Concerned liberal

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Click to expand...

I was talking to this girl from San Fran while we were both out of the country. She said that in Texas "those people" drag black men behind trucks.

I asked her if that was worse than beating black kids up a la Englewood PD and LAPD.

Point being, she stereotyped people from Texas and conservatives in general the same way she accused them of stereotyping blacks, gays, or jews.

Both are wrong.

If you can run into 2 in 100 conservatives that are bigoted, is that sooooo much worse than 2 in 150 liberals that are bigoted?

To make a long story boring here is the answer to your question as to whether conservatives (potential bigots) would come to the aid of the groups you mentioned when they are threatened by liberal gun-bigots
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89287&highlight=pink+pistols

You may find that conservatives are not the way you have been led to believe they are. And you should question why.:confused:
 
Asian or Soviet Communists are just examples of the logical conclusion of the idea of redistribution of wealth. The Democrats and Liberals in our country are in love with the idea of redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately, too many Republican politicians are starting down that path to appeal to the masses.

To redistribute wealth, the government must take more power to itself so that such redistribution can be done with the threat of force behind it. Haven't you read or heard about the many and rampant abuses of the IRS?

Don't confuse the issues of sexual orientation, religious affiliation (or lack thereof), ethnicity and so on with the distinction between Democrats and Republicans. There are gay Republicans, atheistic Republicans, Muslim Republicans just like there are Democrats of those persuasions. I'm not saying that the ratios are even, but that's not really what differentiates Democrats from Republicans, or Liberals from Conservatives.


The issue is the role of government in our lives. Most liberals believe that the government should solve all of our problems. They love to pass lots and lots of laws. However, when certain laws are inconvenient to them, they ignore them.

Most conservatives believe that the government should stay out of our lives and should be limited (as strictly specified in the U.S. Constitution). They believe that we should have just enough laws to maintain an orderly society that preserves the rights of citizens, but no more. They also believe that the laws on the books should be enforced. To do otherwise is to invite either tyranny or anarchy.

Maybe you have a problem with the fact that President Bush is well-known to be quite religious. So what? So were most of the Founding Fathers.


Now as to guns. You think that Kerry won't try to ban guns? He's voted for every gun-ban bill that has come to a vote, including voting just recently for an amendment to S.1805 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) that would have declared common center-fire hunting ammo as armor piercing ammo to be restricted. More to the point is that the U.N. is hot to enforce a ban on civilian ownership of firearms, including within the U.S. Kerry just loves that idea. However, at the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects held in New York on July 9, 2001, President Bush sent John R. Bolton to essentially tell the U.N. where to get off.


Also, President Bush's plan to deal with the very serious threat of global terrorism is a very significant shift in U.S. policy. We cannot deal with this threat as a crime-control issue any longer. We're in WW-IV now. Read what Norman Podhoretz said in his excellent essay:
World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win

To back away from the Bush Doctrine now would be disastrous in this war.
 
Leaning left destroys everyones rights. Nothing good comes from giving up your rights and responsibilities to the government. Paying the government $1 to get .25 cents in services back, that you may not even want, is the way you empower tyrants who will do what they historically do.

You can never trust a politician that tells you that you must give them more control over your life, safety, healthcare or money.

You should allow, but carefully monitor the efforts of politicians that say you should not be shackled by government and should be allowed more freedom over your own life.
 
Welcome. As you may have noticed, when you use the "L" word, it tends to stir things up a bit. Labels basically suck, they're too broad-brush or subject to interpretation and local bias. My own politcs are so schitzo as to defy categorization, and I like lit like that. Mostly, as long as you can articulate your postion rationally and avoid too much emotionalism (passion is OK), you'll have fun here. We are a diverse bunch, love to argue, and we endeavor to disagree without being disagreeable.

So, what do you shoot?
 
Jeez!!!!

Here everyone keeps saying that we need more diversity in shooting, and as soon as a liberal cautiously pokes his head around a corner everyone starts coming out with shotguns!

SLOW DOWN!!

I disagree with many of Malice's assumptions as well, but he asked a simple question and I'm going to answer it.

If [insert political party here] decided to round up a particular class of Americans, I expect that it would happen only after a series of terrible events precipitated it. Hell, we can't even arrest people on immigration violations today, much less full citizens. Furthermore, note that almost the first words out of Bush's mouth on 9/11 were "don't blame this on Muslim people." What I'm saying is that it would take a titanic shift in thinking by the public before such a thing would even be considered. So:

A group of people has become totally demonized, whether through the actions of many of its members, a media smear campaign, or both. Things have gotten to a point where the government has decided that it is forced to violate the Fourth Amendment, our longstanding principles and the liberal creed to incarcerate these people en masse. A gun-owning member of the greater society looks on at this abuse of power. To rise against the government would be to risk identification with the group that is now Public Enemy No. 1, and he can expect little support.

Such a scenario is next to impossible at least in the next decade or two, but if it were to happen, I expect that the response would be marginally better than the response to the Japanese incarceration of FDR, but only marginally. Some would rise up, be tarred as violent criminals, and hunted down. Probably the majority of them would be "conservative" (though Individualist is probably the better term) just because most liberals despise guns.

Fortunately, I don't expect to see this for at least a decade or two, as I said, and even past that it's unlikely.
 
Welcome Malice.At least you are honest about your politics.Try not to tar us all with the same brush tho.You will find that this forum has many people with a variety of beliefs,passions and interests.Our primary mission is the Right to Keep and bear Arms.The rest is mostly just conversation...
 
If Bush and Ashcroft have accomplished nothing else- they have made many liberals more appreciative of the second amendment - just as Clinton made us all more appreciative of so called assault rifles and high cap magazines. However, the Clinton tyranny was real, while most (but not all) of the Bush tyranny is imagined IMHO. As wonderful and powerful as the Constitution is - it can be circumvented- and there is little recourse if a
government has the support of the military and police and the general population is disarmed.
I hold many liberal views (including the right to choose/abort as a last choice) but MANY liberal views and stands are simply abhorent to me...
like this article on partial birth abortion in USA today. Far left liberals (like Ms. Melling) are far worse to me then far right ...but neither is good.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-26-partial-birth_x.htm

...The law, signed last November, banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed. (Related: Court's ruling)

Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the ruling.
 
Since you asked if you were wrong, let me enlighten you. You're wrong. If I want to see a thread on Gays, gunowners have the Pink Pistols. Accuse us of being sexist, we have the Liberty Belles and the Second Amendment Sisters.

Conservatives are arming the Gays, the women and the minorities. The liberals don't give a flying hoot how many women are raped in dark alleys or if gays are bashed. The liberals are the ones disarming them and telling them to dial 911 and pray.

It's the liberals that's stopping the military from voting. It's the left that tried to stop the out of uniform off duty military from attending a political rally. It's the left that's trying to silence the Swift Boat Vets.

It's the left that has rigged Chicago politics to legendary proportions not to mention St. Louis and the missing Texas ballot box for LBJ.

A person who would vote for a gunbanner isn't a friend of the Second Amendment. I don't care how many guns they own. They are just another hypocrite like kerry with his shotgun or feinstein and her .38.
 
Howdy, & Welcome!

Speaking in broad, sweeping generalities:


The thing you're going to find that is most surprising to you is that you've probably more potential friends here than anywhere else.

The other thing that's going to surprise you is that folks who tend to get lumped into the "convervative" camp hardly meet the description of the collectivoleftist fantasy.

Hell, if you passed me on the street, you'd think I was a hippy, long hair, sandals, the works.

In other words, very few of us are dark, creepy authoritarians.

In fact, that sort of thing pisses most of us off.

The most common refrain for most social issues you're going to hear in one way shape or form is, "It's not for me, I think it's a bad idea, for xyz reason, but the bottom line is that unless it affects me directly, it's none of my damned business."

Sidebar:
----------
Any dark, creepy authoritarians here? Fess up!
----------

Now, to directly answer your question, "In the presence of actual, bona fide evil, do we have your back?" I think the answer is pretty much, "yup."

What you're going to find is that we're actually pretty in tune to what is and isn't evil. You're also going to find that we tend towards a certain amount of rigor and precision.

Bottom line: We're actually watching everything that's going on like hawks.


----------------------------------
By the way, what's up with this disclaimer?

*Note* I am white, male, middle class, no religious affiliation
Click to expand...

As if we actually cared.

I don't get it. I don't see what your race, gender, socioeconomic rating, and religious affiliation have to do with bumpkus.

In fact, I think most folks here are infinitely more interested in the content of your character and the ultimate wisdom of your ideals than any of that nonsense.
 
The proverbial "they came for us in the night," situation.

That's not a left/right question, it's a liberty/tyrrany question.

Both sides (left/right) fear tyrants from the other side "coming for us". Those of us on the right fear Kerry & Hillary doing so just as much (probably far more) than you do of Bush (who we don't see ever doing such a thing, but that's a different thread).

I don't care who gets rounded up and put in concentration/internment camps.
Wholesale imprisonment of known innocents is evil.
I swear to liberate them. And to make sure I can, I will stay armed. Tell your leftist friends to stop trying to revoke the 2nd Amendment (it's not the right that's hell-bent on taking guns from citizens).
 
Welcome. As you've no doubt gathered for yourself, identifying your politics as "liberal" tends to stir some folks up. If ever there was The Wrong Tool For the Job TM, the simple left/right dichtomy is it when it comes to describing political-economic alignments. The Political Compass is better, if still flawed. Take the test and see where you fit in.
Don't let any of our "angry young men" put you off.
 
Welcome

Malice,

You'll find all sorts here, there are all sorts of religions from Catholic to Pagan, and the political runs from very Conservative to Libertarian.( Actually based on some of your statements you may wish to study the Lib. party platform)

As to the AWB, Bush said he would sign it if it got to his desk, he never said he would push for it! ( In my opinoin this was a downcheck for him to me! He shouldn't have even promised that much.))
 
Malice, I suspect you're going to have to pick and choose who to respond to, or you won't even be able to sleep. ;)

Wisconsin was one of the seedbeds of the Progressive movement back in the very early 1900's. All through high school in the 1960's, I was told that WI had a "progressive" tax system. Well, when it's described that way, how can you not like the name?

In the last two years, though, many Wisconsinites have learned what the term Progressive really meant, as ninety years of Progressive taxation came tumbling down on the whole state.

The first sign of problems with Progressive taxation was the issue of "revenue sharing." This policy began prior to 1920, and was designed to send money to cities who were struggling financially using money taxed on residents of municipalities who were doing well.

Sounds good?

Basically, the system taxed John Q, who lived in a municipality whose schools were doing fine, and sent his money to municipalities whose schools were doing poorly. Or whose basic services weren't up to par. You get the idea.

It all came crashing down two years ago when the state's treasury went broke. No more of John Q's money to distribute. Milwaukee--now one of the poorest cities in the US, and one that can boast of having one of the crummiest school systems--was squealing like a stuck pig. "Where's our money?", the aldermen cried.

Well, John Q, up in his small community, had enough of a new tax burden of his own as his town had to scramble for money to pay for his kid's succeeding school. Screw Milwaukee.

Progressive, proschmesive. It's income redistribution, and it just doesn't work. Oh, it works fine until the wolf's at the door. Then it's every person for himself. That's human nature, and Progressive policies fly in the face of human nature, like it or not.

To keep this gun-related, I have to remind you that all of our "Progressive" laws aren't exactly voluntary. That's why the IRS, BATF, BLM, FDA, HUD, and other alphabet agencies all have SWAT teams. If you don't contribute to the Progressive Cause, you'll get an MP5 in the face.

Sort of gives me the warm and fuzzies all over.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Can you name a prominant Liberal politician who supports full restoration of American's 2nd Amendment rights?

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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely false. Bush has bent over backwards, at some political cost, to reassure Muslims that he has no anti-Muslim agenda.

Bush similarly has done nothing to harm gays. He has only acted to stave off the pro-gay agenda of some activist judges.

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.
Click to expand...

When was the National "Take a Bath Stinky!" Executive Order signed? I missed it.

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.
Click to expand...

Both the moderate Liberal Bush and the extremist Liberal Kerry are both in on this. They are saying: "let's agree to stop allowing independent groups from either side to speak out against us." They're both liberals and are both shredding the 1st 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?
Click to expand...

No, most conservatives are disgusted with the moderate Liberal Republican Bush.
 
Just so you know - you're not the only liberal around here. As far as I am concerned, guns is about the only thing conservatives have right, but you might be able to tell that we are in the minority here.

It can be a right-wing love-fest around here, so I figure it's my job to keep em honest.
 
Err … hypocrit? Bush said he would renew Clinton’s 1994 ban if it came to that.
Click to expand...

As the Republicans on the High Road will tell you, John Kerry is a “stinking liar,†but George W. Bush is “politically shrewd.â€

~G. Fink

Let’s just call it wishful thinking.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Speaking as one who has been equated with Attila the Hun by my friends(Though if they visited these boards, they might have a collective heart attack), I would be beside you. And I think most of the people here would be. I don't believe they are quite what you think they are.

I don't have much else to add, internet politics ain't my cup 'o tea. But I would like to welcome you to our forums. From overly zealous Conservatives/Real Liberals to Extreme Vegan Lefists, everyone is welcome for a fun, civil, time. *hintfreakinghint*
 
Malice and Gordon Fink

Err.... hypocrit? Bush said he would renew Clinton's 1994 ban if it came to that.
Click to expand...

He didn't say that. He said 2 different things. During the 2000 campaign, he said that he supports the current law (you know, the one that says the current law expires on 9.13.04). Later on, once in office when he was more sure of the political situation, he said he'd sign a renewal if it came across his desk. That is a rather smart piece of strategery. Bush knows full well that it will never make it to his desk, and he's not lifted a finger to help it get there (as opposed to what Clinton did to get it enacted in the first place). In fact, when the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act was being debated in the Senate this past March, Bush specifically stated that he wanted to get a clean bill, not one with a bunch of add-ons (like a renewal of the AWB, the banning of gun shows and the effective banning of all centerfire rifle ammunition, each of which Kerry and Edwards left the campaign trail - on Super Freaking Tuesday, no less - to support). The fact is that the AWB is all but dead, with no small thanks to Bush (even if a bunch of people here don't want to believe that). Had Bush really wanted it, he'd have told DeLay to put a sock in it, and Hastert to move it to the floor ASAP - neither of which happened or will happen. Bush is simply trying to calm the soccer moms about guns, hoping to pick off a few tens of thousands while not pissing off similar or larger numbers of gun owners. He's walking a thin line, so far successfully. Even if I'm not happy with his rhetoric, I'm so far happy with the apparent result. Come Sept. 14th, we'll see how happy I am.

As the Republicans on the High Road will tell you, John Kerry is a “stinking liar,†but George W. Bush is “politically shrewd.â€
Click to expand...

There is more than one way to skin a cat. The AWB could've been attacked with a frontal assault, guns blazing if you will, or it could've been knifed in the back in some dark alley in the middle of the night. Either way, its effectively dead. Time, and not very much of it at that, will tell.

Oh, and even if most of the membership here is Republican or Republican-leaning, I'll bet that Bush will lose several thousand of our votes if we don't wake up more free on Sept. 14th than we do on Sept. 13th.
 
Bush decides that all ::insert Gays/Musslims/Athiests/LEGAL immigrants:: are a menace to our country and decides to round them up.
...
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
Click to expand...

Yes.

The specific scenario that you mention seems ludicrious. The presupposition of the current establishment is to cow-tow to gays. When they whine, the government gives them a special priviledge and so they come back to ask for another. The gays just went for too much, too soon, with the gay marriage proposal.

The President and everyone on down to the Post Office has been bending over backwards to make Muslims feel as accepted as possible. This COULD happen if a major attack against the US happens. Hey, they did it to the Japanese in WWII.

I have never seen any movement for or against Athiests or Legal Immigrants other than a slap in the face for making them work so hard to earn it as opposed to the Meixcan invaders.

The independent media has been largely left alone. This is a benefit to both liberals and conservatives. I don't see any movement against them happening either. Although any independent media suggesting violent actions (civil disobedience as the ALF calls it) should be getting a visit.
 
Malice - incorrectly and most heinously insulted conservatives by saying::cuss:
silencing dissent, lockdown of the political system, etc, I associate with concervatives.
Click to expand...
And that Sir is because YOU know nothing of conservatives.

If on the off chance you do wish to learn about conservatives then THR is one very fine place to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Liberal with guns.
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
4K
roscoe
R
M
  • Locked
Liberal or conservative?
Replies
5
Views
374
CarlS
C
P
  • Locked
The evolution of Liberals and Conservatives...
Replies
4
Views
491
BigG
B
K
  • Locked
A liberal vs. a liberal
Replies
13
Views
998
roscoe
R
D
  • Locked
What A Liberal (Really) Thinks
Replies
3
Views
556
Moparmike
M
Back
Top