Are there no liberal gun-rights supporters?

[bbaerst]

If you believe in gun ownership and use for personal defense and/or defense of property, then you believe there are circumstances that warrant taking another person's life - this is clearly a contradiction with the "liberal" position that NO human life should ever be taken, (except the unborn, or partially born - you can "choose" to kill them all you want!), not via the death penalty, not by police shooting, not by war, (unless the US has NO vested interest, then its OK...), and most certainly not by private citizens.

If you believe in gun ownership for hunting/game harvesting, then clearly you are at odds with the bizarre notion that our untamed animal companions have "rights", and clearly you are guilty of "speciesism".

If you want to retain firearms as a bulwak against tyranny, then you are at odds with the "liberal" position that the Government, (and the "liberals" running it) are smarter than you and better equipped to run your life, after suitable charging you for the service....

This is the sort of uncontrolled, intolerant bias on THR against the democratic party and liberal supporters that greatly concerns me. You point out a number of extreme positions that are rarely endorsed by democratic candidates or politicians, and then use them as evidence of a massive socialist movement poised to destory the equality and freedom of America. This, to me, is concerning, and it demonstrates that your views of the democratic party are just as ignorant and close-minded as your are trying to portray them as. Animal activists, politically correct transformations, etc. are not even on the democratic agenda...you seem to bring them up just for shock effect, just as an extremist liberal would bring up racist, trigger-happy, uneducated rednecks as an example of foolilsh republicanism. Anyway, I'm not trying to make this into a personal attack, but honestly, the way you look at opposing viewpoints really doesn't make your position any stronger...it's just affirming my initial reaction that there are a lot of hardcore conservatives that won't even give an open ear to different perspectives, but would rather endlessly mock and berate the democratic party. That gets gun owners nowhere--encouraging party divide will not foster more respect gun ownership.

I don't think you no what you are talking about. Not until you go on a deployment and see the things others have seen will you be able to understand why we are over there. Do you really think americans are the only ones who diserve to live free?

Well, I do "know" what I'm talking about, but you may be right in that I'm not as deeply knowledgeable in terms of the Iraq war as I could be. However, here are some things for you to ponder: violence in Iraq has surged since US military action took place there, from both insurgents and American actions (civilian casualties as I'm sure you all realize will always occur in large scale war), civilian infrastructure has been greatly inhibited through battle being waged and lack of funding or management due to regime change, and many Iraqis are simply not happy with being occupied...whether or not it is good for Iraq in the long run. I can't rememer the source, but I heard recently that the number of deserters from the Iraqi-trained divisions were astonishingly high, and I think that really shows that Iraqis are not as gung-ho about this "liberation" as we may thing. Are Iraqis really "free" now? What benefits have occured as the result of this invasion? Think about that.

Additionally, the original reason to go into Iraq was not to liberate the country from oppressive rule; it was to eliminate what was conveyed as "a great threat to American safety". However, there is little evidence to support that there were ties between Saddam and Al Quaeda, we have not found the massive stockpiles of WMDs that were supposedly there (which means they have either gone into the hands of some other party, or that they didn't exist in the first place...I believe in some sort of combination), and lastly, a war like this only adds fuel to the Islamic fundamentalist portrayal of America as being overly invasive and oppressive. The number of civilian fatalities in Iraq from battle-related action I believe is somewhere in the tens of thousands; and to what benefit? If a modernized, secular, developed Iraq is in the future, we, the American people, will be paying for it. Additionally, nearly 1100 Americans have died now for this effort...that's over a third of the deaths in 9/11...did the Iraq war really prevent American deaths? I don't think so.

Question. Would you watch a young lady get raped in front of you and not do anything about it? Then why sit back and watch Iraqis get raped by a tyranic dictator? Yes there is more to why we are over there but make no mistake about it, it had to be done.

If America has a supreme duty to protect the world's people from oppression and strife, Iraq should not have been the first country on the agenda. Barbara mentioned Rwanda--this is an example of where we could (and maybe should) have stepped in and done something to prevent massive genocide. But I myself, (and this is a more conservative, republican view, I may add) think that the American government has the responsibility to look out for American citizens and American interests; not necessarily the protection of the free world.

1) "Gay rights are very important to me"

That doesn't make you a liberal. It may put you at odds with social conservatives, but they are not true conservatives. It may align you with common themes of Democrats, but so what? If you want to live by the Constitution, you're conservative, perhaps of the secular kind.

You make an excellent point, and I wholeheartedly agree with you--gay rights should be on the agenda for constitutionalist conservatives, as I believe gay marriage (or better, removal of "marriage" from the government and civil unions for all) is a necessary extension of civil rights and part of the republican virtues from the Founding Fathers. However, since social conservatives (including the President) choose to deny this, whilst the liberal agenda is more likely to ensure equal rights, I will have to side with the Democratic Party on this one, despite the fact that I believe the ideology behind my viewpoint is a more conservative one.

Now that sounds liberal to me, certainly in the moderate direction. I say that because they are not the bare essentials of government. They are also incredibly expensive. Who will be the first to volunteer to pay for them?

I don't think it's a liberal idea, rather a democratic one--when I think "liberal" I think more of social progression and change rather than government spending and federal programs. Nevertheless, my point was that I believed there were far more worthwhile destinations for the funds allocated to the Iraq war, such as science initiatives. If this were actually a current issue (oh no, 87b, what to do with it?), I'd look more deeply into it. However, didn't George Bush announce a plan to establish a base on the moon, and then a mission to Mars? With an estimated overall cost around a trillion dollars, I'd think this would be a huge breach of conservative ideology--government spending gone wild.

My point is that, in my opinion, you are not as liberal as you apparently think you are. At least you shouldn't go for the black or white labels of liberal versus conservative. No one is obliged to be radical.

Indeed, and in the next election, I could easily see myself voting either Democrat or republican depending on where each candidate stands on the issues. Because George Bush didn't expressly stand up for gun rights (he said that he would sign the AWB renewal if it got to his desk), and from his position on gay marriage, the Iraq war, abortion, Patriot Act, and other things, I would have voted John Kerry in the past election (I know, horrible for gun rights, but I don't think he could have put much on the table with a conservative House and Senate). On many domestic/social issues, I certainly side with liberal views. Other issues, conservative ones.

I've got a lot of gripes with what the Republican party is up to these days. Iraq is a mess that we are obligated to clean up at this point. We're spending ourselves stupid. We're perfectly content with a Saudi choke collar around our neck. Newsflash--the price of oil is rising exponentially. You can hear the dollar dropping. I'm not looking forward to sleeping in the bed that we're making.

I despise the way people on the coasts talk down to the rest of the country. Banjo music at the mention of the name "West Viginia" isn't funny IMO. I don't think taxes need to be higher--give me a flat tax or a federal sales tax. I hate programs--again, sleep in the bed you made.

Without the 2nd Amendment, it'd be a toss-up between Republican and Democratic parties. Does that make me a libertarian?

If you hate government programs, yep, you probably are more libertarian. I however support government regulation of a lot of things, but I wouldn't seek to extend the government from what it is now, just make it more efficient.

New can of worms: A lot of conservatives here are greatly troubled by the possibility of civil rights being threatened should the 2nd Amendment be taken away. Does the PATRIOT Act not concern you? A violation of numerous amendments explicitly expressed, but somehow this is not objectionable?

Perhaps one would think it really helps American security (I sure don't), but I would far rather live with a heightened risk of terrorism than forfeit my civil rights.

I double checked, and the name of this thread is "Are there no liberal gun-rights supporters?" Side debates on the war in Iraq are a dime a dozen around the internet. However, they are typically not on the High Road, like they should be here.

Ah yes, I suppose this thread has spiraled into many off-topic political debates (but worthwhile and productive ones at that), so I'll try to tie this all back in with the topic:

If there were a democratic candidate who wholeheartedly supported the 2nd Amendment, and pledged to uphold rights of gun ownership and carry, would you be inclined to vote for him (per the "vote by my guns" sentiment)? What if the republican candidate (like Rudy Guiliani) had a history of gun control behind him?

It is good that my suspicion that gun rights supporters are nearly exclusively conservative is false, because gun ownership really shouldn't be a right-wing only concern.

 

[Brian Dale]

Good post. You wrote,

Does the PATRIOT Act not concern you? A violation of numerous amendments explicitly expressed, but somehow this is not objectionable?

It does, and it is. I became a one-issue voter in this year's presidential election. Less than two months after the demise of the Civilian Weapons Ban, I wasn't ready for a permanent one.

It is good that my suspicion that gun rights supporters are nearly exclusively conservative is false, because gun ownership really shouldn't be a right-wing only concern.

In another thread, joe sixpack wrote,

the second amendment is not a right wing issue, but a right for us all.

Cheers.

 

[RealGun]

That gets gun owners nowhere--encouraging party divide will not foster more respect gun ownership.

Hogwash! Watch the Senate vote on gun issues sometime. Note that not one Democrat is well rated by gun organizations, most credibly GOA. The onus is on Congress to reflect any true regard for the Constitution. There is every indication that Democrats just make stuff up as they go along. Any correspondence with the Constitution is either an abstraction or a coincidence. Abiding by the Constitution is never their core motive.

I believe Democrats are often anti-war because they are jealous of how the money is being spent. They could decry the amounts, but they don't mean not to spend it. They mean it should be spent on socialism instead. Promoting isolationism is just a way of conserving cash for government handouts.

All the arguments inevitably trace back to the same thing...tax and spend...government is God...we are the sheep. I will vote for someone other than a Democrat, thank you. If a really good person happens to be a Democrat, then they can darned well align with a better party or establish a reputation for voting independently. Some in the House actually do that, but the Senate is all too predictable. Thus, it should have been no surprise that Tom Daschle was the focus of a lot of bad karma. There was not an ounce of personal integrity there, only party loyalty...blah, blah, blah. The next guy won't be any better but might be less annoying. We'll just keep turning them over as we tire of them.

 

[BigG]

All the arguments inevitably trace back to the same thing...tax and spend...government is God...we are the sheep. I will vote for someone other than a Democrat, thank you.

This is the democratic or LIBERAL view in a nutshell and a good reason I will never support them, Zell Miller notwithstanding. Thanks, realgun!

 

[RaggedClaws]

Personally, I say we keep our money and our troops at home. If someone does something like 9/11, again, we go over, kick their ***, take our troops back home and let the losers spend the next 20 years rebuilding their own country.

Amen! I thought we wanted Osama dead or alive, ya know, the dude who murdered thousands of my city-mates (I knew a few who were killed in the WTC, fireman and office worker alike). HE IS OUR ENEMY and WHY ISN'T HE DEAD ALREADY? 3 years later, we've invaded two countries, we're rebuilding two nations in the general area of Osama, but he's apparently still free to make videos and plan new and bigger attacks. Oh right, Bush doesn't give him much thought anymore.

In case your wondering, that's why NY went 80+% for Kerry and why "Iraq" was our number #1 voting issue, IMHO. It wasn't a liberal/conservative thing so much as it was that Bush betrayed us and everyone who was affected by 9/11 (while exploiting 9/11 imagery during the campaign). He utterly betrayed us. There was never any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda terrorists, and that was never the reason for why we went to Iraq. Sorry, murdering dictator that he was, and there are plenty of them in the world, we should have been concentrating all of our force and our once great diplomatic power in finding Osama wherever he may have been hiding. Once he's dead, all of our brave men and women should come straight home, job finished.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

Regarding the thread topic, what is:

Secular civil libertarian + economic moderate

Because most conservatives I know call me a Liberal (and with disdain).

 

[RealGun]

Regarding the thread topic, what is:

Secular civil libertarian + economic moderate

Because most conservatives I know call me a Liberal (and with disdain).

"Patriot" for starters. I would like to think that will never be used as the pejorative.

 

[Ridge Runner]

Gay rights

"Gay rights are very important to me; as I realize that about 10% of the population is denied equal priviledges in terms of marriage due to sexual orientation."

I have no problem with a homosexual man marrying a lesbian woman or vice versa, just like everyone else.

Seems like everyone wants to determine that everything is a "right" these days...........

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Contrary to what was said on page one, I am not a liberal. I am not "a" anything, and think that anyone that defines themselves that way is lacking in a basic understanding of what it is to be a human.

I have some "liberal" positions, as the term is generally defined: I think human rights are important, including the right to own and possess the ability to defend yourself. I value freedom, including the right to stick whatever you have wherever a consenting adult will let you stick it. I don't think anyone should be able to tell you what you can do with your own body as long as you don't hurt anyone.

I have some positions that are several points to the left of liberal: I think certain things, like the highways, the military, health care, and certain "commons" features such as public lands, the air, water, game, etc. ought to be managed and in some cases, owned by the people. Yes, I mean the government. In those issues, I don't mind calling my position what it is: socialist. I'm also in the majority in this country in all of those issues.

I even have some positions that are "conservative" by the current understanding: I think the country ought to control the borders against illegal immigrants. I think we ought to have one language for our official business. I think welfare recipients ought to be given an opportunity to earn their payments if they are able. I think violent criminals ought to be severely punished (though I don't believe the state should be given the power to kill). If a violent criminal is denied a right by the police, then he/she should be punished, and the police agent that denied the rights ought to be punished also. I think the government ought to interfere as little as possible in the truly private business sector. (However, unlike most "conservatives" for me that also means not granting privleges such as corporate personhood, tax favoritism, etc to big business.)

I am a human that tries to make the best decision I can on each issue as it comes along. If that causes some people around here to refer to me as a liberal, then that tells you more about them than about me.

Malone "Just another green, civil libertarian, free-market social Democrat" LaVeigh

 

[R.H. Lee]

Well, Malone, I can't disagree with anything you said in the above post. I respectfully retract what I said on page one of this thread.

 

[BigG]

There is no "social program" I can think of that should be paid by a general subscription of the tax payers. Sorry if that chaps your hide.

 

[hso]

Big G,

Are you telling us that you have never received any monies from the fed. No guranteed student loans, no BEOGs, didn't attend a state school? All of which were funded wholey or in part from a "general subscription of the tax payers". These are just some of the social programs funded by taxes that fall into the enlightened self interest category of the nation as a whole. I would be shocked to find that the vast majority of THR members were not beneficiaries of these same programs.

 

[Tamara]

didn't attend a state school?

No, my six year-old self stood on her libertarian principles and told mommy and daddy to shove off.

Believe it or not, some folks have avoided accepting forced largesse any time they had a choice in the matter. I've gone hungry when I could have gone on the dole; I've slept on park benches when I could have applied for Section 8 housing; as soon as I was conscious enough to wave an insurance card, I had myself carted from the public hospital to a private one. Maybe I'm kidding myself, but I'd like to think I have the courage of my convictions.

"Do you use public roads?"
"Only because I can't vote with my feet and use private ones."

 

[Gray Peterson]

On the issue of marriage between same sex couples..

I take a rather pecular opinion on the "gay marriage" issue.

My opinion is: There should be no such thing as "Marriage Licenses". Marriages in particular are religious institutions that should have never had been a state or federal matter in the first place. Alas, it is now, and the marriage licenses are a foothold on a lot of privileges and immunities.

Spousal privilege is a big one. Did anyone watch Law and Order earlier this week? I thought it was funny what was being argued. The funny thing was: If the defendant and his lover were married in Canada or Massachusetts, they would have been recognized as "validly married". The New Paltz marriages were on legally shaky ground as it is, but they were not ruled "invalid" by any court, as much as Law and Order showed such.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/lawyers/opinions/2004/informal/2004_1.html

Spousal privilege is probably one of the biggest things that strike me. I think it's entirely unnerving and wrong to force a couple of ten years, who happen to be of the same sex, to be forced to testify against each other in court under the power of supoena, but an opposite sex couple just recently married in Las Vegas have that privilege.

There is no contract that myself and my partner can sign that could give us that kind of protection, even in my own state of Washington.

What I want is civil unions for everyone, and for government to get out of the "marriage" business entirely. But you can bet that groups like the AFA, the FRC, and "Marriage Matters" will fight that. They don't fight for marriage, they don't fight for moral values. Some of their leadership fight because it is profitable for them to demonize men and women like myself so that their can line their own pockets.

Some simply hate gays and lesbians, and believe that they are evil. They spout off Paul Cameron's statistics, a dishonored and disreptuble psychologist, as if it were gospel.

I honestly believe that groups like AFA, FRC, and others of it's ilk are not pro-gun. They are far from it. Their policies on government borderline on fascist, and we all know that fascists hate gun ownership without tremendous amount of control. Hell, they were going after Saving Private Ryan being aired unedited.

So, there ya have it. My opinion on "liberalism". I'm not a liberal or conservative.

 

[Brian Dale]

I take a rather pecular opinion on the "gay marriage" issue.

Pec'-u-lar . Adjective. Sensible and obvious, therefore likely to be an uncommon stance.

Good, solid post.

 

[mountainclmbr]

Liberal gun rights supporters? Theoretically it could happen for voters, but a search for a liberal gun rights supporter in government seems more hopeless than a search for the Loch Ness Monster. In my government-provided services, I have never received my monthly ration of milsurp 30-06 ammo. I can buy the pulled bullets, the brass, the powder and put it all back together again. Even though the people's taxes bought the 30-06 ammo in the first place, the liberals in government won't give it back to the people when it is obsolete to them. That tells me all I need to know.

I pay more in combined Federal withholding taxes than for house payments, personal transportation (car payments, gas, insurance) and food....combined! I am very middle class by John Kerry's definition, but have paid $25,303 in withholding taxes by the end of October this year. It is a penny pinching struggle every month to save a little money. Buying a gun becomes a big financial trade for me.

I am "liberal" in what I think I should be able to do. I am not "liberal" in what I think government should be able to do. If government gets more liberal it means I have to sell my house so I can afford to pay my taxes.

 

[BigG]

HSO - re: public funded social programs;

The fact that state run schools are funded by tax money does not mean they should be. The members of this board are almost without exception highly sophisticated and well spoken; something I consider in spite of public education rather than because of. Any social program that is state run is mediocre and shot thru with graft and inefficiency. Furthermore, the universities are the incubators of socialism or haven't you checked lately? Sorry if that chaps your hide.

 

[Scottmkiv]

What I want is civil unions for everyone, and for government to get out of the "marriage" business entirely.

I agree 100%

 

[bbaerst]

"Gay rights are very important to me; as I realize that about 10% of the population is denied equal priviledges in terms of marriage due to sexual orientation."

I have no problem with a homosexual man marrying a lesbian woman or vice versa, just like everyone else.

Sort of like a ban on interracial marriage is okay, because hey, blacks can marry blacks and whites can marry whites?

The point is that you are denying people the right to marry the one whom they love.

I strongly agree with the sentiment that the government should just plain get out of marriage, but until then, I'm opposing this administration's gay marriage amendment as much as I can.

Realgun:

There is every indication that Democrats just make stuff up as they go along.

Sort of like how the Iraq war magically shifted from a "let's combat WMD proliferation!" to a "let's free the poor Iraqis!"? That's "making stuff up as they go along" far more than any Democratic initiative I can see.

There seems to be a lot of fear for the Democratic party because of "socialist programs" and "outrageous taxpayer spending".

Look at the Bush administration. He has spent I believe 25% more annually than the Clinton administration he replaced. At the same time, he's given tax cuts, racking up a huge deficit for programs such as education. Somehow, this gets glossed over when hardcore conservatives rant about the importance of small government and tight spending, but Bush is a HUGE federal spender. How is this getting ignored while there are claims being made against liberals for spending so much money? Somehow, when George Bush spends huge amounts of money, more than the Democrats before him, he's still cool for some reason, but the Democrats support socialist programs and will undermine the republic?

Come on people, open your eyes here. The republican party doesn't keep the small government ideal as much as you think it does; especially not Bush.

 

[Scottmkiv]

No. No. No.

You've confused arachno-capitalist with arachNID-capitalist.



Cool pic. A pet, or just a friend?

You know the word is anarcho-capitalist right? Anyway the spider was just one of the first pics that popped up on google image search.

 

[RealGun]

Realgun:

Sort of like how the Iraq war magically shifted from a "let's combat WMD proliferation!" to a "let's free the poor Iraqis!"? That's "making stuff up as they go along" far more than any Democratic initiative I can see.

This is a different context, apparently for the sake of being argumentative.

Look at the Bush administration. He has spent I believe 25% more annually than the Clinton administration he replaced.

What does Bush spend independently of Congress or with no burden from previous administrations? The White House proposes budgets. Congress spends money, often in excess of the budget and often with Democrat pork included. For lack of a line item veto or due to a fear of holding up entire programs, the President signs the darned thing. Establishing an adversarial relationship with Congress is not taken lightly. He picks his battles. Apparently he hasn't found any he thinks he can win or which wouldn't unduly distract from other initiatives of greater priority to him.

I give the President a lot of slack, because I voted for him twice and want to be supportive. Others more inclined to grouse about this and that might see things differently.

In reflecting back over all this and seeing where you are currently positioned, your post reads like that of a Democrat mole in predominantly conservative territory. You start with an innocent question and end with a harsh, judgmental statement. There is nothing new under the sun, when it comes to Bush bashing. After 6 months of it, we've heard it all (and many voted for Bush, thank you).

 

[bbaerst]

This is a different context, apparently for the sake of being argumentative.

There was no context to the quote I was addressing, so it's not as if I "shifted context". I'm pointing out that there is the same flaw in the Republican Party that the Democratic Party is being accused of.

What does Bush spend independently of Congress or with no burden from previous administrations? The White House proposes budgets. Congress spends money, often in excess of the budget and often with Democrat pork included. For lack of a line item veto or due to a fear of holding up entire programs, the President signs the darned thing. Establishing an adversarial relationship with Congress is not taken lightly. He picks his battles. Apparently he hasn't found any he thinks he can win or which wouldn't unduly distract from other initiatives of greater priority to him.

But isn't he the "strong" President? The one who won't back down? Everyone here clamors for a government that doesn't spend so much money, but few seem to recognize that the Bush administration is the seat of more spending than ever before.

As for why I am arguing here, stirring up controversy, it is because of blanket statements like this that cannot go uncontested:

Modern liberals are anti-individual and anti-freedom. They view America as the ultimate source of evil in the world.....I mean, really, with our unsophisticated silly cowboy notions.

 

[RealGun]

But isn't he the "strong" President? The one who won't back down? Everyone here clamors for a government that doesn't spend so much money, but few seem to recognize that the Bush administration is the seat of more spending than ever before.

Come on. It's not like the Democrats would spend less. If they were more conscientious about deficits, they would just raise taxes. The Democrats are judged according to some very well deserved stereotypes. They would do well to work on that image.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I give the President a lot of slack, because I voted for him twice and want to be supportive.

Oh, now I understand! How could I have been so foolish? I always thought it was supposed to work in the opposite direction. I thought they were supposed to earn your trust first, then you vote for them.

 

[Brian Dale]

Real, you wrote to bbaerst,

...your post reads like that of a Democrat mole in predominantly conservative territory.

I disagree. He's been up-front from the start, and this is "predominantly conservative territory," only in the sense that a lot of the members are self-described conservatives. I've not seen a "political test" for membership at THR.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Look at typical liberals in action. Here is a DVD site populated by mostly liberals. Duh. Since Hollyweird is mostly liberal, it stands to reason a site about movies would be. Pay strict attention to Sword of Whedon. His kind is downright dangerous.

http://forums.dvdfile.com/interactive/forum/showthread.php?t=49578&page=1&pp=50

WARNING: Not the high class site, this is.