Any other liberals?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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."
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Yes!

Catherine #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.
 
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".
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
PremiumSauces said:
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".
 
fatelk #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) 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
 
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 ?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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).
 
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:
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top