Gun-toting liberal

[Machete]

I'm ultra conservative, semi liberal

Against abortion (except when it's rape, or medical issues)
Environment- I want to save the environment but I think the Democrats go about it in the worst way possible.
Social issues- Liberty over equality, if you work hard in this country you can achieve a good life. Government handouts suck! Our health care is the best in the world! Look what free health care did to Canada. War on Terror Bush needs to grow some balls. Iran needs to be next. Affirmative action was good 30 years ago, now it's just retarded. Gay marriage don't care either way. stem cell might be murder, I don't know, but I'm taking the safe route and saying it is. Lawsuits suck, Liberal judges who legislate from the bench suck.
I'm not very religious but this country was founded on Christian beliefs and it turned out pretty good, so stop whining. Unions SUCK. It's not 1920 anymore. Raising minimum wage retarded, drives inflation. (my fiance's parents own restaurant, minimum wage in PA went up, prices on menu went up aka inflation which devalues American Dollar and the rest of our wages.
Economy- We have the strongest economy in the world capitalism rocks, socialism is crap. Liberalism= Socialism= Communism (Just Saying).
Oh yeah- privatize social security (not that I care, I have some sweet retirement), if we don't do something it'll be gone when us young ones get there.
2nd amendment- very important, and must be protected


Anyway, I'm pretty conservative as you can see.

 

[Helmetcase]

I don't think I can top that. Machete for president.

Er, wait. No.

 

[glummer]

I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people that they don't have a right to choose live in monogamous relationships [not what I said - that is NOT the same as legal marriage] if they choose to; the only fuzzy area in this issue is the govt angle [precisely my point – this is the only area of serious argument – and largely because people are rather fuzzy about the distinction between private choices and government actions]--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. [Why is that a problem? Perks and privileges, by DEFINITION, apply only to SOME people. Those in group W (defined as having met criteria x, y, and z) are granted privileges denied to others. W may be doctors, old people, heterosexual couples, trained poll watchers, etc., etc.]

 

[Keith Wheeler]

My own conservatism is based upon limited government and maximizing individual liberty within an American Constituional framework and based upon Western European traditions.

In other words "I'm all for freedom and liberty for people just like me." Which, in my book, is akin to fascism.

Your arguments break down. "Marriage is an invention of society, so society gets to determine who has this right." Ok, what if "society" decides to change and allow homosexuals the "right" to marry? Oh, but then we have traditions. Western European traditions. You know, of enslaving blacks, killing Jews, and all those other wonderful things that show that White Europeans are the true freedom loving men, the only race deserving of rights.

It's also rather funny that you state the constitution must stand on it's own, yet then reinforce your argument with various court rulings. I hope others see the humor in this.

That's the situation that has led folks like the original poster, and myself, to be aligned the way we are. What part of "liberty and justice for all" do you not understand?

My fundamental belief system includes the following:
1) rights are not "granted" by governments; they are inherent
2) my rights end where yours begin (we can both own property, trade it as we see fit; however I can't take yours forcibly from you)
3) all should be equal under the law

#3 causes some serious issues, and much inconsistency among "freedom loving" conservatives (which you know, is only a path of pure logic, no ego or emotion there). For instance the whole concept of "marriage". Problem is marriage isn't one thing, on top of societal and religious meaning, it also carries many civil (that is legal) implications that may or may not mean that homosexual couples are not being treated equally under the law. The problem is you will attack this concept with "western european traditions" without even acknowledging that, yeah, there could indeed be an issue.

More of these inconsistencies of the "True American Freedom Loving Conservatives (TM)"? How about "my property is my own, I can own any firearm I desire and can afford. Oh but those guys growing illicit plants? Felons! Demons! Usurpers of children!" Or "I have a right to not be subject to unreasonable searches, but those dark skinned folk? can't trust 'em. search 'em all. They're either terrorists or illegals, and anyway how can they understand the truth of our Western European Traditions?"

So, like the original poster, I dare choose to believe that rights and freedoms apply to all, not just folks whose ancestors and religious beliefs came from the "right" camp.

 

[gyp_c2]

aahh...

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.

...actually, this site has always encouraged good thought and debate...
Its' very name and history bears this out...If you have good points and take THR to articulate them, you will be a member in good standing, as always...

 

[Helmetcase]

not what I said - that is NOT the same as legal marriage

I guess the point was if you don't believe that anybody has the legal right to be married, people are going to wonder what marriage is, and just why they don't have a right to it.

So I think discussing what marriage is is topical in this case.

Why is that a problem? Perks and privileges, by DEFINITION, apply only to SOME people. Those in group W (defined as having met criteria x, y, and z) are granted privileges denied to others. W may be doctors, old people, heterosexual couples, trained poll watchers, etc., etc.]

It's EXACTLY why it's a problem. There are specific reasons why certain groups get certain privileges (ie, doctors have training). But you can't tell someone with the right training they can't have those doctor perks because they're gay, straight, man, woman, white, black. Same goes for marriage. Some people would simply argue that being of the same gender shouldn't be a disqualifier for enjoying those perks.

In any event, this isn't really COTUS issue per se; if anyone has the right to be married, everyone should. I stand by the original point, which is that govt has no business saying who can't and can't marry whom based on race, gender, religion, etc. The larger point was simply that people with libertarian leanings like me don't really fancy the intrusion of govt into these sorts of things--and by way of contrast, some conservatives who generally want to diminish govt intrusion into our lives change their tune when it comes to people being allowed to engage in behavior they personally don't approve of.

 

[glummer]

Your arguments break down. "Marriage is an invention of society, so society gets to determine who has this right." Ok, what if "society" decides to change and allow homosexuals the "right" to marry?

? I see no “breakdown” here. That is exactly what legal rights mean.

1) rights are not "granted" by governments; they are inherent

That’s illogical. NATURAL rights may be inherent, but LEGAL rights cannot even EXIST until there is a government. How can you have an inherent right to something which may, or may not, exist?

… all should be equal under the law

All WHAT? Couples? Says who? And what about people who are not “coupled’?

… it also carries many civil (that is legal) implications that may or may not mean that homosexual couples are not being treated equally under the law.

So what? There is no legal or ethical requirement to treat different “couples” identically. Equality applies to INDIVIDUALS, not couples. If a man and his horse are a “couple”, do I have to call them married? Everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex; no one has the right to marry someone of the same sex. Just because that doesn’t suit your preferences doesn’t make it unequal. I wouldn’t mind being treated “equally” with Bill Gates, but somehow, I can’t get the government to require it.

I guess the point was if you don't believe that anybody has the legal right to be married, people are going to wonder what marriage is, and just why they don't have a right to it.

Not what I said, again. No one has a legal right to be married UNTIL there is a government which defines legal marriage. And then, legal marriage is whatever the law says it is, and your rights are whatever the law says they are. Like the right to vote, or the right to a patent, or the right to form a corporation. None of these are NATURAL, inherent, rights. You have an inherent right to be part of a couple; but you have no inherent right to require other people to accord you privileges on account of it.

 

[wooderson]

Look what free health care did to Canada.

It's always amusing to see Canada trotted out as the bogeyman of socialized medicine since their system works remarkably well and by all measures superior to our own.

Guess that nonsense about Canadians running to the US for care just stuck around like all the other urban myths. (As opposed to Americans running to Canada for prescriptions - which was actually real.)

 

[Art Eatman]

No more about health care, wooderson. And no responses to that, sil vous plait.

Art

 

[langenc]

Sure heard a lot about RIGHT and LFET (Liberal). BUT where is the middle??

Id like to think Im middle road-ie constitutional and most of us are EXCEPT we have allowed the likes of Kerry/Kennedy to paint us RIGHT and we are-FAR to the right of them.

Last week one eve there was this interview by a Public radio gal with Chuck Schumer. He said "there will be NO NORE RIGHT WING supreme court justices."

My question -which supreme court justice(s) is/are RIGHT wing??

 

[nobody_special]

NATURAL rights may be inherent, but LEGAL rights cannot even EXIST until there is a government.

That distinction is entirely artificial. People have rights; and there may (or may not) be legal protections of those rights. The 9th amendment demonstrates that the lack of a specifically enumerated legal protection does not deny the existence of a right.

There is no legal or ethical requirement to treat different “couples” identically. Equality applies to INDIVIDUALS, not couples.

And a "couple" consists of a pair of individuals.

Everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex; no one has the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Why not? If that's what some people want, why should they be denied the same legal protections? What rational basis is there for such a conclusion?

Just because that doesn’t suit your preferences doesn’t make it unequal.

Just because you prefer heterosexual relationships doesn't mean that gay people shouldn't have similar protection under the law for their relationships.

To bring this back to firearms... minorities of any sort certainly benefit from firearm ownership as a protection against oppression.

According to your arguments, only heterosexual relationships deserve legal protection. So... consider a thought experiment where gun ownership is only a protected right for people who are married. Gays would then never be allowed to own firearms.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

? I see no “breakdown” here. That is exactly what legal rights mean.
...

Without re-hashing what has been discussed on this board numerous times, I will simply say that in my opinion, you have are arguing your point based on your conclusions, rather than reaching conclusions based on logic applied to the notions of "freedom".

 

[bobhaverford]

My fundamental belief system includes the following:
1) rights are not "granted" by governments; they are inherent
2) my rights end where yours begin (we can both own property, trade it as we see fit; however I can't take yours forcibly from you)
3) all should be equal under the law

Jew with a gun,

I am an ultra-conservative. And I agree entirely with the fundamentals of your belief system. I am also a Zionist - are you?

But I have to strongly disagree with your facile characterization of Western European traditions. Killing Jews is not a Western European tradition - it is not condoned by Old or the New Testament. Your other characterizations of Western European traditions are also incorrect. Does Western European history include episodes that we moderns might take issue with. Of course. But Western European Civilization represents the pinnacle of mankind's cultural evolution.

 

[bobhaverford]

My question -which supreme court justice(s) is/are RIGHT wing??

I do not believe that is a useful characterization. The justices of the SCOTUS could more usefully be understood as those who believe in a "living" constitution and those who believe in the Framers original intent. Myself, I believe our best justices include those who respect the original intent of the Framers and do not attempt to read into the Constitution their own biases.

Our best justices on the SC are

Antonia Scalia
Clarence Thomas
John Roberts
Sam Alito​

 

[bobhaverford]

When I was in high school I had a teacher who would brook no nonsense. When one of the students would attempt to disrupt a lesson by interjecting inane non germane comments that simply did not contribute to the discourse he would turn to them and in a whithering tone of voice dismiss them with, "Child, please, just shut up" and without missing a beat continue with the lesson.

Frequently these discussions get side tracked individuals who engage in specious pedantry or who simply just do not get it. I would love to just turn to them and say, "Child, please, just shut up."

But then I've been raised better than that! Or maybe not.

 

[Helmetcase]

All WHAT? Couples? Says who? And what about people who are not “coupled’?

We already afford hetero couples tax privileges and the like that aren't afforded single people. Nobody gripes.

The point here is your position ultimately boils down to allowing the govt to do something for hetero marriages it won't do for gay ones. A reasonable person might conclude that the govt shouldn't be in the business of making such a distinction.

So what? There is no legal or ethical requirement to treat different “couples” identically. Equality applies to INDIVIDUALS, not couples.

Nobody special pretty much nailed it, but please tell me you see why this is sophmoric thinking--aside from the obvious fact that the distinction you're making is obviously silly as couples are made up of two individuals, your basic premise is flawed--there certainly is an ethical requirement to treat people from differing groups equally. If your reasoning held, the govt could justify not recognizing interacial couples's rights, or the marriages of certain faiths.

Equal protection under the law IS the law.

I think the finer point here is that gun owners should be sensitive to protecting the rights of others. We enjoy a right that is, unfortunately, quite controversial and is under attack from many people. We should be in the business of protecting the rights of others, even people we don't like, not suggesting that people we don't like don't have rights.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

Bob,

No tradition of killing Jews? I suggest you read the writings of Luther, and what he had to say in that regard. As well as the goings on "at home" during the crusades. A lot of folks thought "why should we go to the holy lands to kill non-Christians, when we can do it here?"

But Western European Civilization represents the pinnacle of mankind's cultural evolution.

Or maybe some of the other pinnacles of civilization you were thining about were, hmm, let's see: Napoleon, The Spanish Inquisition, denouncing science because gasp if the the planets do really go around the sun then our entire system of populace control is wrong, or maybe that whole "kill political prisoners with lions for sport".

...it is not condoned by Old or the New Testament...

Hmm, neither of which were written in Western Europe.

Personally I think the pinnacle of civilization came from these shores, NOT the aristocratic masquerade of tribalism called "Europe".

Such as the following bit:

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823



...and yes, I am a Zionist, because I believe in Judaism. Unfortunately I find that a lot of American conservatives who claim to be Zionist (and also mention that "new testament" bit) are "Zionists" out of a hope for the end times...

and do not attempt to read into the Constitution their own biases.

Because, you know, no real conservative would ever do that. I mean, it's obvious that the framers concepts of "the people" meant to exclude anyone who is, you know, not "normal".

 

[Keith Wheeler]

The point here is your position ultimately boils down to allowing the govt to do something for hetero marriages it won't do for gay ones. A reasonable person might conclude that the govt shouldn't be in the business of making such a distinction.

Exactly. But then let's speak a language our "free market is G-d" conservative friends can understand. Let's look at private property, a major block in the foundation of all that is right-wing. Think about the conservatives complaints about the Death Tax (tm). It's such an evil thing, because it takes away the legally owned property of heirs. Well, what if we're talking a gay couple? Or heck, for that matter, a couple of old farmers who are brothers, who never married, and have always lived together as a "domestic unit". Isn't it wrong for the government to decide that these folks, because of their "abnormal" lifestyle, don't have the same property rights of inheritence as others?

Equal under the law. That's how I think it should be.

And it's absurdium to talk about "people marrying their horses" or some bogus garbage like that. The idea is that people (that is sentient of age individuals with individual rights) who live as "domestic partners" should enjoy the same property rights protections under law as "traditional" marriages.

It's funny that "marriage" is so important to these folks....but that the concept of a "common law" marriage -- you know people who have lived together without the official "marriage" blah-blah-blah -- is very old in our legal tradition.

 

[Sniper X]

traveler, My boss is very much like you in her political beleifs and also like you, even though liberal as the day is long, she is progun or I should say pro 2nd A rights. Anyay, I know a lot of liberal people who also have and shoot guns and would probably defend themselves with them. Only a few rabid liberals I know are total anti gun.

 

[QuestionEverything]

Our best justices on the SC are

Antonia Scalia

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."

Clarence Thomas

"Who put pubic hair on my Coke?"

John Roberts

Senators: "Judge Roberts, what is your opinion on abortion? On eminent domain? On church and state? On the Pledge?

Roberts: "..."

Sam Alito

Now, opponents to his nomination are using another piece of information from those documents to suggest he is far outside the mainstream in his political and social views: Near the end of his "Personal Qualifications Statement" for a high-level job in Ronald Reagan's Justice Department, Alito wrote that he was "a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group."

Interviews with several alumni who were students in the 1970s paint a picture of Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) as a far-right organization funded by conservative alumni committed to turning back the clock on coeducation at the University.

The group, which published a magazine in which students wrote nostalgically about the days before coeducation, was frowned upon by Nassau Hall. Some alumni expressed surprise at Alito's association with CAP, but at least two suggested he might have put it on the 1985 job application to appeal to a personal connection in the Reagan administration.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/11/18/news/13876.shtml

 

[nobody_special]

I think the finer point here is that gun owners should be sensitive to protecting the rights of others. We enjoy a right that is, unfortunately, quite controversial and is under attack from many people. We should be in the business of protecting the rights of others, even people we don't like, not suggesting that people we don't like don't have rights.

Well said, Helmetcase. (I'm looking for an "applause" smiley...)

 

[Helmetcase]

QE, that's funny. Yer gonna start a riot.

But from a 2A point of view, they probably are our best friends. Strange bedfellows, eh?

It's funny that "marriage" is so important to these folks....but that the concept of a "common law" marriage -- you know people who have lived together without the official "marriage" blah-blah-blah -- is very old in our legal tradition.

If nothing else, given the problems the gay community has to deal with (not the least of which is a mean bugger of a virus that also is spreading rapidly amongst hetero people), you'd think encouraging monogamy would be high on their list. The whole "protect marriage" thing makes me chuckle anyway; besides the fact that we heteros have pretty well buggered it up anyway (something like 50% of marriages don't last), if YOUR marriage to YOUR spouse is damaged by something somebody ELSE does, you got bigger issues anyway. Gay people getting married so far hasn't hurt my marriage to my wife in the least. Her throwing away my Playboy collection and nagging me about cleaning the house has, but gay people getting tax breaks...er, no.

Nobody, I like your style. Come harass conservatives over on my site.

Seriously though, when I read gun rights enthusiasts supporting the war on drugs, pontificating about gay people not having rights with contorted reasoning about who has rights and who doesn't based on groupings, making huge generalizations suggesting its up to any of us to decide what rights others actually have, etc....I worry about the future of our 2A rights--we do really need to be thinking in inclusive terms.

We want and demand that people respect our privacy and our rights. We should extend the same courtesy to others, even those who makes choices we wouldn't make for ourselves. Isn't that the very definition of freedom?

 

[bobhaverford]

Personally I think the pinnacle of civilization came from these shores, NOT the aristocratic masquerade of tribalism called "Europe".

The United States derives its political and cultural traditions from Europe and the Enlightenment. I would agree that the apogee of Western Civilization took place in the New World.

...and yes, I am a Zionist, because I believe in Judaism.

Would that it were only that simple. PLENTY of self hating Jews are NOT Zionists, their sympathies lying first with the Left and the Left (particularly in Europe) is no friend of the Jews.

Unfortunately I find that a lot of American conservatives who claim to be Zionist (and also mention that "new testament" bit) are "Zionists" out of a hope for the end times...

Not this one. I'm having too much fun in the here and now. I support Israel out of allegiance to our common heritage. You know, "pay any price, bear any burden" and all that kind of stuff.

 

[scurtis_34471]

Libertarian

I am in favor of abortion rights, gay rights, gun rights, school vouchers and the Fair Tax. I am against prayer in public schools, laws based on specifically religious morality, our current tax system, criminalizing non-criminal behavior (i.e. seatbelt and helmet laws) and basically any law confines my freedom beyond that which is required to protect someone else's.

 

[treelogger]

For the most part I am a leftist liberal. On some issues I'm more libertarian than liberal, and prefer a small government, not the nanny government we have now.

I'm also a gun owner and shooter, and in favor of getting rid of much of today's gun laws.

I have also found that trying to debate gun rights on a gun forum, in particular coming from a legal and liberal viewpoint (as opposed to a traditionalist and conservative one) is nearly impossible. It doesn't lead to fruitful discussion, but mostly pisses off the other members of the forum. It is hard to convince mainstream liberals that guns are not evil. It is even harder to convince conservative gun people that their antics and tomfoolery is what is really preventing better gun rights. The real threat to gun rights comes from gun people, their organisations, and the way they misinterpret the second amendment and tradition.