A magnificent example of why not to use "liberal" as an attack/insult

[Nom de Forum]

X-Rap your bigoted assumption of the moral superiority and superior courage of Conservatives is not just absurd, it is the very type of passive aggressive hostility and insulting comment some of us are attempting to curb so as to prevent the alienation of potential allies in the defense of the RKBA.

 

[we are not amused]

I got off this thread yesterday afternoon because of the silliness of some of the people posting.
Such as gun owners drive Liberals to be anti-gun, or using the term "Liberal" to describe a Liberal is somehow an insult to them.

What are we supposed to call them, Progressives? Any one who knows what Progressivism is knows it is straight out Fascism.

If Liberals consider being called Liberals is somehow an insult to them, then maybe they shouldn't follow that ideology.

And considering the responses of Liberals here on this thread to Libertarians and Conservatives, maybe they ought to consider that they seem to go out of their way to "alienate" us.

Part of the problem is that by far most Liberals want to ban and or restrict gun ownership.
Even many Liberals on this site, who claim to support the RKBA favor more restrictions on gun ownership.

This does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy toward those misguided souls. No doubt they feel the same about my views of gun control. They certainly have attacked my position often enough, and cared little about whether they offended me or not.

Which is fine. I put my big boys pants on in the morning. Unlike many, if not most Liberals, I believe in free speech. The politicians I support and vote for all support the Second Amendment. While I am not a one issue voter, If they don't support the Second Amendment, then they likely don't support other issues I believe in, such as limits on Government Power, free political speech, and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I have voted Democratic before, and may do so again if the right,(or wrong) combination of candidates show up on the ballot. ( Kansas Politics is a bit weird, as many Republican politicians in this State are to the Left of the average Democrat. )

Noted, not all people who call themselves Republican are either conservative or supporters of the Second Amendment. Not all Democrats are Liberals or gun banners. My Father was an example of that.

American Conservatives believe in the values that the Founding Fathers fought for and tried to establish in the Constitution. They were the original Liberals who believed in Limited Government and individual rights. They were followers of John Locke and Adam Smith, Montesquieu and others.

Today, their Philosophy is known as Classical Liberalism, and is the heart of modern Conservatism and Libertarianism.

That is my philosophy and beliefs, and accusing me of believing that is not an insult to me. Strange how modern Liberals get upset when you call them Liberals, not that I blame them. I strongly reject their beliefs in equality of outcome, not opportunity, group rights as opposed to individual rights, racial identity politics, and most if not all the rest of their shibboleths, especially the Right of the State over the Right of the Individual. In my opinion, the State exist to preserve my Natural rights. I do not exist to serve the State.

That is why most Liberals believe in gun control. An armed Citizen is difficult to control the way an unarmed Member of Society can be. As the British found out at Lexington and Concord.

By the way, I am not advocating armed revolution at this or any other time. But an armed Citizenry does have that option if they feel the situation is desperate enough. Why does every repressive Government attempt to restrict it's Citizens ownership of weapons otherwise.

That is my position, stated in very abbreviated form, and why I support an unlimited Right to own weapons. Then of course are the practical reasons, such as personal self defense against criminals, and the utter failure of any gun ban to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons.

If anyone whishes to discuss political philosophies with me, please send a private post, as this is supposed to be a gun forum, not Political Science 101. I will reply as time permits.

 

[we are not amused]

X-Rap your bigoted assumption of the moral superiority and superior courage of Conservatives is not just absurd, it is the very type of passive aggressive hostility and insulting comment some of us are attempting to curb so as to prevent the alienation of potential allies in the defense of the RKBA.

But it was okay when you used yours?

 

[we are not amused]

Do you even have a clue what a straw dog/straw man argument is? Any at all? Seriously, would you be able to tell us what a "strawman (argument)" is without first Googling it? I see people dismissing posts on these forums by claiming they're "strawman" and it's clear they have no clue what they're talking about -- and you clearly are one of those people.

Out of curiosity, can you?

Many of your arguments certainly are silly and contrived, such as the Prius one.

I am going out to play with my guns now.

I will come back in a while and see if any of the offended Liberals will realize that they are every bit as determined to alienate Conservatives and Libertarians as they claim we are them.


"The problem with arguing with morons is that they drag you down to their level, and then precede to beat you with experience"

Something we could all keep in mind.

 

[Nom de Forum]

But it was okay when you used yours?

Good grief, are you serious? Who did I alienate so that they will not support the RKBA? Do you even know what this thread is about?

 

[Theohazard]

Do you even have a clue what a straw dog/straw man argument is? Any at all? Seriously, would you be able to tell us what a "strawman (argument)" is without first Googling it?

Especially after I explained what it is in post #106.

 

[X-Rap]

If we would just embrace our Liberal brothers the gun control issue would disappear.

I wonder what would happen if some of the people who use "liberal" as a pejorative were stuck in the middle of no where, out of gas and a Prius rolled up sporting an Obama sticker and one of those silly "coexist" decals?

What if the Prius driver got out and offered their full can of lawn mower gas they were in the midst of fetching? Would the "conservative" big mouth reject the offer of help because the Prius driver supported Obama and had bad taste in decals?

Do you even have a clue what a straw dog/straw man argument is? Any at all? Seriously, would you be able to tell us what a "strawman (argument)" is without first Googling it? I see people dismissing posts on these forums by claiming they're "strawman" and it's clear they have no clue what they're talking about -- and you clearly are one of those people.

Figure I've used it in pretty much the same way that you have so I guess if I don't know neither do you

 

[Sam1911]

If Liberals consider being called Liberals is somehow an insult to them, then maybe they shouldn't follow that ideology.

Why do you keep repeating this? Your position appears weak when you return to a flawed argument which has already been disposed of in this very thread and drum on it again and again.

I explained to you, all the way back in post 53, that calling Liberals Liberals doesn't offend them, and that's not the point of this thread.

To bring it up again embarrasses you.

 

[X-Rap]

X-Rap your bigoted assumption of the moral superiority and superior courage of Conservatives is not just absurd, it is the very type of passive aggressive hostility and insulting comment some of us are attempting to curb so as to prevent the alienation of potential allies in the defense of the RKBA.

Make no mistake, there is nothing passive about my aggression toward Liberals who wish to infringe upon the 2a.

 

[Theohazard]

We are not amused, I don't think I've ever seen someone on THR use so many straw man arguments in one thread. You're intentionally distorting and fabricating our positions and it's simply dishonest. Obviously you have no interest in discussing this like an adult; instead you feel the need to make things up in order to make your argument. It's pretty sad.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Make no mistake, there is nothing passive about my aggression toward Liberals who wish to infringe upon the 2a.

Amongst other things in this thread, I don't think you understand the concept of Passive Aggressive Behavior. Your "Prius scenario" comment was an example of Passive Aggressive Behavior. Now if you were to make a direct statement that Liberals are immoral and cowardly that would not be Passive Aggressive Behavior. BTW the first six words of the first sentence in this paragraph is a minor example of Passive Aggressive Behavior so that you can better understand the concept. Whoops, I guess I just did it again.

 

[Kynoch]

X-Rap your bigoted assumption of the moral superiority and superior courage of Conservatives is not just absurd, it is the very type of passive aggressive hostility and insulting comment some of us are attempting to curb so as to prevent the alienation of potential allies in the defense of the RKBA.

His comments are so preposterous that it made me wonder if they were made as an attempt at parody?

Nevertheless this dialogue is important. It does underscore the fact that some who claim to be "pro-gun" are actually doing damage to preserving our RKBA with their actions/comments.

 

[Kynoch]

Especially after I explained what it is in post #106.

Did you notice how some were antagonized by my mentioning a Prius? The Prius, Obama sticker and coexist decal were mentioned only because they are highly visible items that some people would immediately use to judge others. Sadly that flew right over their heads. They stepped right into it.

I suspect those who cant's grasp the fact that a great many "liberals"/Democrats are indeed pro-2A in both their beliefs and actions are the very type that would immediately reach a judgement from such externals.

The question remains -- would they accept help from someone they otherwise negatively judge (as they do pro-2A "liberals") or would they stick to their bigotry and assume that nothing positive can come from those they judged based on the car type/decals?

 

[Kynoch]

Make no mistake, there is nothing passive about my aggression toward Liberals who wish to infringe upon the 2a.

Like "strawman (argument)", it's very clear you have no idea what passive-aggressive behavior is...

 

[Jaymo]

So, we should try to appease liberals (socialists) in order to try to keep them from opposing our God-given rights?

Neville Chamberlain would be proud.
Of course, appeasement didn't work for him, either.

Sorry, but the reality is that you can not be a liberal AND be pro gun, or be brave.
Anti-gun and thin-skinned, cowardly "tolerance" politics are part and parcel of "liberal" politics.

 

[Kynoch]

Out of curiosity, can you?

Many of your arguments certainly are silly and contrived, such as the Prius one.

I am going out to play with my guns now.

I will come back in a while and see if any of the offended Liberals will realize that they are every bit as determined to alienate Conservatives and Libertarians as they claim we are them.


"The problem with arguing with morons is that they drag you down to their level, and then precede to beat you with experience"

Something we could all keep in mind.

If you're offering your comments as parody, then you missed the mark. They're not funny.

If you're being serious, then you're doing nothing but underscoring the fact that you are a detriment to my right to keep and bear arms. People who hold the beliefs and bigotry that you espouse are a problem.

I'm pleased to see that more and more pro-2A individuals recognize that.

 

[Chainsaw76]

Do not for one second forget that is was liberals/socialists that started all this biggoted name calling. Obviously, they can dish it out, but can't take it.

I have often thought that liberals should be the biggest 2AM supporters, but that is part of their ingrained hypocrisy. The facist left does indeed own guns, but I have to wonder about their motives.


I would love if they would get their man clothes on and stand where they should on these issues. However, I've found from hard earned experience, that betrayal is their stock in trade. Always expect the knife between the shoulder blades when dealing with them.

jim

 

[Kynoch]

So, we should try to appease liberals (socialists) in order to try to keep them from opposing our God-given rights?

Neville Chamberlain would be proud.
Of course, appeasement didn't work for him, either.

Sorry, but the reality is that you can not be a liberal AND be pro gun, or be brave.
Anti-gun and thin-skinned, cowardly "tolerance" politics are part and parcel of "liberal" politics.

"Liberal" is not a synonym for "socialist." Please don't try to dump that sewage here. Pick up a book instead.

Your Chamberlain comment is a non-sequitur for this discussion. Not using the term "liberal" as a pejorative is not "appeasement" so you fail there as well.

You're also displaying ignorance with your comment that one cannot be "liberal" and pro-gun. That's just silly. Your comment becomes embarrassingly ignorant for you when you try to lump bravery into the mix.

You and people like you are part of the problem. You threaten my RKBA.

 

[Kynoch]

Do not for one second forget that is was liberals/socialists that started all this biggoted name calling. Obviously, they can dish it out, but can't take it.

Liberal/socialist are not synonyms. You're actually trying to justify rude behavior with the schoolyard stratagem "he started it?" Really?

I have often thought that liberals should be the biggest 2AM supporters, but that is part of their ingrained hypocrisy. The facist left does indeed own guns, but I have to wonder about their motives.

Whoa... First "socialist" now "fascist"? Again, really?

I would love if they would get their man clothes on and stand where they should on these issues. However, I've found from hard earned experience, that betrayal is their stock in trade. Always expect the knife between the shoulder blades when dealing with them.

jim

Sad to say, the comments are a product of rather profound ignorance and bigotry. I honestly don't mean that as a personal attack either. It's clear you have no idea just how painfully incorrect your comments are. You truly need to do something about that by way of reading, pondering and discussion. Make a real effort to seek the truth, to think in a critical/unbiased manner and not that which necessarily feels good to you.

 

[DeepSouth]

From the 2012 Democratic platform, (The party of liberals, progressives, leftists, socialists, ect) when they removed the phrase "what works in Chicago"
Quote:

We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole

So they have identified themselves as enemies of the 2A, they have essentially declared war on us. And since I'm not willing to embrace them, being as their the enemy, I guess I'll stick my head in the sand so I want offend the embracers.

 

[200Apples]

silicosys4

Why is one label better than another?

Kynoch

I largely agree. In most cases labels are used as slurs simply to make one feel good about themselves.

Socialist.

 

[Field Tester]

From the 2012 Democratic platform, (The party of liberals, progressives, leftists, socialists, ect) when they removed the phrase "what works in Chicago"
Quote:


So they have identified themselves as enemies of the 2A, they have essentially declared war on us. And since I'm not willing to embrace them, being as their the enemy, I guess I'll stick my head in the sand so I want offend the embracers.

Again, we're not talking about the party or politicians, we're talking about the people.
Every single, again, Every Single Republican President since Eisenhower has supported some form of gun control. Several candidates that did not win the race have supported or enacted some form of gun control. Why don't we define the Republican party as anti gun?

I personally have friends in my local union, that I have known 15 years, that consider themselves Liberal yet proud gun owners. They are also sometimes disgusted by certain politicians. Sometimes they look elsewhere to vote.
Why on Earth would we alienate these people by insulting them?!

Why is this so hard for some of you to understand? If it's too complicated then go back to the old axiom that your mother told you. "If you can't say anything nice..."

These people are not your enemy. You only do yourself a disservice by alienating them.

 

[blarby]

For clarification ( for those tuning in, wondering WTH those guys are talking about )

"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue."
( thanks Wiki. )

And further

"Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.

For research purposes, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) revision IV describes passive-aggressive personality disorder as a "pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in social and occupational situations".

Just wanted that out there, you know, so people could understand what those statements mean.

I'll leave this one in the capable hands of those already possessing the whoopin sticks.


Back to liberally lubing my roller bearings now, ta-ta !

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Still gonna use it.

Just as I wear the mantle Conservative in issues fiscal and social while understanding that there are others called and calling themselves Conservative with whom I vehemently disagree - I expect Liberals to understand that the same broad brush can apply to them. We have to own our affiliations. I do and am not tap dancing around Liberals for fear of offending less that 1% of their number.

Wanna live, vote, preach and impose Liberalism on the rest of the voters, own the mantle.

 

[silicosys4]

Reminds me of the time i had to deal with some road raging jerk who saw my miata and immediately began a tirade about obama, liberals, and young people. Finally had to tell him i had a gun to keep him from smashing my window with the rock he had just picked up.

Ignorance abounds on both sides.