Confessions Of An 18 Year Old Liberal

[Nolo]

Hoplophile, if only more people were as naturally inclined to freedom as you.
You've done for yourself what whole swaths of gun-owners (myself included) have failed to do for many, many people: you opened your eyes.
I'm not talking about you changing your mind, I'm talking about you thinking.
People often accuse me of merely lambasting those who disagree with me.
I don't. That's a misassessment. I lambaste those who don't think. There are too many people that, if they would just think about things instead of using their conditioned responses of liberalisms or conservativisms, would see eye to eye with me on almost all the issues.
So, yes, if you ever have the misfortune (or fortune, for those of you who are a little masochistic) of getting into a debate with me, then I will possibly completely put your argument down as well as be so aggressive with my points that it may make a lesser man cry. But I do not do this because you disagree with me; I do it because you have not yet opened your eyes. Should you open them and formulate a different opinion than I, you will be free of discussion from me; unless you should desire it.
Anyway, welcome to the Dark Side.

 

[cbsbyte]

Remember the saying United we stand, divide we fall. That is what is going on currently in the fight for the RKBA in this nation. What some people here are failing to realize is gun owners need people on all both sides of the political fence to make head away against the assault on our rights. Especailly in the upcoming election year, where it looks like the Dems will have a super majority in the federal government. Now we have to work with both political parties. Support the canidate, not the party since there are antis in all political parties. Supporters of the RKBA need to get together to fight our common enemy, not each other for non rkba political differences. It would be great when both major political parties can at least agree on the RKBA.

 

[230RN]

We're very "one or the other". So I automatically support Rudy Guliani the Federal Defense Of Marriage Act, and the war in Iraq. Nobody even asks, they just assume.

Did you mean:

We're very "one or the other". So they think I automatically support Rudy Guliani the Federal Defense Of Marriage Act, and the war in Iraq. Nobody even asks, they just assume.

?

Anyhow, I, like so many others here, have "liberal" leanings but I'm pretty staunchly pro-2A. I congratulate you on your ummm... "baptism."

Let me extend a hand of welcome to you.

And I would recommend you find out where your local club is meeting and tell your story there. I'll bet you will get so many offers to go shooting, try out guns, etc., that you will have trouble picking and choosing amongst the offers. And for free, most likely.

Nothing like the smell of a .22 rifle wafting back at you in the early evening. It's something I noticed with my very first shot, wayyyy back in 1946 and it stuck with me all these years. That's what hooked me. I did not want that day to end.

 

[biscuitninja]

Hop,
Grown up as the middle child of two teachers we were somewhat liberal. Of course teachers were liberal. But my parents were also scientists.... So we were brought up to question everything.... "Without questions we would never learn or want to learn...." This kinda Schizophrenic type of enviornment plays havoc with me sometimes, but it teaches me to always question. Question the motives, question the reasons, question the reality. But also to put yourself in other people's place.

Also remember the more information you have, the better you are "armed".
good luck
-bix

 

[sacp81170a]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this? Don't believe the hype - most liberals (err, "collectivists") aren't motivated by terror, unlike the OP's poor mother.

But clearly the "liberals" (mother and daughter) mentioned were motivated by terror, and veiled and denied racism to boot. I would tend to think of you as being a liberal in the classical sense, in that you believe in the worth of the individual to the point that you're willing to use government to do more, to one degree or another, to help the unfortunate or oppressed than I am comfortable with. I tend to believe that help has to come from within, but there are still roles where government is the proper avenue. That's our basic difference. There's a ton of room in that difference for us both to support the right to defend oneself and to own the means to do so.

The collectivists I mention don't even have an internally consistent set of values. They theorize that the government will protect them with god like authority without realizing that it's the agents of the government they're talking about. Those agents are people too, with all the failings and limitations of mere humans. Being an agent of government doesn't give one god like powers and wisdom. To deny this is to deny reality. QED.

 

[Dionysusigma]

Hop, I know where you're coming from.

To they that know what these places are, I've lived in both Johnson County, KS and Montgomery County, MD.

No toy or real guns when I was a kid, even though I grew up some on a farm. I made myself a bow and bought arrows anyway.

It wasn't until college that I started "expiramenting" ... and, at a friend's prodding, registered on TFL and THR, and bought a Marlin 60, then an AK, then a Mosin, then a Winchester 1911SL, then a... then a... then...

 

[SSN Vet]

I, like most liberals, support gay rights because it furthers our agenda to oppress straight people.

I think you need to join young Hop and smell the coffee....it may shed a lot of light on the subject....

Case in point....here's how the Libs engage in coersion of "point of view".

Law....you MUST send you kids to school.

Tax...your socks off to pay for public school, taking away your financial resources to choose non-publically funded education for your children.

Law...all public schools must include diversity "education" (really indoctrination) at all grade levels and integrate this into all curriculum (so opting out of health ed. doesn't avoid anything).

Influence....The rainbow coalition gets to set the diversity standards for the curriculum.....which being far from "non-moral" or "non-religious" merely substitute "their" morals for "yours".

Outcome....young Billy at the tender age of 5 gets to go to school and have Adam and Steve hold hands and exchange a kiss in front of the whole kindergarten class, as part of their "reading time".

Net Affect....liberals have stripped the rights of straight people to teach their kids moral values regarding human sexuality, by affectively forcing them to send their children to state sponsored indoctrination centers....and then taxing them to pay for it!

Does this have anything to do with the right to keep and bare arms?

Of course it does....because the same liberals who want to engage in the largest scheme of coerced mind control since the communist revolutions in Russia and China, are also the ones who consistantly fight to take away the publics gun rights, lest they ever get to uppity and decide to resist their liberal government masters.

 

[Mr White]

Glad to hear that you finally escaped the dark ages. Now that you're here, Keep on Rockin' in the Free World!!!

The gun culture has its own set of lies that we perpetuate amongst ourselves. They usually have to do with someone claiming to be able to shoot .5" groups at 500 yards with his AK. Other than these types of lies, all you'll get here is the God's honest truth.

Tell us whereabouts you live and someone can probably help you with that "never fired a gun" problem.

 

[PAshooter]

Late arriving to this party, but let me add my voice to the others saying "welcome Hoplophile." As has been stated, how and when you got here, and where you came from is of no importance. You're here now, and we're glad of it.

I, too, was raised in what you might call an "ultra liberal" household, with many of the same anti-gun messages drummed into my head during my youth. We were never allowed to own toy guns, my parents contributed to various anti-gun causes, etc. They also had other "liberal" social beliefs.

My first exposure to firearms was in college when, in NROTC, we were required to "qualify" (and I use the term very loosely) with .22 target rifles. I was hooked. I joined the unit rifle team... and I never looked back.

Funny thing about labels; "liberal" and "conservative." I still hold many of the "liberal" social beliefs instilled by my parents, but find these put me more comfortably among the ranks of those labeled "conservative" these days. I won't digress too far afield, but as an example, my parents fought hard for equal "opportunity" in a day when opportunity was anything but equal. Now, it seems, those with "liberal" social values fight for government enforced equal "results" which is another thing entirely.

But back to the subject at hand... forget labels, and take a stand for what you know in your heart to be right. For me, that's individual liberty coupled with individual responsibility. Too many these days seem to think you can have one without the other. You cannot.

Firearms, to me, are one of the ultimate symbols of individual liberty... and firearms ownership, of course, comes with serious responsibilities. Plus, they're a heck of a lot of fun

OK... enough babble. Again, welcome. Do what you can to spread the word!

BTW - reading your post gives this 53 year old geezer hope for the future.

 

[anygunanywhere]

Hop,

I you have my utmost respect for posting and I hope you continue on your quest for the truth.

No offense against you personally. This statement really defines most libs:

I remember at one point when I was 14, my sister and mother almost breaking down in tears (out of fear) when we were alone in a bus station with an elderly black man.

Why would a lib be afraid of an old black man?

Everyone knows libs are not racists, understand and sympathize with criminals, and love everyone! What do they have to be afraid of?

Oh, I almost forgot. The police would have protected you.

Anygun

 

[Moondoggie]

I apologize for the thread drift.

Foosinoh wrote: "Believe it or not, reduction of poverty (and reduction of wealth disparity) is in the community's best interest - it reduces crime. "

You're joking, right?

Try explaining why the locales that soak up the most gov't handouts are also the most crime-ridden areas. Could it possibly be that those who have come to expect something-for-nothing from the gov't don't have a hard time making the leap to something-for-nothing via criminal means????? Handouts from the gov't destroys work ethic.

BTW, the "Believe it or not" preamble is the hallmark of the dismissive liberal mindset. I happen to be of the "Believe it not" persuasion.

 

[Foosinho]

But clearly the "liberals" (mother and daughter) mentioned were motivated by terror, and veiled and denied racism to boot. I would tend to think of you as being a liberal in the classical sense, in that you believe in the worth of the individual to the point that you're willing to use government to do more, to one degree or another, to help the unfortunate or oppressed than I am comfortable with. I tend to believe that help has to come from within, but there are still roles where government is the proper avenue. That's our basic difference. There's a ton of room in that difference for us both to support the right to defend oneself and to own the means to do so.

That's a fair characterization of my political position. Thank you. I'm very involved in the vocal liberal community, and I'd just like to point out that the vast, overwhelming majority of us fall into this category, rather than the common strawman perception of liberals as wanting a nanny state running people's lives. Most of us believe that government is a tool best used to ensure equitable opportunity to citizens of the community, not identical outcomes. Thus, when someone is gay, or black, Muslim, or whatever they should have the same chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else.

Net Affect....liberals have stripped the rights of straight people to teach their kids moral values regarding human sexuality, by affectively forcing them to send their children to state sponsored indoctrination centers....and then taxing them to pay for it!

Does this have anything to do with the right to keep and bare arms?

Of course it does....because the same liberals who want to engage in the largest scheme of coerced mind control since the communist revolutions in Russia and China, are also the ones who consistantly fight to take away the publics gun rights, lest they ever get to uppity and decide to resist their liberal government masters.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and thanks to the 1st Amendment and the board owners/operators, to express it here.

The percentage of liberals who believe that guns should be abolished is actually quite low. There just aren't that many "gun grabbers" out there who want to take away your right to own firearms. I know it's a popular fiction, especially on gun boards, but I'd have to guess (I don't have polling crosstabs, but I do know an awful lot of liberals) that most liberals have a position reasonably similar to mine. I know the vast majority of Americans (including American gun owners) have views similar to mine. Ie, regulation, but not banning. Again, this is the legal interpretation of the 2A by the court system. So, for most people the question isn't "unfettered gun ownership or banning all guns", it's "what regulations are appropriate, effective (on reducing gun crime and starving the black market), and constitutional". If you hold the belief that any regulation is a violation of the RKBA, well... I'm sorry to say that you are in a radical minority (between 5% and 10% of Americans), and that's an argument you've already lost - and will never win, because (according to SC caselaw) you'll need a constitutional amendment to change. And your arguments are unpersuasive to the vast majority of Americans who agree with the SC rulings. Like me.

Americans believe in regulated gun ownership. Work within that framework, not against it, and you'll (we'll) have overwhelming successes.

I mean, I'm a gun owner who finds shooting fun, and views firearms as useful tools. It's why I'm here. If you're alienating people like me because I'm politically liberal or because I believe that making it harder for people like Cho Seung-Hui to acquire firearms is a good thing, you definitely aren't going to win a lot of political battles.

 

[WildcatRegi]

Very well written! It shows that your education wasn't entirely in the wrong!

Now that you've realized firearms are legitimate defense tools, perhaps you can explore the concept that they also can be quite challenging and fun.

A good way to explore that area is to join a group you might find appropriate. There are many groups enjoying firearm activities that can include military, law enforcement, hunters, or any other profession you might name.

Such as my group which includes the above people and also business executives, public servants, and just plain old folks like me.

http://www.nwtskirmisher.org/

 

[mike101]

Terrific post, and welcome aboard. Yeah, we're not all ultra-right wingers here, that's for sure.

Support for the Second Amendment is not a liberal/conservative issue. You either believe in the right of human beings to protect themselves and their loved ones, or you don't.

You have chosen wisely, Grasshopper.

You might want to explain to your more ultra-lib acquaintances, that the gun issue is as much about individual liberty as it is anything else. The idea of individual liberty has always been a "liberal" concept.

 

[ozwyn]

Welcome!

Moondoggie, on the poverty and crime issue. Subsidizism poverty (welfare) is not the same as reducing poverty.

Jobs fight poverty, and crime. (usually with great success) Lower unemployment and crime goes down. That is not the same thing as government hand-outs, which appear to induce more crime since people have what appears to be both disposable income and excessive free time to make bad decisions.

The bad news is that there is only so much agovernment can do to aid job creation, and the kind of smart, logn term decision making needed for this is exactly the sort of stuff politicians as a rule avoid.

 

[Vermont]

No offense against you personally. This statement really defines most libs:

I remember at one point when I was 14, my sister and mother almost breaking down in tears (out of fear) when we were alone in a bus station with an elderly black man.

Whoah Whoah. Stop right there! I don't know a single liberal who would react that way, and I know many.

Hoplophile's description of his family was not taken out of the "How to be a Liberal" manual.

liberals have stripped the rights of straight people to teach their kids moral values regarding human sexuality, by affectively forcing them to send their children to state sponsored indoctrination centers....and then taxing them to pay for it!

Please, quit it with the victimization thing. There are plenty of people who go or went to public schools and still think homosexuality is immoral. You can teach your kids whatever the heck you want. If you want to teach them that doing something that may make them happy and doesn't hurt them or others is wrong, then go right ahead.

Seeing two guys kiss is not going to turn your kids gay and unless you are going to keep your kids from ever going out in public or ever watching TV they are going to see it anyway.

Every moral you teach your kid is going to be challenged at some point because not everyone will agree with your morals. It is a parents job to teach them morals in the face of that challenge.

 

[Foosinho]

Moondoggie, on the poverty and crime issue. Subsidizism poverty (welfare) is not the same as reducing poverty.

Jobs fight poverty, and crime. (usually with great success) Lower unemployment and crime goes down. That is not the same thing as government hand-outs, which appear to induce more crime since people have what appears to be both disposable income and excessive free time to make bad decisions.

Absolutely correct. Reduce poverty, and you reduce the incidence of crime. This is a cold hard fact. While there is a place for welfare, is it a reliable way to reduce poverty? Probably not. So now you start talking about how to reduce poverty - and different people have different ideas about how to accomplish that. And I'm not interested in talking about the "how" here - it's not relevant.

What is relevant is realizing that liberals and gun ownership are not diametrically opposed.

 

[22-rimfire]

Welcome, Hoplophile. I guess exposure to some of the hurricanes has helped you grow past your childhood upbringing. Katrina with all its publicity certainly pushed many toward private ownership of firearms for protection that otherwise would not have.

We are made up of different pieces that have been shaped by our life's experience and education. My older brother is liberal, but I'm pretty conservative politically. We both own firearms and love to shoot. Firearms are neither a liberal nor conservative issue. I wish the politicians would remember this. I always remember the line from that one movie about the president (actor Michael Douglas)... "we have to get those guns as part of our crime package" (or something like that). The good old Hollywood liberal socialistic tilt that is infused into many of our movies. That movie puts a likeable face on the president, but the gun thing is a bad idea. It is one of the things that scares me about Obama... very likeable, but scarey on guns.

Many of our forefathers would certainly be labeled liberals by today's standards in my opinion. They kicked and scratched their way to composing the best Constitution in the world which layed out the foundation for what we have evolved into today. The old values are still relevant. The human condition really has not changed when you look at history and the current world. We just have this nice piece of paper that formed our country's foundation based on principle, many religious, but all common sense.

 

[Mannix]

Welcome to the real world, where things are almost never black and white, and rarely are they simply shades of gray.

Politics is just one example of many.

 

[MachIVshooter]

That's a fair characterization of my political position. Thank you. I'm very involved in the vocal liberal community, and I'd just like to point out that the vast, overwhelming majority of us fall into this category, rather than the common strawman perception of liberals as wanting a nanny state running people's lives. Most of us believe that government is a tool best used to ensure equitable opportunity to citizens of the community, not identical outcomes. Thus, when someone is gay, or black, Muslim, or whatever they should have the same chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else.

The problem is that the representatives and presidential candidates your party puts into power do want a socialist nanny state. So when you vote for the billery and obama types, you are reasonably assumed to support their position.

Americans believe in regulated gun ownership. Work within that framework, not against it, and you'll (we'll) have overwhelming successes.

I mean, I'm a gun owner who finds shooting fun, and views firearms as useful tools. It's why I'm here. If you're alienating people like me because I'm politically liberal or because I believe that making it harder for people like Cho Seung-Hui to acquire firearms is a good thing, you definitely aren't going to win a lot of political battles.

And this is why you are still viewed as an enemy of RKBA. You still believe that gun ownership is a priveledge that can be taken away from people who you feel are not "qualified" or "safe".

Case in point, the new legislation that was passed under the guise of preventing mentally ill people like Cho from aqcuiring firearms through legal channels has opened a pandora's box for anti-gun professionals in myriad fields to deny a citizen the right to own firearms: Now, "adjudicated" is not the language; now it is that you are determined by a "professional" to be a threat to yourself or others. IOW, a cop or doctor who thinks you shouldn't have guns need only file an offical document saying that he/she believes you are a danger. So much for 5th amendment rights, huh? And don't give me the BS that being determined mentally ill is different from being charged with a felony crime; any charge that removes your constitutioanl rights needs to be subject to due process.

There is already far too much regulation and, as always, it only affects the law abiding. until our legal system becomes a justice system and starts performing the tasks they are supposed to (keeping dangerous criminals out of society), no amount of "regulaltion" is going to reduce violent crime.

And most of us understand that some random violence is a price we'll have to pay for our liberty. What the other (your) side doesn't get is that this violence will happen with equal or greater frequency if the right to self defense is inhibited in any way. The "reasonable restrictions" you wish to place on RKBA do not affect the criminal element who would do us harm. Cho would have acquired a firearm by whatever means necessary, even if the new legislation had been in place. All that has changed is that now the Desert Storm vet who was "diagnosed" with PTSD 15 years ago and has no record of (and arguably inclination toward) violence is now denied the right to self defense by the most effective means available, lest he go the criminal route.

It's in some people's sig lines here and is a well known quote but,

"If total government control equals total safety, than why are prisons one of the most dangerous places?"

 

[Mannix]

Foosinho, NONE and I mean NONE of us thinks it's a good thing that people like Cho have easy access to firearms, we just don't think violating everyone else's rights is going to a lick of good.

It all comes down to the "if someone is going to ignore the law against murder, why would he care about a law prohibiting him from having a firearm" argument. The typical "liberal" response is to say that we should still make it that much harder, "because we need to do something", and the typical "conservative" counter response is that if someone is planning to do something like that, waiting is not going to stop them, and even if the law works to keep a gun out of their hand, diesel and fertilizer is readily available.

All constitutional arguments aside, I just don't think gun control has any net effect of crime.

 

[22-rimfire]

Fooshino, yes, you are an enemy of RKBA. That does not mean I don't read your posts. I like to read different points of view. But I agree with MachIV above.

You still believe that gun ownership is a priveledge that can be taken away from people who you feel are not "qualified" or "safe".

A gun is a tool. Almost any tool in the wrong hands can be used for criminal purposes. A crowbar is used in construction, but it is often used to break into people's houses.

 

[230RN]

Foosinho quoted, and then commented:

Originally Posted by sacp81170a
But clearly the "liberals" (mother and daughter) mentioned were motivated by terror, and veiled and denied racism to boot. I would tend to think of you as being a liberal in the classical sense, in that you believe in the worth of the individual to the point that you're willing to use government to do more, to one degree or another, to help the unfortunate or oppressed than I am comfortable with. I tend to believe that help has to come from within, but there are still roles where government is the proper avenue. That's our basic difference. There's a ton of room in that difference for us both to support the right to defend oneself and to own the means to do so.

That's a fair characterization of my political position. Thank you. I'm very involved in the vocal liberal community, and I'd just like to point out that the vast, overwhelming majority of us fall into this category, rather than the common strawman perception of liberals as wanting a nanny state running people's lives. Most of us believe that government is a tool best used to ensure equitable opportunity to citizens of the community, not identical outcomes. Thus, when someone is gay, or black, Muslim, or whatever they should have the same chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else.

Eloquently stated, both, and epitomizes most of my thinking on the matter. The last time I stated that, I got jumped on for condoning "thievery" by the government.

How Randian.

How unfair.

 

[jlbraun]

IRV is horribly broken as a voting system, and is even worse than plurality. Range voting and approval voting are far superior.

http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I guess I'm also wondering how the community will change now that I've found it. Did I come in at the tail end of it, just to watch it be crushed by people my age as they come into power? What will happen to this right as I age? Is it more appropriate to call it a right or a freedom? Rights are granted to us, be it by the government, nature, or a contract. Freedoms are an intrinsic part of us, I think.

You did say you're 18, correct? Then the fault lies with your high school's American history and social studies curriculum.

The Bill of Rights is a series of amendments to the Constitution of the United States; the first ten amendments, specifically. As "amendments," the articles of the BoR are now part of the Constitution. There's little difference between calling a right a "right" or a "freedom," but where your education has failed you is in giving you the false idea that these rights are granted to us by the government. If you study the Constitution and the philosophical ideas of the men who wrote it, you'll discover that the Founders regarded certain fundamental rights as inherent to us as human beings. The Constritution does not and did not "grant" us these rights; the rights already existed. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended to guarantee to us that these intrinsic rights would not be trampled or taken away from us by the government. The BoR does not grant us the rights, it establishes the limitations on how far the government may go in transgressing those rights.