[Wedge]

Okay, actually it was yesterday but I didn't have a chance to write it down. A few of us were discussing politics, everyone was in agreement that Kerry is a scumbag and I made a very typical comment for me, "I'll vote for whoever isn't going to take my guns."

Talk about opening a can of worms!

Turns out the other three people I was talking to were all pretty anti-gun. I took my typical hardline stance on gun control and the Second ammendment...so as usual talking about machine guns comes around. They ask, "So you think the average citizen should be allowed to own machine guns". My reply, "Absolutely, the Second ammendment was put there to limit government's power and prevent tyranny."

So then they start going nuts with rocket launchers, bombs, tactical nukes. I say with full conviction that unless you are breaking the law using them there isn't a problem. Two of the people realized what I was getting at, that with freedom there is a certain level of discomfort knowing that EVERYONE has the same rights and privelages that you do. Bear in mind that everyone in the conversation is college educated. The third person was a bona-fide communist racist elitist...

It was amazing because his views on firearm ownership were pretty identical to voting. Only people that passed a certain level of intelligence, or competance would be allowed to own a gun, vote, etc. etc. effectively limiting citizenship from the masses and giving it to the elite few. That attitude is so different from my own that I cannot even fathom living in a world like that.

In the end, my hardline approach to individual rights pretty much freaked out the elitist and made me feel a little better about the way I choose to look at the world.

[R.H. Lee]

Good for you!

The more fetid leftist drivel that goes unchallenged, the more it becomes the "norm". I never miss an opportunity to skewer/tweak/annoy/pissoff a hardcore dem/lib/socialist leftist, and firmly believe that extreme liberalism IS a mental disorder.:D

[madmike]

Actually, they've gotten doctors to make the claim that "conservatism" is a mental illness requiring treatment.

Of course, that means they shouldn't hate Bush. They should "understand" him and seek treatment. :D

In return, I'm trying to create the case that liberalism is felonious.:evil:

Not because I believe the case will stand. But just because it makes them froth at the mouth.

"You can't really think it means people can own nukes????"

"Sure. And if it doesn't, YOU tell Bill Gates he's breaking the law. Fat lot of good it will do you. Anyone who can afford a nuke won't care about the law."

Sometimes, they get it.

Sometimes, I have to use smaller words.

BUT! My favorite (Article in my archives at keepandbeararms) is to use the ACTUAL definition of "left wing" and "right wing" to paint elitists seeking a privileged class as right wing (And this is the position Trotskyites and other actual "LEFT" wingers take).

Just call Sarah Grabby, Chuckie Scummer and Whinesteen "Extreme Right-wing fascists bent on destroying the rights of protest and the ability to revolt against Ashcroft's militancy!"

They really have NO idea how to respond to that.

[AJ Dual]

When a particular statist/collectivist/elitist really starts getting my ire, I create what initially sounds like a welcome "break" in the debate, right when everyone else is getting uncomfortable.

I suddenly shift gears and say something happy and magnanimous sounding like:

"Isn't it great when a debate gets so involved? It's really neat to hear such interesting opinions!"

Everyone who is getting made uncomfortable by the debate happily grasps at what initially sounds like "everyone's opinions are valid and interesting" PC pabulum, as does the statist/collectivist/elitist.

Then in the same cheery tone I deliver the sucker punch and say with my biggest s.e. grin, :D "...Because if everything goes to hell, we'll know who to targ... I mean, watch out for..."

That usually ends it right there, and I then play along with everyone as appropriate, that I was just pushing buttons for entertainment purposes, or am deadly serious, whichever is more fun.

[Sam Adams]

"I'll vote for whoever isn't going to take my guns."

I really LIKE that one, and I'm going to use it the next time some twit asks me who I'm going to vote for (hopefully a family member - they're the most fun to shock, and they can't tell you to eff off).

I did have some fun, though, freaking out a few English blissninnies on the following BBC discussion board:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?x=y&board=radio4.questions&mid=%3C1079277302-16443.29%40forum2.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&state=view&sort=Te (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-16443.29%40forum2.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&state=view&sort=Te)

I posted there as "Paul Weiss." I'm not thrilled with the format, but if you scroll through you'll see how truly ignorant and liberal (sorry for the oxymoron) some of these folks are. I know that I got to them, however, since I'm now the subject of ad hominem attacks.

EDIT: Sorry, the direct link won't work. However, you can reach it via the following THR site:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71156

[Ktulu]

It's really unfortunate that such people exist.

[Mulliga]

My friends and I were hanging around outside a club, when two of them shouted "Pork!" and "---- the police!" at a bunch of police officers parked down the road. Since I'm no LEO-basher, I engage in the following conversation...

ME: So, you hate the police?

THEM: Yeah!

ME: Why is that?

THEM: The police suck! (murmurs of agreement)

Knowing them to be MicroBalrog's proverbial blissninny pseudo-liberals (BPLs)...

ME: So do you like the government?

THEM: Errr...yeah...

ME: If you don't trust the police, you shouldn't trust the government. After all, who signs the checks of those police officers? Who writes the laws that they enforce? Who rules on if they acted properly during an arrest?

THEM: (quizzical looks)

I swear, they're my friends, but sometimes they are pretty dumb. :rolleyes:

[Drjones]

I never miss an opportunity to skewer/tweak/annoy/pissoff a hardcore dem/lib/socialist leftist, and firmly believe that extreme liberalism IS a mental disorder.

I agree completely!

Leftism is indeed a mental disorder, and one of the more blatant symptoms is elitism, as our friend Wedge discovered for himself.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

:evil: My wife usually hands the phone to me or invites me to the discussion when a leftist is identified. :evil: Personally, my radar goes off when I am near one and I give them "the look" and they go away :evil:

[Standing Wolf]

It was amazing because his views on firearm ownership were pretty identical to voting. Only people that passed a certain level of intelligence, or competance would be allowed to own a gun, vote, etc. etc. effectively limiting citizenship from the masses and giving it to the elite few.

The new self-appointed aristocrats.

[PATH]

Elitist left wingers are fun to argue with. They anger very easily and that is when they start making stuff up. I love calling them on some preposterous ideas they have. They are really fun to annoy!:D

I believe it was Michael Savage who made the following comment: "Liberalism is not so much a political ideology as it is a form of mental illness"!

Don't you just love it!!!:evil: :neener: :D

[gunsmith]

I was in a coffee shop that serves as the unofficial club for AFL-CIO
an AFLer was talking about his trip to Colorado,I mentioned that it's a great state,that citizens can carry concealed handguns.
He said "they can? thats awful" so I asked him,"oh do you prefer CA law which only lets rich white men carry guns?"
He told me he never thought about it that way.

Libs love being percieved as against racism but their gun laws send thousands of young black and latino men to prison.

[Logistics]

>>>Elitist left wingers are fun to argue with<<<

How one can be an "elitist" AND a bleeding heart liberal at the same time truly amazes me! I mean, living off the state and having other people provide to those who do not deserve it seems the farthest from what MOST people would call "elitst". Liberals seem almost unable to live life away from the collective and seem to thrive on the media in at least one or more forms. They almost seem out of water when are asked to think for themselves. I truly do not see how one can go on living life like that. It truly must be related somehow to "mental illness" as some have suggested. Quite interesting.

[Diggler]

I'm not thrilled with the format, but if you scroll through you'll see how truly ignorant and liberal (sorry for the oxymoron) some of these folks are. "Ignorant and liberal" is not an oxymoron... it's redundant. "Logical liberalism" would be an example of an oxymoron.

:D

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

How one can be an "elitist" AND a bleeding heart liberal at the same time truly amazes me! I mean, living off the state and having other people provide to those who do not deserve it seems the farthest from what MOST people would call "elitst". Liberals seem almost unable to live life away from the collective and seem to thrive on the media in at least one or more forms. They almost seem out of water when are asked to think for themselves. I truly do not see how one can go on living life like that. It truly must be related somehow to "mental illness" as some have suggested. Quite interesting.

Like in any group, leaders emerge. An elitist liberal is an "authoritarian" who seeks to manage your life according to their worldview. The problem with most authoritarians is that they subscribe to the leftist think and then become power hungry. All of this works, of course, because they promise their voters your money and a "feel good" world. This where today's leftist has departed from the original "classical liberal." Classical liberals were civil libertarians (never fiscal).

There have been many dicussions here regarding the liberal label. I believe we resolved to name today's "liberal" as a statist/leftist/socialist.

[ksnecktieman]

The best response I have found to eliteists like that is "Who do you want to make the decision on who gets priviledge and who does not?" I think all of us would like to be in "The Elite" group, but reality says someone has to judge who gets priviledge and who is in the "teeming masses"?

Would the priviledge be for the educated? The rich? The employed? The married people only? Can they be sure the requirements will not change?

[XLMiguel]

My take on 'the liberal elite' is that most of them are pretty comfortable (usually through no fault of their own) and life is good, and they think it should be so for everyone. They fail to grasp a porimary fact of life, that being that Life ain't fair. This doesn't mean that they won't try to make it so, and they see government as the vehicle for doing that.

This soft-headedness breeds an 'entitlement mentality', i.e. everyone is 'entitled' to a good life, and they see those who have recognized the fact that if you want a good life, you will have to work for/earn it as hard-hearted and/or stingy (and even then, there's no guarantee that you will actually have one). They have little use for personal responsibility, accountability,or achievement, and they figure if you're getting over too well, it must be at someones expense, and therefore will use tax policy for income redistribution (don't ask them where their wealth came from . . .). After all, 'it isn't their fault' that they're poor -

Since they want everyone to have a good life, they feel morally superior, and therefore 'entitled' to rule, er, govern, which is a large part of the reason they're so pi$$ed that Bush 'stole' the election (nevermind that they don't understand the difference between a democracy and a democratid republic, or how the Electorial College works and why it was put in place :banghead: ). Since they want everything to be good, while blissfully ignoring the primary rule that means Life doesn't always work out in a 'good' way, they will seek some sort of legislated means of providing 'good' (at least their idea of what 'good' is), and god help you if you disagree with 'good'.

I'm getting a headache:banghead:

[Quartus]

Personally, I think we need a Constitutional Amendment to ban the private possession of nukes and biological weapons. Those things are really no use to freedom fighters, and they really ARE too dangerous for just any joe to have.


Chemical weapons?? Hmmmm. Depends on the type, I think.

[The Tourist]

I go to the gym just about every day, and we discuss politics in the locker room. Last week, the subject was gay marriages, and they asked for my opinon.

I said, "Well, I wouldn't let my son marry a lesbian."

No one got that.

[Eskimo Jim]

My wife does a better job at it than I do. One of her coworkers a long time back makes the statement that hunting is bad. So of course my wife starts asking the coworker that increasing a deer population is a good idea so that there are more car accidents, right? Also, deer over population and thus a long slow death by starvation is better than hunting, right? etc etc until she makes the person look like an utter babbling idiot. It is very entertaining to watch.

-Jim

[iapetus]

Quartus

Personally, I think we need a Constitutional Amendment to ban the private possession of nukes and biological weapons. Those things are really no use to freedom fighters, and they really ARE too dangerous for just any joe to have.


I read somewhere that at the time of BOR was written, "arms" meant the weapons that a soldier etc could carry. Larger things, like artillary (and presumably nukes in a modern scenario), were "ordnance".

So (if that's correct), the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover such weapons.


(A bit of a blow to the ultra-libertanarians who want them, but an equal blow to the antis who argue against the literal interpretation of the 2A on the grounds that "That means you could have nukes! Its just WRONG!!!!!")

[Quartus]

That's a tired old argument. The term ARMS means weapons - it's not limited. It's just the general term for weapons. Many have tried to make it so, but it ain't. Tired wranglings about the typical equipment of a militia miss the point - the word just means weapons. Writings of the day use the same word to mean everything from knives to shipboard cannons.

Let's think about this:


What had the FF just done? Fought a war. A war against an established power with a fully equipped and trained military, possesed of cannon and warships. What did they use to fight it? Everything they had, including cannon and warships. (Privately owned cannon and warships, BTW, which CONTINUTED to be privately owned right through the time the BOR was written, and much later.)


What did they want us to be able to do? Fight a war. A war against an established power with a fully equipped and trained military, possesed of cannon and warships.

What did they want us to be able to use?

Hand held weapons only.


Riiiiiight.




:rolleyes:

[Drjones]

Libs love being percieved as against racism but their gun laws send thousands of young black and latino men to prison.

Yes, they are liars. Leftists are the true racists as is very clearly evident by their various social policies and mantra of "diversity" which relies on skin color and race (even though according to them, "race" is a social construct designed to dehumanize certain groups of people :rolleyes: ) to separate people into different groups.

However, why do you think so many young black and latino men are in prison?

Hint: its not because of "racist" laws. They just happen to commit most of the crime.

[armoredman]

Yes it is fun to annoy LIEberals. BTW, I believe the 2nd protects the rights of us common folk to own and carry weapons appropriate to a light infantry unit, as that is what militia is. thia would not only cover small arms, but light/med armor, helos, and light attack air. Flame suit on....

[gunsmith]

In CA if you have a handgun in your car,you can easily end up in federal prison. Alot of young blacks and latino do commit crime,it's true.
It should be for violent etc crimes,alot of black and latino guys are in prison
for simple possesion of a handgun that is not "registered" to them.
Sure some of these guys are badguys,but some of them are honorable Vets like that Dixon guy from NY City who shot a guy who was burgalizing
his toddlers room.
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/
http://www.law.ukans.edu/jrnl/cramer.htm
Oh yeah read this too,seems even liberals think the CA gun laws sometimes go to far
Gun law gone bad
Michael Frattini allegedly pistol-whipped a man outside a Tenderloin restaurant; he spent one night in jail. His friend Willie Beasley took the gun away and threw it in the street; he's going to prison for almost four years. The Operation Triggerlock story.

By Gabrielle Banks
http://www.sfbg.com/36/45/cover_triggerlock.html

I believe that RKBA means RKBA seems to me alot of blacks ,latino's are going to jail for simply carrying a gun,I would bet that there are many whites carrying guns as well but not as many are getting federal charges thrown against them...

[Sam Adams]

" "Ignorant and liberal" is not an oxymoron... it's redundant. "Logical liberalism" would be an example of an oxymoron."

Thanks for the correction. Either way, I despise the anti-gun jacka$$es.

[M1911Owner]

(Privately owned cannon and warships, BTW, which CONTINUTED to be privately owned right through the time the BOR was written, and much later.)In addition, the Constitution authorizes the Congress to issue letters of marque; a necessary precondition of issuing a letter of marque is that there be warships in private hands. So we have here in the body of the Constitution an implicit grant of a right to keep and bear warships! :D

[Sam Adams]

"n addition, the Constitution authorizes the Congress to issue letters of marque; a necessary precondition of issuing a letter of marque is that there be warships in private hands. So we have here in the body of the Constitution an implicit grant of a right to keep and bear warships! "

I've often argued this point to people, and the main response is "who could afford such a thing?" I like that, they concede the point without even realizing it. Of course, I point out that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett could each purchase, outfit and man a complete carrier battle group and still not worry about where their great great grandchildren will get the money for a fleet of Rolls Royces. Another purchaser could be corporations, something that I'd love to see (though you'd probably hear a lot more from the liberals about "corporate pirates."). :D

[Quartus]

Yes it is fun to annoy LIEberals. BTW, I believe the 2nd protects the rights of us common folk to own and carry weapons appropriate to a light infantry unit, as that is what militia is. thia would not only cover small arms, but light/med armor, helos, and light attack air. Flame suit on....



This is inadequate as flame bait. You have stated an unsubstantiated opinion. We can laugh at it, but it doesn't merit flaming, nor even serious debate. It's already been shown to be nonsense.

(HINT: Read M1911Owner's post.)