card carrying liberals on THR?

[hornadylnl]

I hear a lot of people who claim to be independants but it seems the majority of "independants" vote Democrat almost 100% of the time.

 

[trueblue1776]

If you can stab that baby's skull as it is being delivered

Sensationalism alert! That's not legal now and never has been, anywhere.

 

[crashm1]

They don't have to worry about takling our gun rights when they take away all the others first. Right now, anyone can be 'disappeared;. If the government decided you are a 'terrorist', you can be arrested without charge, held without charge, be shipped off to a foreign country for extreme rendition.

Now imagine an anti-gun president gets elected. He/she could label you a gun owner as a domestic terrorist and give you the above treatment. No warrant required. No right to challenge your arrest or imprisonment. They don;t even have to reveal to anyone that you are being held.


Wasn't it kind of the exectutive and legislative branches who were at the time controlled by the "limited government" republican party to help out.

 

[illspirit]

2A rights are important to me, but the right to be be secure in my home free from illegal search and seizure is equally important.

But how are Democrats any better than Republicans here? After all, it was the 60 year Democratic Congressional majority which brought us all manner of search, seizure, and property forfeiture laws under the guise of the War on Drugs™. The same laws which allow for no-knock raids using warrants with weak "probable cause" based on shady informants, and which allow your property to be confiscated and sold before being convicted. That's hardly what I'd call being safe from illegal search and seizure. Or, umm, it's technically "legal," since there's a law, but, still.

I hear people all the time (not talking of Wheeler44 anymore, just in general) talk about how they care for other rights, and what a totalitarian Bush is. While I don't really like Bush much, I just don't see how he's really that bad. Yea, he's brought us the PATRIOT Act, "enemy combatants," and warrantless wiretapping, but honestly, it seems more like a feel-good, legislative (or lack thereof) bluff to look tough on terror. Seriously, after looking back at things like the recently released CIA "family jewels," Clinton's gestapo tactics at Waco, Ruby Ridge, or sending a heavily-armed SWAT team to apprehend seven-year-old Elián González, Dubya seems about as tyrannical as a fluffy kitten.

Then we have Democrats who want to revive (and originally brought us) the "fairness doctrine," wanting to ban/censor "violent" speech and/or religious "propaganda" (hello pending NY and MA Bible bans..), so-called "campaign finance reform" which would shut down grass-roots activism (though a few R's also play along), and so on, I fail to see how the Democrats care about any of the other rights either..

 

[Nitrogen]

In the locked threads about the Scooter Libby commutation, I couldn't believe how many way left leaning posters that were posting there. I can't for the life of me figure out how a pro 2nd amendment guy could vote for a Democrat. I don't care if a democratic candidate for US senator or representative is staunchly pro gun, a vote for them is a vote for Reid and Pelosi to majority leader. They will in turn vote to take away our 2A.

Card carrying liberal here. Just check out my .sig!
I can answer this in a few ways. First, and most importantly, I am not a single issue voter. I am a liberal in most senses of the word. When i'm not, i'm more of a libertarian. I believe we need to fix health care. Reid and Pelosi are right, in my eyes, more often than wrong on lots of issues. We disagree on guns, immigration, and impeachment, among other things.
We're the best country on the planet. We put people on the moon. Why can't we figure out how to make sure all of our citizens get decent health care without bankrupcy?

Here is my next question of left leaning members of THR? Are you members of a labor union? I can't figure out what else would draw you to the Democrat party.

Disclaimer: I'm a staunch conservative and I consider many of today's republicans to be just as bad as any Democrat. Unfortunately, I'm only left with the choice of voting Republican in elections. I will not waste a vote on a 3rd party candidate that stands no chance of ever being elected to anything. If you are only left with the choice of having your hand or head cut off, which do you choose?

I'd be a member of a labor union if there was one available for what I do, and you should be, too. I've often thought of starting one, but that's not what draws me to the democratic party. To me, a labor union is a way of equalizing unequals: Keeping an employer "afraid" of it's "subjects"; much like a government should be afraid of it's citizens. Now todays unions are a gross bastardization of that; and union members shouldn't stand for it; much like citizens should not stand for the abortion of a government we have today.

A big draw is that I feel the republican party has lost it's way. I'd probably have been a Republican before Reagan. I do not like what the Christian Right has done to the Republican party, as well as corporations.

 

[Gator]

Do any of you think that habeus corpus should apply to non citizens captured on the battlefield?

Absolutely not.

If you can stab that baby's skull as it is being delivered.

Sensationalism alert! That's not legal now and never has been, anywhere.

It is called Intact Dilation and Extraction, and was (unfortunately) legal until 18 April of this year. Many States had banned it before then, but it was certainly legal and used. The procedure is barbaric so please don't pretend it never happened or that people are not currently working to overturn the ban.

 

[Soybomb]

n

It is called Intact Dilation and Extraction, and was (unfortunately) legal until 18 April of this year. Many States had banned it before then, but it was certainly legal and used. The procedure is barbaric so please don't pretend it never happened or that people are not currently working to overturn the ban.

I don't want to derail the thread too much but is there really a difference if the procedure takes place inside the body instead? Late term abortion leads to a dead fetus either way. The "humanity" argument also fails. As I've heard it best "the alternative procedure involves dilating the cervix and dismembering the fetus in-utero. I'd argue that sounds a lot more barbaric than immediately evacuating the brain stem, which D&X does and precludes any potential suffering that may be occurring." I'm not a doctor so I hit one up for an opinion about this a while back and got an educated opinion without the sensationalism. I don't know if you'll find it interesting or not but I thought I'd share.

When a women nearing term is in danger of losing her life there is no flashing neon sign poking out of her vagina that alerts her medical team to this fact. The team has to make a decision based on their medical knowledge and experience - but whatever decision they reach ("life threatening" vs. "not life threatening") could easily be second-guessed after the fact. If I'm an OB/GYN and I know that any D&X procedure will later be scrutinized by someone (worst of all an anti-abortion lawyer), I am never going to opt to perform the procedure, even if I feel it to be the most appropriate and, in my professional opinion, the woman's life is in danger. It simply isn't worth the risk of jail time and loss of my medical career. I'm going to opt for D&E instead, even if it brings more risk to the woman.

End result of this bill: tie doctors' hands and increase risk to the woman.

As for the "split of opinion by experts in the field" - welcome to medicine. There isn't a single procedure with a controversially "better" or "worse" alternative procedure, depending on who you ask. I'd turn to a well-respected cumulative opinion instead. Luckily, such an opinion exists: The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology's position is that D&X is the safest and most appropriate procedure in some cases.

I see no positive effect from this.

 

[jfh]

I've always wanted to post

on a topic just before it gets closed.

Off we go again, into non-gun topics. It's silly.

 

[rantingredneck]

I am a conservative, but I voted once for Clinton. I voted for Bush twice, though I wish I had other choices.

I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd ammendment, however felons and lunatics shouldn't have firearms.

I personally abhor the thought of abortion, but it's not MY choice to make for YOU.

I could care less who you want to marry and I think the state should too. Gay marriage, plural marriage, I really don't care.

I am religious, but I hate people who are preachy about it.

I am fiscally conservative, but also believe that the truly disabled should be supported. Not to say there aren't some people out there bilking the system. I've seen it.

I supported the War in Iraq (along with about 80% or so of the population according to the polls at the time), but now I believe we've been there too long and accomplished too little. In hindsight it was ill-advised.

I don't smoke marijuana or use any illegal drugs, but personally think most should be legalized. Alcohol and nicotine kill far more people each year but they are both legal. Go figure.

Does that give you some insight into my twisted political views?

 

[Soybomb]

Off we go again, into non-gun topics. It's silly.

I don't know, its kind of gun related. If the pro-gun party wants to know why us gun owners don't always vote for them I think its important to examine the other issues and common threads among them. What issues are important to gun owners seems to be important to examine if you want to get us all together under 1 tent.

 

[samtechlan]

I'm a small govt. conservative but what really bothers me is unprincipled, mindless partisanship on both sides. The left wing anti-war types were all gung ho when it was Clinton doing the intervening in the Balkans while Republicans like Tom Delay were opposed simply because he opposed anything Clinton did. Now it is the other way around with regards to the war.

Conservatives in general and those concerned with the 2nd Amendment in particular should have a healthy distrust of Govt. Remember all the talk of federal "Jack booted thugs", "from my cold dead hand" and constant talk about eliminating the ATF when Clinton was in power? Suddenly it is the Republicans in power and we are all Big Govt. conservatives just because our side is in power?

I'm realistic enough to know that at the present time no 3rd party candidate has a realistic chance to change the corruption on both sides of the current political spectrum. As someone once wrote "it'd be wonderful if we could somehow shoot the Republican elephant so that it falls on top of the Democratic donkey extinguishing both". (Relax, it's a metaphor no one is advocating violence) Maybe then real America First patriots would have a chance.

 

[trueblue1776]

These are the topics which divide our country, and divide our voting power, they are absolutely gun related in this context.

I don't claim to know what is right for anybody but me. I enjoy reading other members political opinions however different they are from my own. I think it is because the vast majority of us believe the power of the populace is vital, and we are all absolutely without compromise on this singular issue. Well thought and civil moral arguments are wonderful.

I personally thank you for your opinions, please keep them coming.

 

[Wheeler44]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheeler44
2A rights are important to me, but the right to be be secure in my home free from illegal search and seizure is equally important.

But how are Democrats any better than Republicans here? After all, it was the 60 year Democratic Congressional majority which brought us all manner of search, seizure, and property forfeiture laws under the guise of the War on Drugs™. The same laws which allow for no-knock raids using warrants with weak "probable cause" based on shady informants, and which allow your property to be confiscated and sold before being convicted. That's hardly what I'd call being safe from illegal search and seizure. Or, umm, it's technically "legal," since there's a law, but, still.

The current administration has authorized warrantless searches of citizens homes and businesses. Consider that. Warrantless searches means that you don't even know that your home or place of business has been searched unless you're really good @ espionage techniques. Warrantless wiretaps mean that you have no way of knowing when and if you are being eavesdropped on.
Many on this board exclaim that they would defend their home during a no knock warrant search. Guess what. They "law enforcement" can do that without a warrant now, eliminating the oversight of the judge. Then they can hold you without "Habeus corpus" indefinately. That scares me more than Pelosi ever could.
So you have your right to own a gun but you're in a cell in some foreign country because you posted on the internet that you would shoot anyone who comes knocking your door down.
Second ammendment rights are nothing without all of the other rights.
Free speech? search and seizure? sit in a cell 'til you incriminate yourself or go crazy or suicide? What good are your guns gonna do then since you didn't use 'em when the other rights, YES I SAID RIGHTS, have been and are being stripped from you as I type?

And don't get me started on the "war on drugs"

Wheeler44

 

[pcosmar]

I am an Independent, and am generally conservative, though I have some liberal positions.
There is one Republican who is pulling voters from all sides.
He is a conservative (Goldwater/Reagan) and a Constitutionalist.
He is Pro 2nd. Pro liberty. Pro free trade. Pro Property rights. Pro America.
Happy 4th of July.

 

[trueblue1776]

Intact Dilation and Extraction is used in the late 2nd and early 3rd term to remove a disabled or damaged fetus. It is an induced birth. I never considered the baby to be "delivered" in the same way as a healthy full term birth.

I grew up being shown pictures of decaying fetuses by protesters on the side of our main street, I never thought it was necessary to stoop so low to prove a valid point. It is difficult to prove most moral arguments scientifically, but shocking average (may I say "God-fearing) people who like to go about their daily business with a smile on their face is an unpleasant tactic.

If I ever have kids I reserve the option to abort a 3 armed mutant or other unfortunately disfigured or disabled creature.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Do any of you think that habeus corpus should apply to non citizens captured on the battlefield?

No, but Bush seems to be extended this to people captured in foreign countries, nowhere near a battlefield. I am all for punishing those guilty, but indefinite detentions helps us how? All it does is make us look like a bunch of *******s in the world's eyes.

When they first starting populating Gitmo in 2001, those were truly militiamen captured on the battlefield. They should be treated like any one else we capture in any war. But as time when on more of those at Gitmo are simply those like Padilla who were captured and brought there. Doesnt seem like the same thing to me.

 

[Deanimator]

We pro-RKBA types like to say that, but it's mostly talk. How many of us are really going to make our heroic last stand holding off the forces of tyranny with our battle rifles? Do we really plan on being Wacoed or Ruby Ridged for our principles?

It'd only take 1%.

I say, come and take them...

 

[wooderson]

I tend to truck with Voltaire (or Diderot, I've seen both attributions) - "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

 

[budney]

Suicide bombers are not people, we can't hang them so f-em, let them rot in Gitmo.

Almost none of the prisoners in Gitmo have been charged with anything. Some have been released (eventually!) because they were so obviously innocent. "Let 'em rot"? The whole point of due process is that you don't know who's guilty until you prove it. AFTER you prove it, go ahead and feed them to the cockroaches or whatever--but follow due process until then.

 

[ConfuseUs]

The only issues that I agree with conservatives on wholeheartedly are low taxes, limited spending (Bush is a conservative? Ha!), shrinking the government (See previous snarky comment), and gun rights. However, I think they are the most important parts of any platform.

The Democrats get an F-- and the Republicans get an F on the issues that are important to me. Half of what you want is better than none of what you want.

I don't vote for Democrats because generally they don't understand the concept of markets and economic incentives. They want to raise taxes and then borrow money when tax revenues are not enough. They never met a government program that they didn't love. (They are crying now about DHS and PATRIOT Act, but when they are seated at the levers of power they will quiet down.) And finally, they never met a gun control law they didn't like.

So when I vote it is almost always a Hobson's choice, but the Democrats have not gotten a vote from me for the past 7 years.

 

[illspirit]

The current administration has authorized warrantless searches of citizens homes and businesses. Consider that. Warrantless searches means that you don't even know that your home or place of business has been searched unless you're really good @ espionage techniques. Warrantless wiretaps mean that you have no way of knowing when and if you are being eavesdropped on.
Many on this board exclaim that they would defend their home during a no knock warrant search. Guess what. They "law enforcement" can do that without a warrant now, eliminating the oversight of the judge.

Find me a previous administration that didn't authorize extrajudicial surveillance, and I'll show you one who was slick enough to just not get caught. Wasn't there a minor dust-up about Clinton using warrantless searches back in '93 or '94? and what about the whole ECHELON thing? It was revealed to be pretty much monitoring everything, but at the time, papers like the NYT (who shriek about spying now) defended it as necessary against terrorists. Or what about J. Edgar Hoover, who was illegally spying on almost everyone under how many Presidents?

And for that matter, how are FISA warrants, or anything related to CALEA really any better than warrantless searches? Secret warrants, which can be obtained after the search (assuming they found anything they want to bother with a warrant over) from secret judges in a secret court are hardly what I'd call "oversight."

Second ammendment rights are nothing without all of the other rights.
Free speech? search and seizure? sit in a cell 'til you incriminate yourself or go crazy or suicide? What good are your guns gonna do then since you didn't use 'em when the other rights, YES I SAID RIGHTS, have been and are being stripped from you as I type?

And if we elect, say, another Clinton, and she takes away your Second Amendment rights, do you really think she's going to care one iota about your freedom of speech or freedom from search and seizure as she sends the ATF around to collect any newly illegal firearms not turned in during an amnesty period? Do you think she'll bother to get a warrant before monitoring sites like THR to find non-compliant gun owners?

 

[trueblue1776]

Almost none of the prisoners in Gitmo have been charged with anything. Some have been released (eventually!) because they were so obviously innocent. "Let 'em rot"? The whole point of due process is that you don't know who's guilty until you prove it. AFTER you prove it, go ahead and feed them to the cockroaches or whatever--but follow due process until then.

I've gotten the impression that military leagalese is what is letting some go right now, the military's definition of "enemy combatant" keeps changing. There is the legitimate lack of laws to deal with these people. I would bet that the VAST majority (if not all) of these people are foreign radicals engaging in activities against Americans. Gitmo isn't a super secret black hole in the universe, I think it has a legit purpose in the modern world.

 

[vito]

Once again the thread is being led to unrelated topics such as abortion. When it was stated that 2A issues are the definitive issues, and the Democrat Party leadership consistently opposes 2A rights, the statement was dead on. 2A support is truly a bellweather issue for any political party. If you trust the people of this country, then you have no trouble supporting these people being armed. If you distrust the people, i.e., you know better than "the People" what is good for them, then you probably don't want the people to be armed. On one of these forums someone else wrote a great essay saying this much more persuasively than I am doing right now, but the key point is how can you trust politicians who have no trust nor belief in the American people? Of course there are elitist Republicans who give lip support to the 2A, and who really believe we are all too stupid to decide what is best for us, and they are ready and willing to make those decisions for us, but essentially the Republican Party respects the intelligence and good judgment of the American people, and thus supports our continued right to keep and bear arms. The Democrats, on almost every issue, want the government, i.e., the political leaders, to decide what is best for the common folk, and thus have no trust in these common folk and certainly don't believe they need or should be allowed to be armed. This is why I judge candidates in great part on how they stand on 2A rights, and I judge political parties (and it is the parties, not the individuals who truly determine what laws will be passed and how we will be governed) the same way. By this measure the Republicans get my support, and the Democrat Party does not.

 

[Baba Louie]

Jefferson was a Liberal, as was Madison.

Words, and their definitions have a way of evolving over time as do social norms.

The Whigs and Tories, Loyalists and Federalists, Republicans or Monarchists always seem to devolve into Governed and Governing.

I was raised in a blue collar union household, my father and mother both staunch yellow dog Democrats and yet we owned firearms and were very religious as well as pro 2A (and all of the others as well) and were pro gov't to boot; yet my grandparents, both of whom worked at the Federal level in D.C. and were Republicans, both of whom were anti-gun and not so very religious (hardly) were small gov't of the "He who governs least, governs best" school of thought and yet each one's paycheck and retirement funds were based on taxpayer's dollars. (If you can't beat them, join them... I guess)

Go figure.

My ex-wife (and still best friend) is a life long Republican and will vote party line without any thought at all.

So I, naturally, had to register as a Non-Partisan, and tend to weigh each candidate based on their words (words are cheap) and previous record in office (all telling usually) who prefers socially liberal, fiscally conservative, too much government at all levels so let's trim it down a notch or twelve sorta candidates... and I find that those candidates do not exist.

Because once anyone is elected into office, whether thay claim to be Liberal or Conservative, they become loyal to money and power, which are one and the same.

In Theory, the Constitution and the Ideals contained in the Declaration of Independence are wonderful. In Practice, real pragmatism sets in and one finds ways to work around the above to keep the machine alive and growing. (Read Elllis' "American Sphinx" on Jefferson for an eye opener as to the "What I Say" vs "What I Do")

If the ACLU ever openly accepts the 2nd Amendment as a base human right, I'll join them as a Life Member in a heartbeat. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. (Or perhaps we should all join them and as a tideswell, force that change in their policy)

Have a great 4th of July all. 231 years of controversy and still going strong.

 

[budney]

Trueblue,

I would bet that the VAST majority (if not all) of these people are foreign radicals engaging in activities against Americans.

You could very well be right. I'd be surprised and disappointed if at least a majority weren't honest-to-goodness enemy combatants. But it's Alice in Wonderland stuff to do things in that order--first the punishment, then the trial, and last of all the crime. (And if he doesn't commit the crime, so much the better! It would mean he learned his lesson...)

First you have to prove the guilty guilty. Then you can go ahead and feed them to giant Iranian goat-eating cockroaches. But you shouldn't get that backward.

--Len.