Gun-toting liberal
- Thread starter traveler106
- Start date
- Status
2ndamd
Member
I think many of you sound like LIbertarians.
Small government.
You do not want the American Government to impose their morals on you (abortion, gay rights, death penalty)
and you do not want government to approve 2.3 trillion dollar budgets and to instead get us out of debt.
You guys are sounding Libertarian to me.
Small government.
You do not want the American Government to impose their morals on you (abortion, gay rights, death penalty)
and you do not want government to approve 2.3 trillion dollar budgets and to instead get us out of debt.
You guys are sounding Libertarian to me.
Neo-Luddite
Member
It is overstatement of an ideal situation. But I do live in a district where state rep is a big-gov dem with an a+ nra rating. They endorsed him in the last election against a very pro rkba conservative. The dem won. Rare, yes, but it happens.
The whole point of this thread is that the fellow who thinks he's a liberal will discover he's really a CLASICAL Liberal (Jeffersonian) when the drum beat dies down. Oh wait--that's ME I talking about.
The whole point of this thread is that the fellow who thinks he's a liberal will discover he's really a CLASICAL Liberal (Jeffersonian) when the drum beat dies down. Oh wait--that's ME I talking about.
Tom609
Member
I once heard a good line, and later originated it - "I wouldn't belong to any group that would have me as a member." I recently read an opinion piece in which the author posits that people will frequently support a person / party / position based on a single issue, even when other positions are in direct opposition to eveything the person believes in. An example, the Death Tax. Even though it only impacts on a few percent of the population, huge numbers of people take up its defense. My point is, refuse to be pigeonholed by a label. We are all unique in our beliefs, but we have one common bond - we love guns.
Traveler106, this gun-toting, unaffiliated free-thinker welcomes you!
Traveler106, this gun-toting, unaffiliated free-thinker welcomes you!
Fuzziness is not your friend
in rational discussion. Abortion is NOT about “a woman’s body”; if it were, there would be little disagreement. There are two (or more) bodies involved, or one-and-a-half, or almost-bodies, or something equally difficult to conceptualize, and that is why it is so hard to agree on the ethical implications.
And there is NO basic right to marry, for homos or heteros. Marriage is not natural; individuals have no power to “marry” each other in the legal sense. Marriage is an invented institution, and the only rights involved are those that society chooses to grant.
in rational discussion. Abortion is NOT about “a woman’s body”; if it were, there would be little disagreement. There are two (or more) bodies involved, or one-and-a-half, or almost-bodies, or something equally difficult to conceptualize, and that is why it is so hard to agree on the ethical implications.
And there is NO basic right to marry, for homos or heteros. Marriage is not natural; individuals have no power to “marry” each other in the legal sense. Marriage is an invented institution, and the only rights involved are those that society chooses to grant.
Tom609
Member
Thanks, Leanwolf. We need more of that kind of humor today.
bobhaverford
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 138
Precisely correct glummer.
My "rights" may be entirely different from your "rights" and the Founders never intended the 9th Amendment to indiscriminately place beyond the pale of the legislature any "rights" which were not enumerated.
Tribe (one of the most liberal jurists in the nation) concurs. Only those whose intention is to impose their agenda upon the rest of us through judicial fiat could possibly defend such a preposterous notion. Those who would strip the community of its right to define a body of laws consistent with our Founding Documents are of an autocratic mindset that is not consistent with liberty and government by free men.
I have one more point. Several on this thread have boasted of their eclectic beliefs deriving from several different belief systems. While no one is entirely consistent I would argue that the thoughtful man develops an intellectual framework that has at least the semblance of internal consistency.
While I may disagree with the libertarian, modern iberal, or big business "conservative" I can at least appreciate the consistency of their arguments. My own conservatism is based upon limited government and maximizing individual liberty within an American Constituional framework and based upon Western European traditions.
My "rights" may be entirely different from your "rights" and the Founders never intended the 9th Amendment to indiscriminately place beyond the pale of the legislature any "rights" which were not enumerated.
Tribe (one of the most liberal jurists in the nation) concurs. Only those whose intention is to impose their agenda upon the rest of us through judicial fiat could possibly defend such a preposterous notion. Those who would strip the community of its right to define a body of laws consistent with our Founding Documents are of an autocratic mindset that is not consistent with liberty and government by free men.
I have one more point. Several on this thread have boasted of their eclectic beliefs deriving from several different belief systems. While no one is entirely consistent I would argue that the thoughtful man develops an intellectual framework that has at least the semblance of internal consistency.
While I may disagree with the libertarian, modern iberal, or big business "conservative" I can at least appreciate the consistency of their arguments. My own conservatism is based upon limited government and maximizing individual liberty within an American Constituional framework and based upon Western European traditions.
shooter503
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
- Messages
- 440
Bob,
Internal consistency is not a strong point of any known belief system. Take an obvious inconsistency of Christian belief, "Though shalt not kill" but "Onward Christian soldiers". Other belief systems suffer from similar problems.
------------
Internal consistency is not a strong point of any known belief system. Take an obvious inconsistency of Christian belief, "Though shalt not kill" but "Onward Christian soldiers". Other belief systems suffer from similar problems.
------------
In the first quote you advocate the right of the community to define a body of laws. In the second quote you advocate limited government. Clearly this is a matter of degree but unless I misunderstand you your own arguments lack internal consistency. You seem to be saying that you agree with the right of society to make laws but only to the extent that they agree with your beliefs.
bobhaverford
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 138
Negative shooter 503.
Every society, every organization and every group adopts organizing principles be they codified as in our Constitution or understood as in a family.
Liberty is not the absence of laws or restrictions - an impossible state of affairs - but rather the freedom for men to adopt their own organizing laws within LIMITS. Those limits are established by our Constitution and by our Western traditions.
When I refer to limited government I am referring first and foremost to our federal government. But government at all levels should be kept to a necessary minimum. The proper and lawful powers of the federal government are delimited by our Constitution - a nearly miraculous document in its brilliance and understanding of the nature of man and government.
Adopting a hyper-rational approach to lawmaking without regard to organizing principles (our Constitution) or our traditions will invariably lead to chaos and barbarism.
Every society, every organization and every group adopts organizing principles be they codified as in our Constitution or understood as in a family.
Liberty is not the absence of laws or restrictions - an impossible state of affairs - but rather the freedom for men to adopt their own organizing laws within LIMITS. Those limits are established by our Constitution and by our Western traditions.
When I refer to limited government I am referring first and foremost to our federal government. But government at all levels should be kept to a necessary minimum. The proper and lawful powers of the federal government are delimited by our Constitution - a nearly miraculous document in its brilliance and understanding of the nature of man and government.
Adopting a hyper-rational approach to lawmaking without regard to organizing principles (our Constitution) or our traditions will invariably lead to chaos and barbarism.
shooter503
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
- Messages
- 440
Confucian China, though subject to multitudinous laws and mores, was not chaotic and barbaric compared with the "West" in the same period. At its height it was comparatively peaceful and civilized.
-----
-----
Who gets to define "necessary minimum"? "Necessary minimum" changes with your personal situation and the events around you.
The limits of the Constitution on personal liberty are quite broad and in fact those limits are mainly imposed on the state rather than the individual.
traveler106
Member
I'm learning a lot from this thread.
Thanks for all the great comments, everyone. All of the points of view being represented bring up some valuable information and insights.
I especially appreciate learning that I'm not the only "gun-toting liberal" out there.
Thanks for all the great comments, everyone. All of the points of view being represented bring up some valuable information and insights.
I especially appreciate learning that I'm not the only "gun-toting liberal" out there.
Wes Janson
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
Another pseudo-libertarian chiming in...
Plenty of gun-toting liberals around. They even got a web-site:
http://www.geocities.com/guntotingliberals/
NRA and ACLU member.
http://www.geocities.com/guntotingliberals/
NRA and ACLU member.
M2Pilot
Member
Welcome traveler Several of my conservative friends refer to me as their "token liberal".
shooter503
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
- Messages
- 440
Good shot YY, funny.
In case anyone took the "Onward Christian Soldiers" statement literally, I was actually using it to represent any form of killing in the name of Christ. (By the way, The Salvation Army is an organisation for which I have tremendous admiration).
So, how do we reconcile what is lightly referred to as "smoking a banger" with our religious beliefs? Tell me why it is OK to kill an attacker to save a little old lady? Can you support THR and be a Christian? T'aint so easy when you start thinking is it?
In case anyone took the "Onward Christian Soldiers" statement literally, I was actually using it to represent any form of killing in the name of Christ. (By the way, The Salvation Army is an organisation for which I have tremendous admiration).
So, how do we reconcile what is lightly referred to as "smoking a banger" with our religious beliefs? Tell me why it is OK to kill an attacker to save a little old lady? Can you support THR and be a Christian? T'aint so easy when you start thinking is it?
<moderator hat on>
shooter503 ~
That's thread-jacking, off topic for the thread. Please don't pursue it any further on this thread.
</moderator hat off>
(Sigh, I can't resist it though: you could stop by my site and check out the "ethical and religious questions" category if you are actually asking how those beliefs are consistent and can be reconciled. Link in the sig line.)
pax
shooter503 ~
That's thread-jacking, off topic for the thread. Please don't pursue it any further on this thread.
</moderator hat off>
(Sigh, I can't resist it though: you could stop by my site and check out the "ethical and religious questions" category if you are actually asking how those beliefs are consistent and can be reconciled. Link in the sig line.)
pax
shooter503
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
- Messages
- 440
OK Boss. Thank you.
Thou shalt not hijack.
Thou shalt not hijack.
nobody_special
member
Count me in
I can't stand either political party right now.
The political compass is handy for determining your real political affiliation. Here is my score on their 2-dimensional scale:
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38
That makes me a liberal libertarian. Here is a rundown of my political beliefs.
I dislike "globalization" and the power corporations have in modern society. Corporations should not have the same rights as indvidiuals. I believe in a moderately-sized federal government (which would certainly be much smaller than the one we have now). Eisenhower's assessment of the military-industrial complex was absolutely correct. We spend far too much on the military. (Who's going to invade us? Why do we need soldiers in foreign countries?)
I believe in strict environmental regulation, government support of science (corporate-funded "science" is rarely good science), and a certain degree of social security and socialized health care. That said, I'm not sure that the current programs are particularly good, especially since social security is not self-supporting. An "opt-out" option might be worthwhile.
If Congress would just balance the budget (and stop spending bank-vaults full of cash on a daily basis for pointless wars) this wouldn't even be a problem.
I think the Libertarian idea that the federal government should not own land (aside from military bases I think, as allowed by the Constitution?) is horrible. National parks, forests, BLM, etc. are crucial to maintaining the ecosystem and preserving the landscape (though the government has been lax at managing federal lands and the resources therein). Look at China or eastern Europe for examples of ineffective or absent environmental control. (And the argument that these places are environmental disasters because of communism is specious. China's horrific environmental disaster became far worse after it started experimenting with a free-market economy.)
The "life begins at conception" argument may be technically correct, but clearly a fertilized egg lacks almost every characteristic of a person. That said, I don't like abortion but I'm pro-choice up to a point. And gays should have the same legal protections as anyone else; I don't care if you call it marriage or a "domestic partnership." (I've never seen an argument against "gay marriage" which wasn't based on bigotry.)
I support individual liberty, or as one of our illustrious moderators put it, individual sovereignty. The "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" are both unconstitutional wars on the American people. Both have robbed us of essential liberty. (The invasion of Afghanistan had reasonable justification, but Iraq did not... and I always thought so; this is a long-held opinion which predates the invasion of Iraq.) I'm for legalizing drug use, though perhaps not the sale of "hard" drugs, even though I've never used illegal drugs of any kind, smoked, or drunk alcohol. (Yes, really... never.) Authority should be questioned.
I'm anti-death penalty, mostly on practial grounds (it's too expensive) but also because several people on death row were later found to be innocent. Other mistakes of justice could be remedied, but death is irrevocable. On the other hand, vicious, violent felons (especially those with significant criminal history) should do all their time... no "time off for good behavior."
Lately, I've almost become anti-religion, because so much of the violence, intolerance, and ignorance in the world today is fueled by religion. Muslim fundamentalists can be horrible people, but so can Christian fundamentalists (or any other kind). Though Buddhists are probably ok in my book... I've never heard of an intolerant Buddhist.
And to keep this on-topic: I never had much of an opinion on 2A rights at all (other than a "guns make me nervous" feeling) until I moved to a place where I feel unsafe and bought a pistol. But strict gun control laws run counter to my long-held belief for individual liberty.
I can't stand either political party right now.
The political compass is handy for determining your real political affiliation. Here is my score on their 2-dimensional scale:
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38
That makes me a liberal libertarian. Here is a rundown of my political beliefs.
I dislike "globalization" and the power corporations have in modern society. Corporations should not have the same rights as indvidiuals. I believe in a moderately-sized federal government (which would certainly be much smaller than the one we have now). Eisenhower's assessment of the military-industrial complex was absolutely correct. We spend far too much on the military. (Who's going to invade us? Why do we need soldiers in foreign countries?)
I believe in strict environmental regulation, government support of science (corporate-funded "science" is rarely good science), and a certain degree of social security and socialized health care. That said, I'm not sure that the current programs are particularly good, especially since social security is not self-supporting. An "opt-out" option might be worthwhile.
If Congress would just balance the budget (and stop spending bank-vaults full of cash on a daily basis for pointless wars) this wouldn't even be a problem.I think the Libertarian idea that the federal government should not own land (aside from military bases I think, as allowed by the Constitution?) is horrible. National parks, forests, BLM, etc. are crucial to maintaining the ecosystem and preserving the landscape (though the government has been lax at managing federal lands and the resources therein). Look at China or eastern Europe for examples of ineffective or absent environmental control. (And the argument that these places are environmental disasters because of communism is specious. China's horrific environmental disaster became far worse after it started experimenting with a free-market economy.)
The "life begins at conception" argument may be technically correct, but clearly a fertilized egg lacks almost every characteristic of a person. That said, I don't like abortion but I'm pro-choice up to a point. And gays should have the same legal protections as anyone else; I don't care if you call it marriage or a "domestic partnership." (I've never seen an argument against "gay marriage" which wasn't based on bigotry.)
I support individual liberty, or as one of our illustrious moderators put it, individual sovereignty. The "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" are both unconstitutional wars on the American people. Both have robbed us of essential liberty. (The invasion of Afghanistan had reasonable justification, but Iraq did not... and I always thought so; this is a long-held opinion which predates the invasion of Iraq.) I'm for legalizing drug use, though perhaps not the sale of "hard" drugs, even though I've never used illegal drugs of any kind, smoked, or drunk alcohol. (Yes, really... never.) Authority should be questioned.
I'm anti-death penalty, mostly on practial grounds (it's too expensive) but also because several people on death row were later found to be innocent. Other mistakes of justice could be remedied, but death is irrevocable. On the other hand, vicious, violent felons (especially those with significant criminal history) should do all their time... no "time off for good behavior."
Lately, I've almost become anti-religion, because so much of the violence, intolerance, and ignorance in the world today is fueled by religion. Muslim fundamentalists can be horrible people, but so can Christian fundamentalists (or any other kind). Though Buddhists are probably ok in my book... I've never heard of an intolerant Buddhist.
And to keep this on-topic: I never had much of an opinion on 2A rights at all (other than a "guns make me nervous" feeling) until I moved to a place where I feel unsafe and bought a pistol. But strict gun control laws run counter to my long-held belief for individual liberty.
I support bush, hate welfare, and I am pro choice. Some of you Democrats should come down to mckeesport and see what all your welfare programs are doing. Its very amusing when a "POOR" minority family pulls up to the welfare office in a brand new caddilac and they all get out wearing coach and sean john desighner clothes.
Helmetcase
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 706
Ah yes, the welfare queen canard rears up once again. Lots of people afford designer clothes and Caddies on the money that comes from a govt hand out. Ever stop to think that maybe just maybe the $200 a week they're getting isn't buying that stuff? Drug money perchance? Duh.
Not saying AFDC was perfect or that we shouldn't have ended "welfare as we know it" the way we did. Just sayin.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people that they don't have a right to choose live in monogamous relationships if they choose to; the only fuzzy area in this issue is the govt angle--there are various perks and privileges afforded people whose monogamous relationships are sanctified and recognized. The problem is when govt hands those out to one group and not another.
Again, the problem I have with people like Bob is that they scream on the one hand about reducing the size of govt...but on the other they don't have a problem with govt deciding who can or can't marry or make private decisions with their doctors. For a guy who prides himself on his internal consistency, I don't see much internal consistency with Bob's viewpoint. You either believe that the govt shouldn't be involved with our personal lives, or you don't.
The 9th A was simply founders saying you can't simply say something isn't a right just because it's not enumerated in the COTUS. The "you don't have a right to an abortion or a gay marriage cause it's not protected by the COTUS" argument fails for that very reason. The point of the COTUS isn't to restrict what we can do, it's to restrict what the GOVT can do.
Ever stop to think that maybe just maybe the $200 a week they're getting isn't buying that stuff? Drug money perchance? Duh.Not saying AFDC was perfect or that we shouldn't have ended "welfare as we know it" the way we did. Just sayin.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people that they don't have a right to choose live in monogamous relationships if they choose to; the only fuzzy area in this issue is the govt angle--there are various perks and privileges afforded people whose monogamous relationships are sanctified and recognized. The problem is when govt hands those out to one group and not another.
Again, the problem I have with people like Bob is that they scream on the one hand about reducing the size of govt...but on the other they don't have a problem with govt deciding who can or can't marry or make private decisions with their doctors. For a guy who prides himself on his internal consistency, I don't see much internal consistency with Bob's viewpoint. You either believe that the govt shouldn't be involved with our personal lives, or you don't.
The 9th A was simply founders saying you can't simply say something isn't a right just because it's not enumerated in the COTUS. The "you don't have a right to an abortion or a gay marriage cause it's not protected by the COTUS" argument fails for that very reason. The point of the COTUS isn't to restrict what we can do, it's to restrict what the GOVT can do.
Last edited:
cbsbyte
Member
Its good to see people with more openminded viewpoints join THR, it gets kinda stale on this site. You will soon reallize not everyone will be open to your viewpoints on this site.
- Status