If gun control isn't truly a "liberal" thing, that what is it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
MHBushmaster,

I'm a liberal. I believe in a woman's right to choose, am a Buddhist, believe that government has a role in securing an environment for capitalism to thrive, believe that government-funded preventative healthcare is not a bad thing, am against the war in Iraq, am a believer in preserving the environment and alternative energy,

...and think that I should be able to buy RPGs, suppressors, machineguns, handguns, grenades, assault rifles, and other squad-level equipment as Title I with a simple background check at my local gun store.

How does that sit with you?
 
MHBushmaster - you say The gun culture is inherently tied to conservatism, less big gov, less instrusion into our private lives

but you also say - Liberals= Pro Abortion

Many would argue that aborton is NOT a political issue - it is a private one. The worst taste in my mouth is a religious right conservative. I almost cannot stand to vote for someone who would preserve my 2A rights, but tell my kids to pray in schools, preach creationism and tell someone what do do with their body based on their OPINION of when life begins!!!
 
The term "liberal" means seeking change from the status quo. "Conservaitve" means preferring the status quo. Liberalism has nothing to do with tolerance,

The first sentence is just incorrect. The term "liberal," by itself, implies nothing about a status quo. In fact, a liberal living in a very liberal environment will tend to favor the status quo. Actual liberalism most certainly involves tolerance. It is modern American liberalism that has gone off the rails by tolerating all the wrong things, while having no tolerance for many good things.

A "true" Conservative wouldn't want abortion banned. The thought would be it's not government business, therefore government should not be involved. (I am NOT opening a debate on abortion, so don't continue on this)

Sorry, you can't make controversial statements and hope no one responds. There's nothing conservative (or liberal or libertarian) about legalizing abortion.
 
I almost cannot stand to vote for someone who would preserve my 2A rights, but tell my kids to pray in schools, preach creationism and tell someone what do do with their body based on their OPINION of when life begins!!!

I almost cannot stand to vote for someone who would preserve my 2A rights, but tell my kids they cannot pray in schools, tell them they must believe in evolution and can murder someone based on their OPINION of when life begins!!!

Fixed that for you. It is the pro-abortionist who supports the violation of others' rights based on their opinions about when life begins.
 
The connection is ...freedom to choose, to carry to term or to just plain carry or to carry concealed. Freedom from you telling me what to do with me.
 
versus Classical Liberalism

The problem is that people are thinking of "liberal" in the New Speak terms, not in the terms of classical liberalism.

The important difference, for those who don't want to look at the article, is that classical liberalism "[stresses] the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint." You might notice how the "new liberals" have twisted that line into, well... everything that it's not. They want us to 1.) not think, while they 2.) take our property and give it away in contradiction of our natural rights. If you mention your natural rights, or how what they're doing is unconstitutional, they consider that it's possible you're a "terrorist" and will be happy to finish removing the rest of your civil liberties. I didn't quite cover all of it, but I'm sure you get the point.

The article really does a good job, and those with some time should read it.
 
I am not going to debate right to life, as it does not fit in the context of this site. I mention it because it is on the liberal agenda and that was the context of that. Back on topic:

Folks, if you are a liberal, you are tying yourselves to the movement that is championing gun control. Personally, I don't care how you "Feel" about issues or what religion you ascribe to. All I can speak to are the facts: All "Gun Control" associations are tied to the Liberal Agenda. The only dog that I have in this fight is that Liberals are tied to the hip of the likes of the Brady Campaign and the like that want to see all private firearms ownership BANNED. Hey, if you call yourself a Liberal and you enjoy owing firearms and can live with the fact that you make your bed in the house of the gun control agenda, well you have your head really deep in the sand on the gun control issue.
 
Contradiction os the LOWEST form of debate.....

I find that nonsense is actually a lower form of debate. Forgive me for raising the bar. :p

Jadecristal, I'm afraid you're talking to a stone wall. Most conservatives are so tied to current usage, that any attempt to reform the l-word is seen as a defense of modern American liberalism. The mind closes.
 
What truly baffles me is my fellow liberals who rail endlessly [and correctly] about police brutality, police corruption, the "blue wall of silence", etc., etc., etc., then in the same breath declare hysterically that those guilty of all of the aforementioned atrocities should be the ONLY ones with guns.

As a famous movie idiot once said, "Stupid is as stupid does..."
 
MHBushmaster,

I'm a liberal. I believe in a woman's right to choose, am a Buddhist, believe that government has a role in securing an environment for capitalism to thrive, believe that government-funded preventative healthcare is not a bad thing, am against the war in Iraq, am a believer in preserving the environment and alternative energy,

...and think that I should be able to buy RPGs, suppressors, machineguns, handguns, grenades, assault rifles, and other squad-level equipment as Title I with a simple background check at my local gun store.

How does that sit with you?

It sits with me like this: not going down the road of right to life or choice. Buddhist=glad you have religion. You believe that that gov has a role in securing an environment for capitalism to thrive: how about letting up on over burdening restrictions that put a cap on captialism. Or all the gov restricitons and red tape about how you have to give such and such to so and so because the gov wants you to run your business that way, if you really beleived in capitalism, you would realize the gov doesnt need to stick its greedy hands into securing an evnironment: I think manifest destiny of the governemnt a few years back took care of that. And gov funded health care is gonna be the biggest, most expensive expenditure to date, making the cost of the war in Iraq look like chump change, take a look at Canda-land, and ask yourself, why are Canadians coming to this country to get timely medical procedures done? And why should I pay for your wart removal or someone else's 5th father less baby? I dont freaking care about your warts or whoevers baby. And preserving the environment, I don't think we should be dumping our toilets into our rivers and streams nor just letting toxic wast just sit in our neighborhoods, but on the other hand, how much more green are we really going to get? Do you realistically see us driving battery cars? This is America, where bigger is better. If their really is a problem, let the capitalism theory work itself out, if gas gets so freaking expensive, then according to capitalism, businesses and ingenuity will solve the perceived problem and folks will flock to eco cars and other forms to escape the gas prices. And please don't sholve the whole: we will run out of oil in a few years or the earth is gonna cook due to global warming, blah blah...incovnient truth, blah blah...That is cheap science at its worst. We have NO FREAKING CLUE as to how the earth's cycles of median temperature really is, I mean, we have been recording the temp for what, maybe 200 years, tops, for reliable information to work off of, and the world is how old? and how many ice ages have their been (I'm sure this had nothing to do with man kind ruining mother nature) and the whole shifting of the continents and all that other science that is CONVIENENTLY overlooked. I love listening to the chicken littles of the media drone on about how we have to save the whales and not use fossil fuels blah blah yet they drive home in a car, use electricity and go to the grocery store all things that require exactly what they are saying is wrong and wastefull.

But that is neither here nor there, the real and only fact of this whole thing is that liberals are apart of the gun control culture, you have to choose your principles, because it is highly hypocritical to say you want us all to be able to buy machine guns, and the like (I totally agree) but say you ascribe to the liberal agenda which includes in the top 5 or top 3 things: GUN CONTROL.
Your either with us or against us. Their is no middle ground, their is no reasonable gun control, because it is all about control, and has nothing to do with guns except the end result of banning them.
 
Um, aren't James and Sarah Brady both Conservatives?

------------------------------------------

:scrutiny: Really? that is a question...The Brady campaign has given oodles of money to liberal Democrats that ascribe to the gun control agenda for years. I mean wow. So to answer your question, uh NO. How do they classify themselves as conservatives...???? Because they say it?
Well then I guess I am Space Shuttle Door Gunner because I say so.
And I am also King of the World because I said that a few times when standing on the bow of a few ships while underway. The Brady's are ultra Liberal, it would be like saying Nancy Pelosi is a Conservative because she and her husband have a lot of money...Trust me, you will not find the Brady's at a Conservative function anywhere within, or say around a million miles where the NRA would be...
 
Originally posted by Dravur:
hmmmm, some of the most intolerant people I have ever seen are Liberals. Unless you think and believe like them, they want you banned, or thrown off the planet.
The same could be said of some "conservatives". An example being Fred Phelps as stated above. But I would argue that Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio is a pretty intolerant one. What about Ann Coulter? Michael Savage.

Both sides are going to have their fundamentalists who are intolerant. I dont think it is just the liberals that so many here are willing to blame. What about the fact that conservatives are so anti-abortion and anti-gay?

What about the fact that the Patriot Act was signed by a Republican and the majority of anti 1st amendment bills and laws have been pushed by the Republicans, which is the traditiobal bastion of conservatism in this country?
 
Really? that is a question...The Brady campaign has given oodles of money to liberal Democrats that ascribe to the gun control agenda for years. I mean wow. So to answer your question, uh NO.

Sorry, they are both Conservatives.
 
MHBushmaster -

Respectfully.

Sir.

THR is a place where people can come because they like guns, and want to secure the right to own them for future generations. The people that own guns are not of a uniform political stripe - and if you want to secure your right to own guns, then you need gun-owning liberals like me to vote against gun-grabbers like Guiliani, Hillary, Obama, Biden, and McCain. THR as a rule is not a forum for discussing things like abortion, universal healthcare, Iraq, religion, childish namecalling (Rethuglicans, Democrats et al.), illegal immigration, or anything else. We do guns, and guns only - and such people of every political stripe are welcome here, as long as they recognize the right to bear arms and want to preserve it.

Additionally, while I understand that you may feel very strongly about some issues, it makes your posts more readable if you use proper spelling, proper punctuation, and paragraphs.
 
Political stripes or not, liberals are in the gun control business whether or not individual liberals ascribe to that agenda. I do not care what political stripe anyone is as long as they don't actually do something to enchance the gun control lobbies agenda. I am not saying you as a liberal should not vote for their beliefs, it is your choice. It is your right.
I am not dead set on all Republicans, like many have pointed out, Republicans have been accomplice to many unexcusable actions aimed at infringing on our Second Ammendment rights, on the inverse side, more wrong has been done by liberals than can be tolerated by any political stripe of gun owners.

Go ahead and keep believing what you will, but it is common knowledge that liberals are in the same bed as the gun control lobby. I have never meant to say that everyone on the THR must be a conservative, or a moderate or whatever, variety is essential to anything American. A line must be drawn as to what is out of bounds in the arean of choices and legislation, etc. and the Second Ammendment is clearly out of bounds, it must not be touched, the constitution does not have a pulse, it is not a "living doucment" as many folks believe, rather it is the bed rock for all things American and it kills me to see folks jumping on board with the team that is working to erode our bedrock.
 
Eleven,

I was planning to skewer you with my rapier wit, cutting to the bone with a stinging reply....

BUT...This IS THR

Yes, the rapier wit is somewhat regulated here. But there is a loop-hole called PM. If you'd like to have your pro-abortion viewpoint demolished with fact and logic, just send me a private message. I'll be happy to oblige.


Tecumseh said:
What about Ann Coulter? Michael Savage.

Both sides are going to have their fundamentalists who are intolerant.

Fundamentalist is a term that is almost as abused as liberal. Fundamentalism does not equal intolerance. It refers to a person who adheres strictly to a fundamental set of beliefs. Now, I'll give you Ann Coulter, but Michael Savage is not a conservative. If you can find some consistent set of ideas he sticks to, I'd be much obliged.
 
What truly baffles me is my fellow liberals who rail endlessly [and correctly] about police brutality, police corruption, the "blue wall of silence", etc., etc., etc., then in the same breath declare hysterically that those guilty of all of the aforementioned atrocities should be the ONLY ones with guns.

Now THAT is something worth repeating. Thanks, Deanimator. I've been having discussions with a "liberal" on gun control and the police beating up on poor immigrants this past week.

May I use this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top