn't trouble me much.

Every gun owner should be troubled by AWB 2. It's much more draconian than the first one, which even most liberals acknowledge as having had no impact on crime. Gun grabbers know that they can't shut down gun ownership in one fell swoop. It's all about incrementalism. It's about destroying your right to own firearms, one small step at a time. If AWB 2 ever gets signed into law, yes the Brady Bunch will be popping champaign corks that day, but the next day they'll be working on the next gun ban law. Remember Martin Niemoller. Because one day the Obama crowd will come for what you own.

AlaskaErik
September 23, 2008, 04:59 AM
For those who plan on voting for Obama....

Brrack Hussein Obama will ban every gun, magazine and accessory he has the votes for -- Spread the word.
The NRA produced this list for your study ---

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.

Read the rest, including the footnotes and cross references, at NRA-ILA.

JohnBT
September 23, 2008, 08:50 AM
"Obama will ban every gun"

I heard an ad on the local country station this morning at 6:30. It said he won't take our guns and that he's a really nice man. Yesterday they ran an ad with a bunch of people testifying about why voting is good. I liked the kid who said he registered to vote because a tank of gas cost more than his mother made in a day. Note to kid: You're old enough to get a job and help out.

This is the same station that runs gun show ads, so I guess they'll take money from anybody.

Me? I'm a fiscal conservative first and think some social programs are beneficial. The one I work for helps people get back to work (and paying taxes.)

John

graygun
September 23, 2008, 11:13 AM
I'm generally conservative and don't even agree with a lot of them. I'm not much for "rubber stamping" anything, be it political or religious(although I believe in revealed truth in old and new testaments).

I've owned a rifle for decades but didn't get a hg until last month. I consider it a definite "upping the ante" kind of thing,for me. As far as OC or CC,I'm not ready for that. It seems like it'd be too easy to get charged with unjustifiable homicide ,even in this state, after using a pistol(in defense of my life)outside of the home environment. Going to a penitentiary (interesting misnomer) for X amount of time seems like a prelude to damnation to me.

It's refreshing to see that some liberals at least believe in taking part in their own protection. At least I can agree with them on something.

High Planes Drifter
September 23, 2008, 11:20 AM
Im an old school republican. I support Ron Paul, and others like him.

ArmedBear
September 23, 2008, 11:21 AM
I had to be able to stand up for myself.

I guess you're not a liberal any more. It's probably hard to identify with any prefabricated belief system in the face of reality, and "liberal" is just one example of such a system.

The problem with modern American liberalism is that it's infused with a psychological dynamic. This dynamic involves the side of us that wants to remain a child -- to be taken care of, to believe that mommy and daddy will keep us safe.

The problem is, this is based on a foundation of lies. These lies generally involve power. People want to believe in these lies, and those who want power are happy to feed them what they want to hear. Those who wish to control you are happy to promise safety if that's what you want -- but it's a lie. They'll promise anything, because they want to control you. They don't SAY they want to control you; they want to control the "gun industry" that sells what you may choose to buy. They want to impose the "fairness doctrine" so they can dictate what you hear. They want to force "business" to do certain things that limit your choices. They never want to control YOU, of course, just everything you can do. "They" can take many forms, but to borrow from Joseph Campbell, "they" is the devil of a thousand faces, and the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I'm not much of a conservative, but there's no way I could identify with modern American liberalism, any more than any other cult that is based on this phenomenon (craving the safety of the womb, at all costs).

BTW that's why many critics of modern American liberalism use the phrase, "drink the kool-aid."

Best of luck with your wrestling. It will make you stronger, as it makes all of us stronger who engage in wrestling with ourselves.:)

(If you want a personal challenge, read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism". He says that writing it turned him towards libertarian thinking, not the conservative perspective he started with.)

joshk-k
September 23, 2008, 11:48 AM
"Given what's going on in Iraq and Wall Street, I think there are many more important problems facing the US right now than whether I'm allowed to own an AR-15."

Agreed. I think that what Obama said about clinging to guns and religion is right on the money. Of course he can't say that! But he's right. In this time when people are losing their jobs, their houses, their retirement savings, their kids and grandkids' future financial stability, etc., potentially losing the right to have some guns seems like it should not be the main issue.

I understand the "opening up a can of worms" belief on the matter, and I agree it's tricky. But we're in a disasterous place right now and we need to make decisions on any number of policy matters that make positive impact now.

Josh

P.S. I hope Obama wins, but I'm not voting for anyone.

K-Romulus
September 23, 2008, 12:04 PM
"Given what's going on in Iraq and Wall Street, I think there are many more important problems facing the US right now than whether I'm allowed to own an AR-15."

This begs the question: if "there are more important problems facing the US right now," they why is an AWB or other laws against "some guns" being pushed AT ALL?

Which leads to other questions, such as "why are some firearms being banned as so-called "assault weapons" when they shoot the same ammo, the same way, as non-banned firearms? And why would a legislator burn up time with this issue instead of those "more important issues?"

ArmedBear
September 23, 2008, 12:27 PM
This begs the question: if "there are more important problems facing the US right now," they why is an AWB or other laws against "some guns" being pushed AT ALL?

People who want power will seize it when nobody's paying attention. Plain and simple.

In this time when people are losing their jobs, their houses, their retirement savings, their kids and grandkids' future financial stability, etc., potentially losing the right to have some guns seems like it should not be the main issue.

But the notion that Obama's left-wing ideology will somehow make for a better economy (or the Democrat's pipe dream energy "policy" better standards of living) than in the past is borderline insane.

Furthermore, it's the left side of the aisle that wants to make it much more difficult to ensure one's grandkids' financial stability...

I understand that people don't remember 1930, but I DO remember the 1970s and I DON'T want to relive them. Obama and the Democrats do. I'm afraid you're falling for the false promises of safety and security that I wrote about above. I don't want to pay for your naivete.

The Republicans have sucked. But their sucking does not in any way imply that the Democrats have the right ideas or policies.

Mr_Rogers
September 23, 2008, 12:43 PM
In the few short days since this thread was started the American financial and political system has been turned upside down. One of the most right-wing administrations in history is providing taxpayer funds to save private enterprise. The party of "no more government expansion" has been, and continues to be, responsible for the largest expansion of government in history. On the other hand, we can't trust the other party not to push excessively social policies (including gun control) if they are elected. Do I trust any political party - Yeah, like I trust a rabid pit-bull. Unfortunately, the established political parties have made sure that there is almost no chance of an effective third party challenge.

I would estimate that our group consists of a fringe of ultra-right red-neck conservatives that hold their opinions based purely on dogma, and are proud of it. Almost zero ultra-left "liberals" with similar (lack of) thought processes. In between we have a spectrum of beliefs that are created by life experiences and relatively intelligently considered opinions, which, though the opinions held may be open to discussion, is the way it should be.

We all believe that in some way the ability to own a firearm may be important in our future whether that be for simple self-defense or to preserve ourselves from oppression. I think very few people actually have a clear idea of how they would use a firearm in the future but we all believe that we would rather be armed than the alternative because we know that, whatever crisis occurs, we will need to be self-reliant and being armed will be a massive plus in that direction. Therefore, we have a common interest in the right to bear arms.

Am I getting close?

High Planes Drifter
September 23, 2008, 12:52 PM
....I plan to vote for Obama. I don't think his election will result in any gun bans except possibly a new assault weapon ban, which wouldn't trouble me much.

First they came for the Jews, and I said nothing because I was not a Jew.......

jimmyraythomason
September 23, 2008, 12:57 PM
Well said,H.P.Drifter!

ArmedBear
September 23, 2008, 01:08 PM
One of the most right-wing administrations in history

You've got some good stuff in the post, but that phrase shows that you, too, are subject to believing propaganda -- and dogma. It will not help you to understand someone's perspective when you let their political opposition demonize them and take what you hear at face value.

The reason we have "red-neck conservatives" here is that, in America, the "red-neck" perspective that you so rudely caricature tends to favor individual freedom in many areas including self-defense. Libertarians of various stripes have differences -- some of them huge -- with various types of conservatives, but a general principle of "leave individuals alone" is not one of them.

American liberals, OTOH, tend to believe that central planning by experts would yield a better society, and that individual impulses to acquire wealth, defend oneself with a gun, etc. must be subjugated to the state. It's hardly an accident that most college professors consider themselves to be such "experts" and to be "liberal" in the American sense. (European "liberals" are different animals.)

Now there are some situations where liberals favor individual choice, e.g. gay marriage. Many conservatives perceive this not as allowing individual freedom so much as forcing other people to accept gay marriage. When you look at it that way, conservatives are still responding from a "leave me alone" perspective. The problem is that the result DOES limit the freedom of homosexual couples. Libertarians run the gamut, but tend towards asking why the government should have any say about marriage at all.

Bottom line?

There are underlying reasons why conservatives and libertarians of various stripes are more common here. "Liberal" in America does not mean "libertarian" as it does in Europe, not by a long shot.

Anyway, I still recommend "Liberal Fascism", which examines the history of the central control model and how it has impacted American politics on the left AND the right (and also how these terms themselves can have limited value).

jackdanson
September 23, 2008, 01:28 PM
ibtl

Libertarian. I think there should be 2 laws.

1. Don't physically harm anyone else.
2. Do not take what isn't yours.

Punishment for breaking said laws should be decided by a judge/jury in a case by case basis.

There, I just wrote the whole criminal code for the jackdanson government.

Catherine
September 23, 2008, 01:34 PM
First they came for fill in the blanks... right on! Good quote of that WW2 era Lutheran minister. You wait too long to complain and you may NEVER have the chance to fight for IT = FREEDOM in any ISSUE via the 'law' or another tea party. That includes ALL kinds of guns, open and conceal carry issues, etc.

My husband and I own various types of guns including one of those 'evil black guns' - Bushmaster. It is not my "thing" although I have shot rifle styles like that in the past.

When they start to claim and BAN anyone's favorite style of gun in a semi automatic pistol, a revolver, a shotgun, a rifle, a lever action rifle and/or a single action revolver (Gasp!) - maybe someone might think that is DOES matter and it is an important issue NO matter what party you belong to or how you feel in ALL issues of 'politics'. (See my other post here.)

It is about C ON T R O L - any type of gun control is about CONTROL. The other issues that matter very much in Constitution shredding and outright ignoring it is about CONTROL too. Either way, you, me and WE are screwed. The only thing that 'may' save us is our GUNS no matter what they LOOK like and whether we 'shoot and love' x, y or z firearm.

"America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Claire Wolfe

http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

You are here: Webley Page > Lever Action > Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

Catherine

ArmedBear
September 23, 2008, 01:37 PM
jackdanson-

I'd add one more principle: truth and full disclosure when selling.

E.g.., you should be able to buy subprime paper, but if the seller tells you it's AAA, the seller is liable. Ditto for, say, trans fats. If I want to buy food that's full of 'em, that's my right, and a seller should be allowed to sell it to me -- so long as he/she accurately represents what I'm buying.

tinygnat219
September 23, 2008, 01:38 PM
Here's a site you should check out:

http://www.liberalswithguns.com/

Mr_Rogers
September 23, 2008, 01:45 PM
ArmedBear,
Thank you for the thoughts.

As I said in my post we are shaped by life experience. We are trapped by our definition of terms such as red-neck and liberal.

My definition of red-neck comes from the loudly self-proclaimed Christian who I had the misfortune to meet once. He seriously advocated that all illegitimate children who could not be supported by their family should be allowed to die. A child without sin, without crime, without blame, pays the price for the stupidity of his mother. Very forgiving.

On the other hand, some of the most genuine people I have ever met, who others may call red-necks, have been some of the greatest people. How about a "red-neck" rancher who keeps a deer reserve protected on his land so that the "old folks and disabled" could hunt without too much exertion. He must have been eighty years old himself and walked with a limp from an old injury but he ran his ranch personally with a level of energy that made me feel ashamed.

As you point out, it is very difficult to find a common meaning to terms both internationally and between ourselves.

marlin.357
September 23, 2008, 01:56 PM
Mcuraddoc, you've had one epiphany on the road to conservatism. One step at a time, one step at a time....

Catherine
September 23, 2008, 01:57 PM
Good and bad in all people, all professions, socio-economic groups, nationalities, sexes, ages and in all religions or lack thereof = All of us as GUN PEOPLE.

Catherine

Old School
September 23, 2008, 02:01 PM
Regardless of who we vote for, we tend to be united in the idea that what's best for the individual should be left up to that individual, not anyone else and certainly not the government. This applies to everything from personal protection to retirement savings to health care. Nothing boils the blood quicker than a government official that seeks to regulate my activities, activities that do not harm another in any way, because they think they know what's best. History shows again and again that they do not.
Amen.

ArmedBear
September 23, 2008, 02:08 PM
We are trapped by our definition of terms such as red-neck and liberal.


That's also not strictly true.

Using terms for political movements that label themselves is different from racial/socioeconomic stereotypes.

To say that terms like "liberal" and "red-neck", while they refer to different groups, are essentially equivalent, is like saying that referring to someone as a "civil libertarian" is not much different from calling someone a "n**ger."

crashm1
September 23, 2008, 06:41 PM
I am another social liberal/ fiscal conservative. Also known as a liberal redneck. For me I have never had problems with the concept of self defense no matter what the weapon from fists to firearms. Crap I can't type well enough right now to articulate my thoughts (just got my hand out of a cast after getting spiffy new pins to hold some bones in place) suffice it to say I have pretty traditional libertarian views.

Gentleman Ranker
September 23, 2008, 07:39 PM
Catherine #100 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4943512&postcount=100) says:

Good and bad in all people, all professions, socio-economic groups, nationalities, sexes, ages and in all religions or lack thereof = All of us as GUN PEOPLE.

Brava, madame, well said!

Something that summarizes it as well as anything else I've ever read is from a citizen's letter to the editor:

"If the Second Amendment is not worth the paper it is written on, what price the First?" *

It is particularly interesting to me that this question was addressed to people who thought flag-burning as symbolic speech, protected by the First Amendment, was fine, but that the Second Amendment meant enlisting in the National Guard.

It is natural that we will disagree on political questions, we're Americans for heaven's sake. But either all of the Bill of Rights deserves our respect, or none of it does.

regards,

GR

=========================================================

*Mr. Fred Donaldson to the Editor, Austin American-Statesman, July 8, 1989, p. A19. Cited in Sanford Levinson's The Embarrassing Second Amendment (http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html).

Mr_Rogers
September 23, 2008, 07:49 PM
My compliments to the Moderators for allowing this thread to continue. Inevitably, the discussion occasionally bumps up against politics but unless we address the issues that could potentially divide our group, understanding each other without necessarily agreeing with each other, then we will have difficulty in putting on the unified front that is needed to face our opposition. We are the subjects in:

"If we do not hang together we will hang individually".

AtticusThraxx
September 23, 2008, 10:07 PM
Liberalism and Conservatism both have been so diluted and contaminated by extreme elements of both schools of thought as to be un-reconizable today when compared to each of their origins. They simply have ceased to have relevent meaning and have been replaced by nothing substanitive.
At least that's what my dog just told me.....is it hot in here or is it just me?:neener:

Dallee
September 23, 2008, 11:17 PM
We are all gun people here. A law enforcement friend once asked me what a "gun person" was. This is the answer I gave him. We "gun people" are people that have chosen to train ourselves in the use and care of firearms. We do this to better defend ourselves, our loved ones and hunt if we are so inclined. Self discipline is an absolutely necessary component in developing a useful and satisfying skill. This is as true in Russia or Brazil or Afghanistan as it is here. It does not have any "values" that are "only" American.

fatelk
September 24, 2008, 12:12 AM
A politically-oriented thread running five pages! Actually it's going pretty well, from what I've seen.

Welcome to all gun-owning liberals, on this forum. I actually like that politics other than RKBA has been moved to APS, and is not welcome on THR, because inevitably (it seems) any political thread here goes low road pretty quick.

My experience here, as seen in this thread as well, is that most members here are NOT socially conservative, including those that run the forum (no offense intended). In fact, though most are respectfull of other's beliefs, if there is any group that is most often subject to open hostility, it is people like me: conservative Christians.

Read through the posts; the social conservatives that have posted for the most part have simply identified themselves as such.
Many of the socially liberal type often go on at length to point out how much they despise people like me, completely distort what we believe, and rail about how much they support gays, abortion, etc.

So to gun-owning liberals- yes, you are welcome here, likely more than I am, but please be respectful to those of us in the minority. I may be Southern-Baptist conservative, but if you get past the stereotypes you might be surprised by what you find. Don't think we are all like that ignorant, bigoted Bible-thumper you once met.

There is so much bitter anger and hatred out there on the left these days. I do my best to be respectful and avoid assaulting other's deeply held beliefs. Please return the favor.

XD-40 Shooter
September 24, 2008, 12:25 AM
Remember what Obama said about small town Americans in San Francisco last year, "we are bitter and we cling to our god and our guns". Obama is an elitist jerk who looks down his nose at average Americans, joe six-pack. He thinks he is holier than thou and knows what is best for you. By the way, Obama has yet to tell us what his plan for the financial crisis is, because he doesn't have one!

Arrogant Bastard
September 24, 2008, 12:26 AM
No. But I'm a definite social liberal, economic liberal to moderate, and a loather of so-called "neo-conservatism". Does that count? If it helps, us "gun nuts" have long realized that a person on the 'wrong' side of the gun issue is just someone who hasn't been mugged yet, or otherwise been hit on the head with an incident that shows the deep need for self-defense tools. The major political party typically associated with "liberalism" in this country (starts with a D) is definitely on the wrong side of the gun issue, at the national level.

Have you considered the possibility that you may be some stripe of libertarian, more than a liberal? I generally consider myself a libertarian, but also consider corporations to be way too sociopathic to allow laissez-faire to run the store -- I believe if WalMart (or any big corporation) were allowed to murder homeless people and collect $1000 per scalp, they'd do so quite gleefully, without any concern for the ethics, beyond "it's not illegal, so we'll do it until it is -- and then we'll find a way to weasel around the intent of the law, anyway".

Gentleman Ranker
September 24, 2008, 06:44 AM
fatelk #115 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4945733&postcount=115) suggests:
I may be Southern-Baptist conservative, but if you get past the stereotypes you might be surprised by what you find. Don't think we are all like that ignorant, bigoted Bible-thumper you once met.
My best friend at school (which was, admittedly, some time ago) was a Baptist minister who was doing some postgraduate work. We disagreed about nearly all of the so-called Important Questions of the Day, but agreed very closely about things not usually on the national debating agenda, like honor, courtesy, and respect for others. My nominee for departmental First Jackass was a textbook liberal on the narrow range of questions that are often used to define the popular version of that term.

I agree very much that stereotypes are usually not our friends.

Arrogant Bastard's (#117 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4945779&postcount=117)) views, so far as he has given them, are pretty close to mine ... I'm just not sure that any of the usual labels (even "some kind of libertarian") gets at that position very well.

regards,

GR

High Planes Drifter
September 24, 2008, 12:05 PM
This is going to get locked soon. Before it does...


Taxing people to provide anything is income redistribution. Why stop at college? Let's eliminate public high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools. How about all those Marxist freeloaders gettting VA benefits? Shall we cut them loose?

Healthcare provided to a veteran (wether wounded or not) is fufillment of a contract between the government and the individual for services rendered by that individual. You are incorrect in calling the individual (speaking of the veteran) a freeloader; scince the person fufilled thier end of the contract.

Onto your remarks regarding schools.... I'm all for the complete privitazation of education across the board ; grade schools , colleges, and vocational schools. Further, I dont think I should be taxed to pay for public schools scince my children do not go to them. I also dont think my tax dollars should be used for healthcare provided to anyone who did not enter and fufill a contract with the government for services rendered. I loath free government giveaways.


US taxpayers are about to pick up the tab for the bailout of the banking system. If that's not income redistribution, I don't know what is. Is that Marxism too?


Tell me, do you think the framers of our Constitution would support this bailout ?

HoosierQ
September 24, 2008, 12:14 PM
I don't know what I am. I was a 100% Reagan man...in terms of the President...not all of his views. That probably precludes me from being a liberal.

I do support RKBA 100%.
I am, somewhat reluctantly, pro-choice (since I can't get pregnant who am I to say)
I am against the war on drugs and advocate some legalization (marijuana is illegal but Jack Daniels isn't...oh yeah nobody ever did anything dumb after drinking Jack Daniels...that's it...duh)
I am kind of a hawk when it comes to foreign policy...I didn't want the Iraq invasion back in 2003 but I am very pleased with some of the things that we have achieved (we now I think really get the Middle East).

This probably makes me a libertarian. My all time political hero is Teddy Roosevelt followed very closely by Barry Goldwater. What the heck does that make me?

ozwyn
September 24, 2008, 05:24 PM
When Obama chose Biden as a running mate, he sent a very clear and convincing message. He strongly opposes gun rights.

He didn't chose a democrat with votes for gun rights, he chose someone who champions against firearm rights.

As this is a firearms forum, that makes the picture pretty clear to anyone who cares about gun rights. This is particularly true given how little the two candidates really and practically differ on domestic policy issues.

Unfortunately, McCain is also not a strong support of gun rights. He was at least smart enough to choose a pro-gun VP.

Both candidates are left of center on most other policies, and if view by actual VOTING RECORD and not the sales pitch, disturbingly similiar on the issues.

benEzra
September 24, 2008, 06:12 PM
I'm centrist to center-left, depending on how you define the term, and a long-time member of Democratic Underground and Common Ground Common Sense (and I have far more posts on DU than here, FWIW).

XD-40 Shooter
September 24, 2008, 11:54 PM
I would like the gun owning Obama voters here, shocking as that is:barf:, to explain the logic of putting the most anti-gun presidential candidate in history in office, then turning around and fighting him when he proposes draconian gun control, which he will.:scrutiny:

kcshooter
September 25, 2008, 12:11 AM
I've tried to stay out of a political discussion but I'll bite.

Let's say I disagree with almost every single policy and belief McCain and Palin propose.
Let's say I agree with almost every single policy and belief that Obama proposes.

Except for one - Gun Control.

Now, would it be easier for me to fight the guy I only have one issue with, or fight the guy I have many, many issues with?

Beyond the RKBA issue, if I believe Obama is more likely to lead this country in the right direction, why wouldn't he get my vote?
I have kids. There are other issue out there other than gun control, ya know.
I'll work on getting the right congressmen in place to fight a gun ban.

(by the way, I don't really oppose McCain across the board, and don't agree with everything Obama says, I was just answering the question posed in the above post. I am still on the fence but most likely will not find myself able to vote republican, candidates be damned)

XD-40 Shooter
September 25, 2008, 12:17 AM
If the Democrats own the White House, the Congress and Senate with a fillabuster proof majority, over 60 votes in the Senate, it won't matter what you do, we are getting draconian gun control, it will be a runaway freight train.

If Obama wins, prey to god the the GOP holds enough votes in the House and Senate to fillabuster his gun grabbing plans.

Nolo
September 25, 2008, 12:20 AM
I'm half-liberal.
:D
(libertarians FTW!)

toivo
September 25, 2008, 01:30 PM
Tell me, do you think the framers of our Constitution would support this bailout ?

No, I don't think they would. I don't support it either.

I'm all for the complete privitazation of education across the board ; grade schools , colleges, and vocational schools. Further, I dont think I should be taxed to pay for public schools scince my children do not go to them.

The concept of public education goes pretty far back in America. Here's Jefferson:

"The less wealthy people,... by the bill for a general education, would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government; and all this would be effected without the violation of a single natural right of any one individual citizen."

The rationale is that an educated populace is essential to have a healthy democracy. For the modern version, I’d add “and an economy that is competitive in a global marketplace.” It's a "public good," like a strong military and an effective road system. I suspect that you may deny the concept of "public good" and maintain that all needs can be met by a free market and "enlightened self interest." But I would ask if you think you should only have to pay for those roads that you drive on or those soldiers who protect your town. I personally believe that the federal government does have legitimate functions to perform and has the right to raise the funds necessary to do them. It's just a question of degree: How much should they provide? Let the negotiations begin…

Nobody wants bloated, expensive, ineffective, intrusive government programs. But before we hand the candy-store keys to the private sector, think about this: The ultimate business model is one in which you give me a lot of money and I give you nothing: 100% profit! A resounding success... unless the product that we have contracted for is the care of disabled veterans or the education of our nation's youth. In that case, the balance sheet looks great even as the nation goes down the drain.

I believe in limited government, but I also believe that big business needs some checks and balances applied to it. Profit is a good motivator, but it's a blind beast when it comes to long-range and side effects. Look at it as a sports metaphor: Every team wants to win, but without rules and a referee, the whole game degenerates into a mess like the one we're in now with the banking system. That's my opinion: YMMV, etc.

BTW, I think this thread is still open because everybody is being pretty civilized so far. No real name-calling yet. If we can continue the discussion with respect for the other points of view, maybe we can really get somewhere, like figuring out how gun owners can work for their common interest regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum.

george29
September 25, 2008, 02:21 PM
I'm a Libertarian. To me that means that I don't care who or what you worship, with whom or what you have sex with, whether your wife / GF / mistress or sister abort your fetus or bring it to the world, whether you smoke or drink or do drugs as long as it doesn't affect me in any way, and whether you do or don't advocate carrying a gun to save your life just so long as you don't force me to have to fight you over that issue. A true Libertarian is what confused liberals think themselves to be when all they mostly are are the exact opposite of conservatives and therefore a mirror image.

crashm1
September 25, 2008, 02:25 PM
Nicely said george29.

Mr_Rogers
September 25, 2008, 03:27 PM
I think many of us would like to be some shade of libertarian but the cruel fact is that there is no practical way there can be a libertarian party under the present, rigged, political system.

So what do you do? Cast a worthless token vote for the libertarian candidate or choose the lesser of the other two evils?

nwilliams
September 25, 2008, 03:34 PM
I would consider myself a liberal who supports gun rights. Most of my political views are very liberal but I also believe very strongly in gun rights. People think that all liberals are anti gun but most of my friends are liberals and they all love guns.

Just because you support gun rights does not automatically place you in a political category. Not all republicans and conservatives are pro gun just like not all democrats and liberals are anti gun.

I would like the gun owning Obama voters here, shocking as that is, to explain the logic of putting the most anti-gun presidential candidate in history in office, then turning around and fighting him when he proposes draconian gun control, which he will

kcshooter said it very well

The way I see it a candidates stance on gun control is simply one issue among many to be considered when electing a president. If a voter finds that there are more issues that they agree with Obama on than McCain why is hard to understand that they would cast their vote for Obama? If somone agrees with Obama on ten issues and McCain only two issues its understandable that they would cast their vote for Obama because the scale is tipped in his favor.

NonConformist
September 25, 2008, 03:36 PM
WOW! This thread is surprising! Im about as far from Liberal as one can get, Im a strong constitutionalist w/ Libertarian leanings, Im pro-choice but anti abortion and other contradictions.

I must say, especially as one who has no tolerance for anti-gun opinions, that this has been a civil thread!

I also am happy to see anti-gun/pro gun control people coming to the 'light' LoL

Wow, just wow! :)

coloradopatriot
September 25, 2008, 03:51 PM
I've been a gun owner over fourty years, since I was in high school in fact. I started carrying a firearm as soon as I was able to. I never had issues with gun ownership, carrying firearms or the use of lethal weapons just seemed the natural order of things and what men do. I am fairly conservative, never voted for a democrat nor would I. I believe the money I earn is mien my not the the governments and certainly not to be taken to use for welfare, food stamps, free healthcare or any other social services, if I can earn a dollar so can anyone else. Thanks

NWGunner
September 25, 2008, 04:30 PM
IBTL. My political beliefs include;

1. There is no such thing as a truly benevolent government.
2. Gun Control is a consistently present policy preceeding genocide and other human right violations. (look to WWII +/- 15 years for a plethora of examples)
3. All other policies flow from #1 and #2. I believe strongly in the idea and practice of a representative government.
4. In order to retain our influence and power OVER the government (not .gov over us), we must remain armed and participate in our democracy.

All other subjects are up for discussion with me. I'm a social libertarian in practice, and fiscally conservative. I wouldn't consider myself an American liberal.

For those of us who think "It'll never get that bad...." with reference to the state of our own country, we need only look to history for disagreement. We should all weigh carefully the long-term ramifications of electing politicians that promise "moderate and reasonable" control over ANY aspect of our lives. FWIW, you can better defend yourself with a firearm that almost any other object/substance/behavior either party seeks to ban.

Jaybird78
September 25, 2008, 07:06 PM
I consider myself a libertarian leaning towards the right. I believe in God but don't go to church. I'm a union member but gets "disappointed" when another member gets paid the same for doing less....a lot less.(Life is unfair get over it)I have a problem with the government trying to control my life. The government can't get the medical care right for the VETERANS....what makes you think the government can get it (NATIONAL HEALTH CARE) right for everyone else? Am I against some sort of welfare....no, everyone can hit hard times. I am not rich, I'm part of the middle class and don't want the burden of everyone else on my back all the time. I work hard for what I EARNED and don't try to keep up with the JONES'es (I drive a Ford Ranger)!

ASK yourself this, "Would you vote for someone who tries to restrict your "Freedom of Speech"? Then why would you vote for someone who tries to restrict your "Right to bear Arms"! By God those are LIBERTIES TEETH!




The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

- Adolf Hitler





They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Ben Franklin

Catherine
September 25, 2008, 07:08 PM
A small l or big L Libertarian is NOT a liberal.

A neo con artist and rino is not a conservative.

The old fashioned Dems and the old fashioned Reps are NOT what these 'parties' have become in X amount of years.

A true Constitution person would NOT agree with either the NWO anti freedom R or NWO anti freedom D party as we know it today or even X amount of years ago! They are both ANTI American and putting America FIRST in ALL issues. Globalist control freaks - ugh.

A true PRO Freedom and true PRO Firearm person would tell BOTH parties to 'stick it' because they are not FOR 'we the people'!

The truth is that you will always hear the same old - same old BS from both parties while they smear the other guy, place the x, y or z 'CARDS' which they BOTH do (Reps and Dems!), play the hate card, the race card, the sex card, the age card, the CLASS WARFARE card, the religion card, the economy card, the ANTI or PRO GUN card, the abortion card even in the case of 'RAPE' - like the victim of the rape has to pay twice for being a victim plus worry about DISEASES, the victim card = welfare, they neglect to bring up ALL of the corporate welfare issues, the illegal alien = criminal card versus the LEGAL immigrant card, the outsourcing card, the Constitution shredding card ALL in the name of Homeland INsecurity for those color coded fear alerts, the air, shore and border control issues, the war mongering crowd for x, y or z countries, the MIC complex card = Ike's warning to all of us, the FOR THE CHILDREN CARD = gag a maggot time and that can and does include ALL issues there, etc.

BOTH parties stink and both of them do NOT have YOU or your families in mind when they continue to ignore real issues and pass the buck = YOUR DOLLAR!

Most voters are clueless as are most gun people are in all FREEDOM issues.

Like you really trust those Diebold machines and other software programs? Ha ha! I am not talking about people who don't push their CHADS all of the way through... I am talking about election THEFT. Bring back the paper ballots and a back up.

History is being made and you have even more CONTROL and loss of freedom as we know it this week. And the beat goes on... lies and theft.

GUN control = control. Period.

See my other posts regarding L. NEIL SMITH on his essay called:

Why did it have to be guns?

Keep your powder dry.

Yours in liberty,

Catherine

NWGunner
September 25, 2008, 07:11 PM
Looks to me like you "get it", Jaybird.

One of the first things Hitler did before starting WWII and exterminating people was call for all kinds of gun control, including registration...which subsequently led to confiscation.

TEDDY
September 25, 2008, 08:58 PM
one thing, most of you havent lived in a relativly gun control free socity.I have.except for the 1934 law most states were control free.high schools had rifle ranges and supplied the guns and ammo.I never knew what a liberal socialist was until the 60s.boys respected girls and the girls that did get pregnant went to see aunti and after the apendix was removed came home much chastized as it was a disgrace to have child out of wedlock.we learned in school as we had discipline or out you went.the socialists killed that.:uhoh::rolleyes:

Atticus
September 25, 2008, 09:30 PM
I believe in common sense...not political parties. I'll listen to any theory, and evaluate it on it's proven merits. The answer usually lies somewhere in the middle. The extreme rhetoric from both ends of the spectrum irritate the hell out of me.

Guntalk
September 25, 2008, 10:14 PM
This is interesting.

For 13 years, I have refused to allow callers to "Gun Talk Radio" talk about liberals and conservatives.

I have had many people over the years slide up to me and say that they are liberals, that they support gun rights, but that they don't feel comfortable in many groups of gun owners.

I don't care how someone feels about other issues if he or she supports gun rights.

Think Pink Pistols.

Congrats to all here who have been open to someone, or many people, who say they are liberal, but who understand the need for self protection and who support the very idea of gun rights.

OcelotZ3
September 26, 2008, 02:43 AM
I would consider myself a liberal who supports gun rights. Most of my political views are very liberal but I also believe very strongly in gun rights. People think that all liberals are anti gun but most of my friends are liberals and they all love guns.

Just because you support gun rights does not automatically place you in a political category. Not all republicans and conservatives are pro gun just like not all democrats and liberals are anti gun.

Exactly... Most of the people I know who shoot fall on the more liberal side of the spectrum, and my ultra-conservative family members are anti-gun. Go figure.

It does get very tiring to see how many folks in gun forums "go off" on "liberals" all the time regarding guns. Also those that are single-issue voters who just pick the single candidate based on whether he is slightly better regarding guns than the other. As you stated, I vote based on which one I agree with the most important items on, with guns being just one of the items (but still important!).

Catherine
September 26, 2008, 02:58 AM
I used to belong to several political and GUN boards - private and public ones. I moderated some boards and I ran some on my own too.

There were 2 people on one board that were interested in guns. One was a woman and one was a man and they were homosexuals. I told them that I had heard about the 'Pink Pistols' and that they had various groups around the country. I said that even though I was a middle aged widow... some of those groups brought people into the RKBA issue and into GUNS big time.

I don't like to keep people apart due to x, y or z and if someone wants to know about self defense issues, learn guns, BUY guns and support the RKBA ISSUE... more power to them.

I don't have to be this or that in a social and/or sex issue but I totally SUPPORT anyone who wants to get into guns and help us ALL out.

I am a Constitution Lady as stated by my other posts here.

Catherine

Catherine
September 26, 2008, 03:01 AM
That is true on Republicans and/or Democrats. Just because someone has a R or a D behind their name does NOT always make them PRO FIREARM and PRO FREEDOM according to the Constitution.

Think of us as declaring our own Declaration of Independence = Freedom and Firearms!

Catherine

ArfinGreebly
September 26, 2008, 04:06 AM
Are there any other folks out there who have wrestled with the decision to arm themselves?
Not really.

There were a couple of factors that kept me disarmed for so many years.

I had done my military time and, on getting out, I figured the whole "armed defense" thing was someone else's job.

I went on to do several years of volunteer work in Europe.

When I came back, I had cross-trained into the brand new high tech sector and found myself mostly sitting at a desk.

I met and got to know a few people who had guns, some of them hunters, some of them shooters, and a couple just plain strange.

I had never really familiarized myself with firearms, and I wasn't comfortable around them or the people who had them.

On the one hand, I could have gotten familiar, but that would have required two things: 1) an admission that I didn't know spit, and 2) something resembling work to actually learn about them.

So, here I was, nervous around gunnies, unwilling to admit I had something to learn, and unwilling to work at it.

I guess you could say I was an ignorant lazy coward on the subject. And I guess I'd have a hard time arguing it with you.

Came the day, though, that I realized I needed to learn more, as I was moving to a place where people hunted and sport shooting was common.

I went to gun shops and asked questions. "Hi there. I'm Garry. You guys got time for some dumb questions?"

I got a .22 rifle. A friend of ours gave me a snub-nosed .38 calibre revolver. I was good with the rifle, terrible with the pistol.

I kept asking dumb questions. I added another rifle, then a pistol, and so on. I practiced.

One day, as I was timidly feeling my way toward enlightenment, we had a "parade" in our town. Several hundred angry Mexican "youths" carrying a huge Mexican flag, right by our front door. Fists in the air. Shouting slogans I didn't understand. No smiles.

I was completely not prepared to deal with a "random social event" on any scale at all. My wife and I had a moment of illumination, and set about becoming more prepared for [whatever].

Why? 'Cuz you just never know.

Did my politics have anything to do with it? Not really.

I was never a particularly good Democrat. Ross Perot's thing didn't work. And I was never a particularly good Republican.

Know why?

'Cuz none of them ever cared what I thought. They never asked. They would show up with some kind of platform that had been decided on by a group of good ol' boys of some stripe in a smoke-filled room to which I'd not been invited.

The platform was always presented as "received wisdom" and we were expected to endorse it.

Kinda came down to choosing which group would run my life according to whichever set of rules I found more acceptable -- or found less objectionable.

Nah. Politics didn't have anything to do with my decision to be armed.

Waking up from years as an ignorant, lazy, timid dweeb was what did it.

I still don't care for politics.

I still won't vote for someone whom I believe means to disarm me.

Welcome to The High Road.

Nematocyst
September 26, 2008, 04:36 AM
I still don't care for politics.Give it a few more years, Arf, and you'll be where I am: I disdain politics.

;)

FMJMIKE
September 26, 2008, 09:22 AM
I hate when people call me a Democrap, Libtard, etc when I say who I will vote for this year. I am a gun rights supporter but more importantly I am an American. We need to pull together now more than ever. United We Stand.........Divided We Fall.............

High Planes Drifter
September 26, 2008, 09:45 AM
The concept of public education goes pretty far back in America. Here's Jefferson:

Ahh, Jefferson. Im farmiliar with the quote. I enjoy reading his work & quotes.

Lets have a look at Jefferson's theory of what a public school should be :

First, this should be done by dividing each county into small districts five or six miles square, called hundreds. The schools , which should be created, controlled, and funded locally, should teach 3 subjects - reading, writing and arithmetic for three years. His lack of confidence in government was shown by his comment on a 1780 bill to place education in the hands of local officials. He said:

"If it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the governor and council...or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience. Try the principle one step further and amend the bill so as to commit to the governor and council the management of all our farms, our mills, and merchants' stores. No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one but to divide it among the many."


What you would have is a community funded, and operated school house where students would attend first, second, and third grade. We can also gather, then, that Jefferson would not have supported the Federal DOE. Rather, the locally funded school would have been held accountable by the community it served. Not by bureaucrats.

But I would ask if you think you should only have to pay for those roads that you drive on or those soldiers who protect your town.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The Constitution provides the right for the government to raise, and support an army. Roads, much the same as schools, should be funded, and overseen, localy. Much the same as schools. And before the government became bloated, they always were.

Why should I have to pay for roads which you drive on, but not I ? Why should I have to pay for your child's doctor visits? Why should I have to pay for your childs free lunch at school? I could go on and on.....

But before we hand the candy-store keys to the private sector, think about this: The ultimate business model is one in which you give me a lot of money and I give you nothing: 100% profit!

I find it humorous you quote Jefferson above and then make that claim. And an unfair, unsubstantiated claim to make; at that. How many stores do you know of that stay in business operating like that? Free market will kill off the substandard vendors.

I'll close with this - The goverment's job description should be a narrow one: To protect the rights of the people -which are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

hoosier8
September 26, 2008, 10:00 AM
I hate when people call me a Democrap, Libtard, etc when I say who I will vote for this year. I am a gun rights supporter but more importantly I am an American. We need to pull together now more than ever. United We Stand.........Divided We Fall.............

No matter, this country is divided and the divide is like a chasm. To me it is all about Freedom. We have been loosing our freedoms for quite some time and both parties are responsible. The Heller decision was a small breath of fresh air in an otherwise polluted landscape. That breath of fresh air will likely dissipate. Personally, I could not vote for Obama. I have never heard him or any of his spokesman say they believe in "The right to KEEP and bear arms." I only hear them say, "The right to bear arms." That, my friend, is a large distinction. Obama says he believes in the 2nd amendment and has a new group called "The Hunters and Shooters Association" supporting him as a ruse to fool you. I do believe he believes in the 2nd amendment, but only in the way the ACLU does. In other words, he does not support the Heller decision. It is so apparent and so many people either do not get it or do not care. It is frightening. Am I an issue voter? This year YES.

I got my license to CC this year because of this. I have never been afraid of much of anything until this year. I am afraid for our country.

toivo
September 26, 2008, 11:17 AM
What you would have is a community funded, and operated school house where students would attend first, second, and third grade. We can also gather, then, that Jefferson would not have supported the Federal DOE. Rather, the locally funded school would have been held accountable by the community it served. Not by bureaucrats.

Fine--I'm not defending the DOE. But we're still talking about public education, not private. The motivation is the good of the society. In Jefferson's day, a third grade education would have been deemed sufficient to create an educated citizen. I don't think we'd make the same claim today.

Why should I have to pay for roads which you drive on, but not I ?
The rationale, which you may or may not agree with, is that the nation requires an efficient infrastructure. It's not just a matter of commerce, but of national defense: the interstate highway system is a case in point.

But before we hand the candy-store keys to the private sector, think about this: The ultimate business model is one in which you give me a lot of money and I give you nothing: 100% profit!
I find it humorous you quote Jefferson above and then make that claim. And an unfair, unsubstantiated claim to make; at that. How many stores do you know of that stay in business operating like that? Free market will kill off the substandard vendors.

I'm glad you found it humorous, because it was intended to be. I was exaggerating the point that profit comes from the difference between outlay and income. I don't think I'm unfair in defining it that way. The same could be said from the consumer side: The consumer's dream is "free stuff."

I wish I could believe that the free market would "kill off the substandard vendors," but I see disproof of that every day. It seems that the larger the corporation, the harder it is to kill off. Waste, fraud, and mismanagement are not unique to the public sector. In my experience, private vendors with government contracts are insulated from the real demands of the free market anyway, so I don't believe that outsourcing is a panacea. Certain essential institutions, such as the military, should have as their primary goal the strength of the nation, not profit. I think where we disagree is on exactly which institutions (besides the military) those are.

IMHO, the real challenge facing us is how to meet the demands of the modern world without abandoning the principles on which our nation is founded. It's not easy, and there are obviously a lot of differences of opinion on how to approach the problem. What I think we all agree on here is that there is a problem with the way it's currently being done.

george29
September 28, 2008, 06:28 PM
If it means defending the 2A then I will vote for McCain. But lordy lord, I despise him as a politician and always have, and except for her legs, Palin is an embarrassment everytime she opens her mouth to speak. At least McCain won't need to hire an intern. Why Lord, why couldn't you have made Obama 2A friendly?

Roberoo
September 28, 2008, 07:34 PM
I think for many of us, who by the time we were old enough to understand some of the environment around us, and it included guns, it is now a way of life.
For better or worse my father never locked his guns up, and I remember sneaking into his gun closet and being in awe of his guns.
I would feel extremely vulnerable on one level and wouldn't be able to hunt (my favorite thing on earth) on another, without guns.
When my kids were growing up there were always guns in the house, but they were locked up perhaps as much for theft prevention as their safety. Both my wife and I had/have
.45 ACP's within a moments reach of bed.
We refuse to become victims.

When the kids were about 5 they were shown what bullets do to animals while I skinned out deer/elk.
I always told my kids that there was no way to make a dead (shot) deer come back to life, "so what would happen if that deer were you ? "
I never had a single problem with my 3 kids and all own guns, shoot, hunt.

Much of the way one feels about guns is in the way they are raised.

Politically, America is only as good as Her people. If we make it difficult to get an education and better ourselves, and by doing so better our country, we will lose to competing countries (#30) were education is free. The more uneducated, sick, needy people we have in the US, the larger the bottom of our society is.
So if the bottom falls out, (and it darn near did this last week) it will change America for the worse. We must have a healthy, wealthy (moderately) and large middle class to keep from those few at the top taking the US down with Enron/Wa-Mu type scams. I am as worried about the behavior of the uber-rich as I am any communist, or socialist, because the rich when corrupt have the power to put this country into a depression were more people will suffer than the damage any equal sized group of commie's or socialists could . When you reach out to someone, you only better yourself and your country. So I guess I am a conservative liberal. But more than a political name tag, I am a scientist, and I believe that technology can make life better and more productive for humankind.
To allow our country to become illiterate and unproductive in the name of self-serving greed is the prescription for a 3rd world country.
So, why make it difficult to access those commodities that make America better, stronger, and the best country on earth ?
Roberoo

Brass_Monkey
September 28, 2008, 09:05 PM
No can't say I ever had any personal struggle chosing to exercise my natural and constitution right to bear arms in defense.

Catherine
September 28, 2008, 09:48 PM
PRO GUN PEOPLE in All Political Parties will need their GUNS with the garbage that just went through today with our Congress Critters.

You talk about freedom, firearms, etc. - YOU will have even more control from the NWO Reps and NWO Dems after this bail out vote and when it goes to globalist Bush to sign. UGH.

You want to get through for GUN rights and ALL other freedom issues in MT?

Denny Rehberg:
D.C. voice mail and mail box FULL. Tough cookies! R?!?

Jon Tester:
D.C. voice mail and mail box FULL. Tough cookies! D?!?

Max Baucus:
D.C. voice mail and mail box FULL. Tough cookies! D?!?

The M and O men - ha! Pul___leeze say, "No!" GUN RIGHTS? ALL freedom issues and LESS government including the POLICE STATE in your lives? Not! Only what they give a rat's @@@ about. Give you a crumb here and take away a LOAF there = both parties!

Don't blame me, I was for a man who had a CLUE.

Catherine
http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
Why did it have to be guns?

boomvark
September 29, 2008, 12:20 AM
Issue for issue, I swing "left" at least three times as often as I swing "right", to the extent that either of those terms really means anything. In current popular usage that probably makes me a "liberal".

On the more complex two-axis political spectra I come up consistently left-libertarian rather than liberal. That doesn't surprise me, because I (1) practice one of the more orthodox flavors of Christianity and (2) own a closet full of guns which I am not ashamed of knowing how to use and would not turn in if the order were ever given. (Incidentally I think that's a fairly improbable scenario, at least in the US and at least while the Constitution is even nominally in effect).

Bottom line, I don't think the Second Amendment should be a liberal-vs-conservative issue.

Boxing Buffalo
September 29, 2008, 01:03 AM
Not a liberal, not a conservative. I find both equally confusing, limiting, degrading, and petty.

I'm chocked full of common sense. So, I'm a Libertarian. I believe you have every right to do whatever you want, just so long as you don't hurt anyone in the process. Shoot up, smoke it up, whatever. Just don't steal my TV, or my neighbors.

Point being, I'll never, ever understand why so many conservative people are so gung ho on the 2nd Amd, and personal freedom and wave the personal accountability flag, yet feel the need to squash most civil rights that liberals fight for. This country is so polarized and I feel the repair won't happen in my lifetime. If only it was 1865 again... I could open carry with no guff, smoke some opium in the privacy of my home, and have a chance at true liberty and freedom that I just don't have now.



/stepdownsoapbox

brianwhynot
September 29, 2008, 02:27 AM
if W couldn't repeal Roe v. Wade, what makes us think Obama could pull off another gun ban?

I can't vote for McCain for the fact that Palin makes Quayle look like a Rhodes Scholar. I just can't see the point in handing the keys to the Zamboni to someone who has only ever driven a bumper car. Even if she won't get to drive (we hope). Not that I think the light shines from Obama, either. Not by a long shot.

I blame Ron Paul. If he'd just leave the GOP we'd have a viable candidate to vote for. Maybe next time he can get Ross Perot and T. Boone Pickens to back his play, being a proper Texan and all. :D

Catherine
September 29, 2008, 04:07 AM
I won't vote for the O man or the M man.

People go on about gun rights and some candidates and 'parties' want to take OTHER rights away from you all in the name of x, y or z. UGH. Why not take a look at the Constitution shredding in these last YEARS? Outright MURDERS in all of these years - past and present administrations - most likely FUTURE administrations. Why not take a look at the crapola with Waco, Ruby Ridge and tons more - not allowed here?

This last deal and sell out is just that - SELL OUT not 'bail out'! Do you honestly think that the Dems and Reps listened to YOU aka We the People? Ha ha! NOT!

If you have a rino or neo con artist sell you out with NWO R socialist ideas along with the OTHER NWO D socialist selling you out while they STAB YOU IN THE BACK and ROB YOU - rob your children if you have any which I do not - more power to you if you believe their BS of lies and theft. You don't like lies and theft when it comes to protecting yourself, your loved ones and your HOME or BUSINESS... why the H would you put up with it NOW? YOU need a gun for that protection, right?

GUN rights? Uh huh. What about your RIGHTS as an American citizen who has to put up with even MORE taxation without representation? All of the OTHER ISSUES which are not allowed on this board. THOSE very issues tie into your FREEDOM and FIREARM issues no matter how you want to slice up the PIE!

You are going to need more than GUN RIGHTS to put this country back in order when it comes to Firearm and Freedom Issues.

Some GUN owners are their own worst enemies. Yes, sit back and watch/listen to the great sucking sound get even louder, let them rape you in more ways than sexual rape and flush more liberties down the toilet of NO return including your Firearm and Freedom Rights! Well, golly gee, he or she had a R or a D or an X by their name so they had to be on MY side. NOT! :banghead:

Yours in liberty,

Catherine

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
Samuel Adams

Nematocyst
September 29, 2008, 05:00 AM
By edit: Had a bit too much fun with dinner last night before logging on to check this thread. :rolleyes:

This post was originally a bit more ... humorous, intended to poke fun at myself as much as anyone about the places I've been in life. But it also contained a bit more of a serious political statement than I really wanted to offer.

Nothing to raise a mods eyebrows, but given the times, some of the challenges that this forum is facing right now, and the value of the thesis in this thread, I think I'll just respect the mature tenor of this thread and let that one slip into the cyber-drain.

Perhaps we'll have a thread someday specifically for humor as an offshoot of this one.

That could be fun. :cool:

Deanimator
September 29, 2008, 10:46 AM
Why Lord, why couldn't you have made Obama 2A friendly?
Don't fool yourself. Obama is a Chicago politician. The 2nd Amendment is only ONE of the Amendments he hates. Hence his campaign's attempts to censor NRA ads telling the truth about his hysterically fanatical anti-gun views.

Chicago politics owes FAR more to Robert Mugabe or Slobodan Milosevic than John F. Kennedy, or even Teddy Kennedy for that matter.

Want the BATFE run like the Chicago Police Department? Vote for Obama.

george29
October 2, 2008, 06:01 PM
I guess I will vote McCain and then throw out my TV so I don't need to be repulsed by him or Palin.

If you enjoyed reading about "Any other liberals?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!