Are there no liberal gun-rights supporters?

[jamz]

Without getting into an abortion hijack, I find it highly disturbing that anyone would place sentences such as "I'm not sure kids have rights" as further descriptors of the idea of "pro-choice".

Did you really mean to say that?

Cruc

Heh, sort of, but not the way you seem to be taking it. Too off topic for this thread, but I'd be happy to talk to you about it over PMs.

-James

 

[Ewok]

Another liberal/progressive libertarian checking in. Is someone keeping count?

 

[RaggedClaws]

As a Liberal I believe in Capitalism that is regulated to prevent negligent and wholesale harm to the public or national security....

I'm in 100% agreement with you on everything you wrote. I too consider myself a Liberal for all the reasons you state and then some. I get a little sick of people using the word as an epithet, but what can ya do?

Regarding the thread topic...

I've been living in Manhattan for a bit over 10 years (and I'm a little sick of it at this point), but I believe many urban Liberals are anti-gun because they did not grow up with guns and are rightly afraid of them, have only ever seen them in the hands of criminals or cops (or military folk), have no intention of acquiring or learning to use them, believe the gun control lobby's misleading statistics and never bothered to check, believe the 2nd amendment is anachronistic without ever having learned why it's so important, think the National Guard is the only militia there is, and believe that the majority of people cannot be trusted with firearms (remember, most urbanites don't even own cars, and the ones that grew up within Manhattan often don't even have driver's licenses).

 

[crucible]

I've been living in Manhattan for a bit over 10 years (and I'm a little sick of it at this point), but I believe many urban Liberals are anti-gun because they did not grow up with guns and are rightly afraid of them, have only ever seen them in the hands of criminals or cops (or military folk), have no intention of acquiring or learning to use them, believe the gun control lobby's misleading statistics and never bothered to check, believe the 2nd amendment is anachronistic without ever having learned why it's so important, think the National Guard is the only militia there is, and believe that the majority of people cannot be trusted with firearms (remember, most urbanites don't even own cars, and the ones that grew up within Manhattan often don't even have driver's licenses).

Additionally to that in my opinion (most) liberals also hate guns for a reason they tend not to be honest about if they recognize it at all: guns in the hands of citizens who don't believe what they do is rightly a direct threat to them governing via tyrancy they would if the government were suddenly ceded to them. It's a form of absolute power that they cannot control-and that chaps thier ass

And HM, if those beliefs are evidence of your personal claim of liberal, buddy we got two different definitions then-I think your less liberal than you think and can still be salvaged

Cruc

 

[hm]

Thank You!!!

And HM, if those beliefs are evidence of your personal claim of liberal, buddy we got two different definitions then-I think your less liberal than you think and can still be salvaged

Cruc

Cruc, thanks for thinking I'm not an entirely lost cause. This is a hopeful sign!

Actually, you've perfectly illustrated my point.

You're comparing my stated beliefs to your own definition of what "Liberal" is. But as a Liberal, I can tell you that I think your definition (label) of what I am is skewed and has been biased by what you've been constantly fed by anti-Liberals with an agenda. In other words, maybe we'd all be better informed regarding what a Liberal is if we actually asked "The Liberals."

Ask most Liberals, independant of anything I say, and I'm betting they'll tell you that they believe much as I do. We're not so far apart as you might think...definitely a sign of hope!

 

[BigG]

Ask most Liberals, independant of anything I say, and I'm betting they'll tell you that they believe much as I do. We're not so far apart as you might think...definitely a sign of hope!

Oh yes we are!

Just because you want to define a word your way doesn't mean there isn't a generally accepted definition. I've been monitoring this stuff since the 1960s and Liberal has a meaning much more extreme than the classical meaning that a lot of people seem to want to apply to themselves.

High control, low tolerance for dissent = Liberal nowadays.

 

[RaggedClaws]

High control, low tolerance for dissent = Liberal nowadays.

I have to agree with you that for many Americans today, that's what the word means But here's the American Heritage Dictionary definition of the word:

lib·er·al
adj.

1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Just thought I'd throw it out there

 

[R.H. Lee]

heh. A hallmark of liberalism is redefining words............

 

[BigG]

heh. A hallmark of liberalism is redefining words......

A word means exactly what I say it means and nothing else - who said that? the Queen of Hearts, or was it Bill Clinton? Inquiring conservative minds want to know.

 

[Ewok]

A word means exactly what I say it means and nothing else - who said that? the Queen of Hearts, or was it Bill Clinton? Inquiring conservative minds want to know.

Humpty Dumpty

 

[Brian Dale]

Good stuff, hm; thanks. Would you be offended if I called you a "Classical Liberal?"

 

[WEPS]

[[/QUOTE]The war in Iraq to me seems like a fruitless attempt at making the world safer, wasting billions of America's dollars and hundreds of American lives, all for a false assumption that we would be able to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction that threaten our security. I think it's aggressive, inconsiderate military action and foreign policy that endagers national security by riling up the international community, and surely there are better things to do with the billions the war has costed us, such as medical research and space exploration. Anyway, I digress.

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?

 

[WEPS]

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.

 

[Barbara]

Remind me again why we never went into Rwanda?

And 70,000 people died last month in Darfur. Are we headed there next?

 

[WEPS]

Iraq supported terrorism but you already know this, you just want to be argumentative. Or is it you have no personal beef with terrorist because they have done nothing to you. It's ok i understand, i mean why should you. It's not like anybody flew a plane into your house or unleashed chemical agents in your neighborhood.

 

[Brian Dale]

WEPS, answer a question, or don't. Attack an argument, or don't. Those are all OK. Don't attack the person here at THR. Thanks.

 

[longrifleman]

Another liberal/progressive libertarian checking in.

????????????????????????????????????

I'm confused. Please explain that mix of philosophies.

Here's an observation to add to the discussion. Most (maybe all) political ideologies seem to split on the issue of using government force to achieve a desired goal. The goal can be decided on by a vote(democracy). Committee(oligarcy,theocracy) or one person(monarchy, dictatorship) but the decision will be backed up by force, and the use will be deemed proper by everyone involved, except the folks doing the suffering.

The other side of the divide is based on peaceful cooperation and persusation(democracy, sometimes). This type of govt doesn't seem to be very popular with us humans.


Here's how I see it in terms of today's definations.

Peaceful.

Anarchists
Arachno-capitalists
libertarians
classical liberals(this has mostly morphed into libertarianism)
paleo-conservatives(mostly)
Libertarians


Force is okey dokey.

Modern liberals
neo-conservatives
modern conservatives(mostly)
authoritarians who don't seem to fit anywhere else
Democrats
Republicans

I put the party faithful of both major parties separate from other ideologies because most of them don't seem able to think for themselves. Whatever the party leadership says they parrot back.

The list isn't all inclusive and if you feel insulted that I left your ideology off please feel free to come up with your own list and insult me.

Do you really think americans are the only ones who diserve to live free?

No. Our differences aren't over the goals, the differences are over methods. You can't force people to be free at bayonet point. There defination of freedom may be very different than ours. If the Iraqies vote in a Shia based fundamentalist theocracy will you be in favor of overthrowing the election? Are you in favor of stopping or rigging the election so that can't happen?

The current method is basically taking a very short term approach to the atrocities that Saddam (and others) were engaging in. We won't know for many years if we have made things better for the Iraqi people. A dead child is a dead child whether killed by Saddam or as "collateral damage" by us. How many civilians have we killed and how many enemies for the next 5 generations have we created? Sometimes war and killing is necessary but the beneficial long term consequences have to outweigh the short term benefits. I don't think that test was met in Iraq.

 

[RealGun]

Referring to your initial post:

"However, on the flipside, I hold quite dear many liberal ideals as well. Gay rights are very important to me; as I realize that about 10% of the population is denied equal privileges in terms of marriage due to sexual orientation. Trying to enforce a anti-gay marriage amendment to "protect moral values" is absurd...gay marriage hurts absolutely nobody by extending marriage rights to everyone, nor should religious ideology have any place in governmental debate. The war in Iraq to me seems like a fruitless attempt at making the world safer, wasting billions of America's dollars and hundreds of American lives, all for a false assumption that we would be able to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction that threaten our security. I think it's aggressive, inconsiderate military action and foreign policy that endangers national security by riling up the international community, and surely there are better things to do with the billions the war has cost us, such as medical research and space exploration. Anyway, I digress."

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.

2) "The war in Iraq to me seems like a fruitless attempt at making the world safer, wasting billions of America's dollars and hundreds of American lives, all for a false assumption that we would be able to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction that threaten our security. I think it's aggressive, inconsiderate military action and foreign policy that endangers national security by riling up the international community"

Being against a decision by the GOP administration or its foreign policy in general, generally labeled conservative, does not make you a liberal. Outright isolationism might, however.

3) "and surely there are better things to do with the billions the war has cost us, such as medical research and space exploration."

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?

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.

 

[hm]

Referring to your initial post:
...but they are not true conservatives.

---and---

My point is that, in my opinion, you are not as liberal as you apparently think you are.

RealGun has made an interesting point here which I feel obliged to acknowledge (given that I'm so concerned with definitions):

Conservatives, and the definition of "a Conservative" appear to be changing in this nation. The Small gov't, isolationist, economic spendthrifts from the majority of the 20th Century are becoming more scarce (or, at least there are very few in positions of true power anymore).

Perhaps this explains the percieved polarization in the nation amongst ideologies these days. It's not Liberalism which is moving to the left as Conservatism moves to the right, rather it is Conservatism morphing in a percieved (probably actual) move to the right, against which Liberalism is usually compared.

So when I and others "don't appear to be as Liberal as we think we are" perhaps the background image has simply shifted while we have remained in place.

Just some more fodder for debate.

 

[Scottmkiv]

Arachno-capitalists

And I had always thought spiders were pretty keen on the initiation of force

 

[longrifleman]

No. No. No.

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



Cool pic. A pet, or just a friend?

It's not Liberalism which is moving to the left as Conservatism moves to the right, rather it is Conservatism morphing in a percieved (probably actual) move to the right, against which Liberalism is usually compared.

It's always amazing how different people can look at the same world and see things so differently. From where I set the people that are considered conservative are either advocating or at least tolerating things that 20 years ago would have been so far to the left that they were on the very fringe of society. The whole center of political mass has moved very far to the left in my lifetime. Don't be fooled by all the blathering by the talking heads. Look at actions. 20-30 yrs ago the conservatives were fighting against the federalization of local education. Bush and a "conservative" Congress passed the largest increase in Federal education money (and control) in history. The list of liberal (socialist) gains goes on and on. Name one issue that the conservatives have won in the last 20 years? Stopping a change doesn't count. Eliminating an existing program is what counts. AWB doesn't count; the sunset clause was in the original bill. (It is close to a win though)

 

[Barbara]

Iraq supported terrorism but you already know this, you just want to be argumentative. Or is it you have no personal beef with terrorist because they have done nothing to you.

Anyone you know get their head sawn off on video by Iraqi militants? No? Then drop that line right now, ok. I'm not in the mood for it and don't expect to be for a long, long time.

There's a difference between being argumentative and making a valid point that you don't like. If our goal was to defeat terrorism, we should have hit Syria or Iran, or heck..maybe even North Korea..you know..those folks building nukes and telling us what they're planning to do with them.

If our goal was to save a group of people who were being harmed, we should have invaded the Congo or something.

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.

 

[30Cal]

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?

 

[RealGun]

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.

 

[hso]

Of our shooting group (the folks that come over and shoot at our place) here in East Tennessee the Liberal shooters outnumber the Conservative shooters (5L/2C) with the random Anarchist thrown in. None of us use or meet the perjoriative "defintions" of Liberal or Conservative. All of us are strong RKBA supporters. Each helps the others find the guns, ammunition and gear we each want. We help each other with training. Since none of us are extremists we get along fine.

From Wikipedia -
In the United States, the common meaning of "liberal" has evolved over time. In the 19th century it denoted classical liberalism. After World War II, it came to refer to left-of center (but anti-socialist and anti-communist) new liberalism. As McCarthyism and the reaction to Communism made the use of most left-wing political terms (including "socialism") anathema in the U.S., the former New Dealers and others to the left of center adopted the name "liberal".

To distinguish themselves from these, those in the U.S. who were closer to classical liberalism adopted the name "libertarian", a political stance closer to modern conservatism than to modern liberalism. Since approximately the Reagan era, the word "liberal" has been so much used as a derogatory term by U.S. conservatives that much of the left now adopts the term "progressives".