Concerned liberal

[Malice]

I am a liberal. I am *very* liberal. I am, however, not stupid. I am a firearms owner and I oppose further erosion of our 2nd Ammendment rights.

My main reasons for owning are:
- I believe it is every American's responsibility to protect you and yours.
- I believe that knowing how to use firearms, especialy rifles, is a skill everyone should have. I also think a fond familiarity with firearms is the best way to prevent accidents.
- Shooting is a fun hobby, and a realitively safe one.
-I do not hunt, as I am a vegetarian anyway (yeah, I said I was liberal.)

Apart from feeling like kind of an outcast in the "firearms community," I have a very grave concern. The most important reason for owning firearms is to resist state tyrrany. Luckily, here in the U.S. we have little to nothing that warrants an up-in-arms state of things. Here lies my concern. Remember, these are just theoretical situatuions:

*Note* I am white, male, middle class, no religious affiliation

Bush decides that all ::insert Gays/Musslims/Athiests/LEGAL immigrants:: are a menace to our country and decides to round them up. The proverbial "they came for us in the night," situation. That is the kind of thing that would make me take up my rifle and fight, because I am not willing to trust that the government is just trucking my friends, neghibors, and fellow Americans off to take showers and not somthing worse. Or, if the big networks convince a conservative president to criminalize all independent (the real "liberal media") media? I.E. the desecration of the First Amendment.

As far as "government tyranny" goes, these kinds of cases are the only ones I can see happening in the near future. And in such a case I do not see many other American gun owners, who are mostly conservative, standing beside me. So, is this fear unfounded or am I right?

 

[El Tejon]

Welcome to THR, new friend! There are no outcasts here; everyone is a gun nut (well, I'm just nuts, but . . .).

As to your fears, it has already happened, Malice. Remember FDR?

 

[R.H. Lee]

Hi, and welcome.

Maybe you should be more concerned that President {{shudder}} Kerry decides gun owners are a threat and should be rounded up, disarmed and sent to re-education camps, IMO

 

[bogie]

Welcome to the world of the Classic Liberal.

IMHO, I've seen far more "atrocitities" advocated by "liberals" who generally mean well, and "just want to help," than by right wingers, who generally just want to be left alone... The problem is that the easy solutions espoused by the "helpers" often cause more problems than the original problem...

 

[Drjones]

I am a liberal. I am *very* liberal. I am, however, not stupid.

I'll reserve judgement as to whether you're stupid for when I meet you or for further discussions here.

You are definitely uninformed, however. See below:

Or, if the big networks convince a conservative president to criminalize all independent (the real "liberal media") media? I.E. the desecration of the First Amendment.

As far as "government tyranny" goes, these kinds of cases are the only ones I can see happening in the near future. And in such a case I do not see many other American gun owners, who are mostly conservative, standing beside me. So, is this fear unfounded or am I right?

You are uninformed because it is a fact that gun owners are, on the whole, better educated, hold better jobs, make more money, and are LESS tolerant of government tyranny/abuse than non-gun owners (leftists).

So, you are very wrong in thinking that conservatives would be sitting at home clapping that the gays/whoever are in concentration camps.

We'd probably have left home, locked and loaded, before you.

As to your desecration of the first amendment fantasy, it has already happened and is being championed, but by your fellow leftists.

Howard Dean is on record as saying that he would break up Fox News channel on ideological grounds and many leftists (I'm pretty sure kerry is chief among them) are doing everything they can to oppose the NRA News channel.

Welcome to THR.

 

[Malice]

I never implied that I thought concervatives/gun owners were uneducated or poor... I was simply saying that, based on idealogical grounds (in my experience) those of the more conservative persuasions distrust/dislike/hate certain groups of people such as the ones I mentioned. As such, would they mind if their rights were trampled?

If your anwser is "we would be out there locked and loaded before you," then thanks for the re-assurance.

Anyone else have anything to say as far as what they would do in such a situation?

 

[Sam Adams]

Welcome to THR. If you are genuinely pro-gun, you'll be welcomed here by virtually everyone, even though most of us think that Bush is a raging moderate (me included), and are disgusted by the fact. However, being welcomed doesn't mean that you'll get a free pass on politics.

Regarding "rounding up" some group, under Patriot Act powers, I personally have little fear that Bush, Ashcroft, et al will do any such thing. These are reasonable and intelligent people of integrity (for politicians), even if you happen to disagree with many of their policies. Heck, I even disagree with them on policy quite a bit, but I respect them as people.

Anyhow, I'm more worried about what a less upstanding group would do with such powers. I can easily see President Hitlery's AG, Chuck (the Schmuck) Schumer labeling all NRA members to be terrorists after some drugged-up wacko who massacres a bunch of school kids is found to be an NRA member. I'm far more worried about gun owners in general being forced to turn over their legally-acquired and used property, on pain of prosecution or worse, than about anyone not a genuine terror suspect being taken to Gitmo or some US-based camp for many years.

Oh, by the way, as long as politics is on the plate, let's remember the Roosevelt of Japanese roundup fame was a Democrat (and a liberal one for the day). Also, Hitler was a Socialist, Stalin and Mao were Communists, as was Pol Pot. The sum total of state murders that these lefties were guilty of committing or ordering is somewhere close to 100 million. Name the right-winger that committed comparable crimes.

See, I told you, no free pass. But virtually everyone here understands that things go both ways, and most of us are open-minded enough to accept well-meaning criticism and to change our minds if that is warranted in the circumstances. Again, welcome.

 

[Drjones]

I never implied that I thought concervatives/gun owners were uneducated or poor... I was simply saying that, based on idealogical grounds (in my experience) those of the more conservative persuasions distrust/dislike/hate certain groups of people such as the ones I mentioned. As such, would they mind if their rights were trampled?

I know you never implied it, it was just part of what I was saying about conservatives.

And I personally am suspicious/distrustful/disliking of at least two of the groups you mention, as are many other Americans, and for very good reason.

Unfortunately, we cannot discuss that matter here, so email me if you like.

 

[boofus]

I don't hate anyone unless they are trying to kill me, steal my money, steal my belongings, silence me, make my pets illegal, or other typical leftwing marxist behavior.

Want an abortion? Have two or three for all I care. I wouldn't be able to stop you if you're dead set on it. Wanna marry your best guy friend? Knock yourself out. Wanna badmouth politicians, go ahead. Prefer to speak Spanish at home? Jabber away. But stick your grubby hand in my wallet or gun safe and it's bloodletting time.

Live and let live, but don't tread on me I say.

 

[Malice]

Well, I do not particularly want to talk about your dislike of certain groups. Some Muslims are terrorists, but not all or even the majority of them are, including all (many) that I know. Some gays are kinda wierd, but most of them are fine people, including all of the ones I know. Some people who abstain from religion are criminals, but not the majority, or any of the ones I know. Lets leave it at that, hmm?

I never asked for a free political pass, debating such things is one of my favorite passtimes.

And yes, I know what "liberals" have done and that you are more concerned about a leftist disarming America. However, DID take the liberty to assume that about you guys so I left that out of my list of concerns

I will vote for Kerry in November for lack of what I precieve to be a better option. Seriously though, a confiscation of our guns is not on his to-do list. No president who wants to come off as a moderate would think of doing that. Not to mention, he would not *be able to* take them

However, the slow erosion of our 2nd Ammendment Rights are under constant attack and that is my biggest complaint about Kerry.

My biggest complaint about our political system at large is our lousy sham of an electoral system which NO CANDIDATE seems to care about. But thats for another time and another place.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Welcome to THR, Malice. While we often think in terms of "left" and "right," the political spectrum is more like a circle. Fascism, Stalinism, Nazism, and other "ism's" all meet at the bottom. And so it would be if Bush or Kerry or Hillary decided to round people up.

As for ascribing hateful feelings toward left or right, it's been my experience that neither side holds claim to that dubious distinction. I live in a very heavily Democrat area, most of the residents of which are racists and homophobes. After having lived in an area that was a mix of whites, Hispanics, blacks, Jews, and gays, I was really floored to find the bigotry when we moved here.

Closet bigots sometimes protest the loudest about bigotry. Read "Radical Chic and Mau-Mau-ing The Flak Catchers" by Norman Mailer, if you already haven't. While it's dated, it does shine a light on that type of thinking.

 

[Malice]

When I say liberal I mean progressive. FDR is a good example of a progressive. I would like more specific criticisms of FDR, please.

However, I hate it when people point to the multitude of Asian communist dictators as examples of liberals. Those people are ECONOMOIC liberals. They had new and radical economic plans. Their social/political ideas were not new, radical, or progressive. They more resembled examples of crazy monarchs of hundereds of years ago.Everything else they stood for, silencing dissent, lockdown of the political system, etc, I associate with concervatives.

See, I think when a liberal and conservative talk a lot gets lost in translation.

American "right wing" capitalism is known as "Neo-Liberal" economics. See how things can get mixed up rather badly rather quickly?

 

[cracked butt]

They had new and radical economic plans.

-Like government operated health care?
-The recent practice of trying to sue politically incorrect corporations out of business?

I will vote for Kerry in November for lack of what I precieve to be a better option. Seriously though, a confiscation of our guns is not on his to-do list. No president who wants to come off as a moderate would think of doing that. Not to mention, he would not *be able to* take them

I won't knowck you on the first point, but for the second point:
I wonder what group took away the gun rights in:
-Chicago
-New York
-Massachusetts
-California

Don't say that it cannot be done, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me or most other people here that Kerry doesn't care about gun control- when he was in the senate he never saw a gun control bill that he did not love.

At any rate, I would happily go shooting with you as long as we talk about guns and not politics at the range

 

[Drjones]

American "right wing" capitalism is known as "Neo-Liberal" economics. See how things can get mixed up rather badly rather quickly?

That is because the meaning of the word "liberal" has been hijacked by leftists.

You, malice, are not a liberal; you are a leftist.

I am a true liberal.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Let's cut through all the hoopla about left-wing, progressive, right-wing, conservative, fascist, royalist, liberal, whatever. Let us instead, speak of fundamental principles.

Do you think that an individual owns himself, or that the individual is owned by some other party?
Do you think that individuals should be able to determine their own behaivor, or should individuals have their behaivor controlled by others for some greater good?
Do you think that it is moral to initate force against other individuals? Under what circumstances?

Things will be clearer this way.

- Chris

 

[ojibweindian]

Personally, I don't trust either side of the mainstream political spectrum, i.e. Republican and Democrat. To me, they're both two sides of the same coin; totalitarianism.

At the risk of overly simplistic, let me state my concerns. Dems want to tax me to oblivion; Repubs want me to cough up my "papers". Both are highly unappealing.

 

[Molon Labe]

Malice: What do you not like about the Libertarian Party?

 

[Frohickey]

Hitler was a vegetarian too.

Anyway, the definition of classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy, originally founded on the Enlightenment tradition, that tries to circumscribe the limits of political power, and to define and support individual rights.

Note that the current label of liberals and liberalism does not try to limit political power, and does not support all individual rights. Neither does conservativism do so.

A more appropriate label for 'liberals' is progressive, which, if you think about it, is a meaningless label, and doesn't really define what they stand for, other than their definition of progress. (You have liberals that are of the environmental variety, who would like for us to progress from using fossil fuels and harnessing natural resources, to a subsistence-level lifestyle. I guess is their book, that is progress. )

 

[Gordon Fink]

You, malice, are not a liberal; you are a leftist.

So what’s a “leftist,†Strati? Never mind …

I think Malice already has his answer as to how “conservative†gun owners would react.

~G. Fink

 

[morganm01]

Or, if the big networks convince a conservative president to criminalize all independent (the real "liberal media") media? I.E. the desecration of the First Amendment.

Maybe I am wrong....but I don't think that the President can "criminalize" anything. Isn't that left to the legislature, and even if they chose do something like that....would the current line-up at the Supreme Court allow it?

I would say that the round-up and deportation of 10 million illegals would happen about a thousand years before the situation you describe. And we are light years away from that.

I will vote for Kerry in November for lack of what I precieve to be a better option. Seriously though, a confiscation of our guns is not on his to-do list. No president who wants to come off as a moderate would think of doing that. Not to mention, he would not *be able to* take them

Of course he can't take our guns, that is why a a confiscation/ban of your ammo IS on his to-do list. As is a push to knock the firearms industry into bankruptcy. If you can't buy them or feed them you may as well not even have them.

Here is a link to the info http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1086621/posts

 

[Geech]

Meh. I think you're blinded by your own bias. You seem to believe that the worst about Dubya is totally plausible while believing that the worst about Kerry will be restrained because he has to be moderate to win.

Break the cycle by voting for a third party.

 

[Deavis]

I was simply saying that, based on idealogical grounds (in my experience) those of the more conservative persuasions distrust/dislike/hate certain groups of people such as the ones I mentioned.

I just wonder where this comes from. I saw this all through college and it is unreal. Liberals are the biggest hypocrites around when it comes to this sort of thing. Liberals think they are open-minded when in fact, they are just as bigoted as your stereotypical right-wing gay hater or neo-nazi skin head. Many liberals are just as incapable of respecting another man's ideological choices as conservatives are.

I was an athlete at a very liberal school. Somebody asked me what I thought about gays, you know all us athletes be thinkin dem gay men is just so bad. I said, "It is their right but I don't condone it."

The response, "So you are a homophobe? Homophobic are you?"

I'm not afraid of gays, I just don't agree with their choice to have intercourse with another man. I'm sure they don't like my gun collection! Everyon discriminates, it is a natural human thing.

Maybe I am wrong....but I don't think that the President can "criminalize" anything. Isn't that left to the legislature, and even if they chose do something like that....would the current line-up at the Supreme Court allow it?

This is exactly on target. Everyone who complains about Bush has forgotten that he doesn't pass laws, Congress does. If you want to blame someone for the laws being passed, blame Congress. That is what they did when the GOP put the pinch on Clinton. Now they blame it on Bush. Surprise, Surprise.

I would like more specific criticisms of FDR, please.

uhhh... NFA? 1934?

Social Security, the new US ID card. Can't go to college without it. Can't drive without it. Can't open a bank account without it. Can't get a loan without it. Not to be used as an identifier, eh?

Uh, beginning of the welfare state?

All of those were good intentions, but then again, the road to socialism is always paved with good intentions.

 

[GoRon]

I never implied that I thought concervatives/gun owners were uneducated or poor... I was simply saying that, based on idealogical grounds (in my experience) those of the more conservative persuasions distrust/dislike/hate certain groups of people such as the ones I mentioned. As such, would they mind if their rights were trampled?

How about "those of the more progressive persuasions distrust/dislike/hate certain groups of people such as religious people, business owners/CEO's, gun owners and conservatives in general".

The tyrany of the progressives has been attacking the above groups through the court system for many years.

 

[Malice]

This thread has gotten out of hand I do believe. I'm getting too many questions between each of ly replies, lol.

I mean, I posted, there were 8 posts, I went down to target to get several of the Gerber PaperFrame knives they have on clearance, and I come back and I don't know where to begin. You'll see me around on these forums though, I do believe. Thanks for the welcome

 

[Geech]

Well, welcome aboard and do stick around for a while. Take fence-sitter friends shooting, and try to convert a few.

Also, think about what I wrote. Contrary to your earlier statement, the most grievous flaw in our political system is not the electoral college, it is the notion that we must vote for one of the (awful) first parties if only to keep the other out of power. It's like the Cola Wars.