Liberal with guns.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The bottom line is this.
(Get ready. You are about to enter the hollow air-filled cavity where my brain used to reside.)
Go to Google and do a search for the US Constitution.
Find it.
Read it.
Are those rights that are recognized in the Bill of Rights individual rights that are guaranteed to every law abiding American?
Does any government, past, present, or future have any right messing with any of those rights, ever?
If the answer to the last question is "NO!" then we are on the same page.
 
Last edited:
Mark, chaim,

John Kerry was/is, in fact, a well-decorated veteran who came back to be a leader of the "Vietnam Veterans Against the War." He staged a typical piece of leftist-sociocrat street theatre in front of the White House, where he pitched "his" medals over the fence as a gesture of abnegation and disgust.

Problem is, fast forward thirty years, and there are all of Kerry's medals proudly displayed in his Senate office in a shadow box (I believe that's the name of the wood-and-glass cases designed for display). As author Mona Charen asked, whose medals did he throw over the White House fence?

He's a piece of stuff, alright.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations
April 23, 1971

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out....

In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/s...ces/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html
 
So, how many liberals do we have here besides me?

Doctorhumbert
Microbalrog
Roscoe


Count me in...

That is, if I can be a liberal without being an American :) (since you are referring to some unique American issues here).

Only one year ago I would have called myself a Sozialdemokrat, but today I'm totally disgusted with both the "liberal" (Social Democratic Party, Greens) and the "conservative" (Christian Democratic Union) side over here.

They are all anti-freedom when gun ownership is concerned. After the first term of our red-green government a spokeswoman of the Green Party announced in an interview that her party's greatest achievement during the last four years had been "giving gays and lesbians the prospect of a life free of fear."

Go figure.

(And no, I'm not some sort of homophobe, I just think there are much more serious issues to tackle for a government.)

It occured to me (or rather, it was posted by a clever guy on a German firearms board) that all you have to do receive attention, benefits and privilege from the liberal establishment is to present yourself as a member of any ethnic/sexual/religious minority. If you're an independent individual, you are a suspect, if you take part in a politically correct group identity, you're fine.


Regards,

Trooper
 
It's not easy, most of the broadcasts start out "boo hoo hoo . . . the children . . . boo hoo hoo."
They don't call it Boo Hoo Radio for nothin' :)

I used to be as liberal as you could get and not simply slip into a coma. Then I started to realize that I wasn't having my convictions challenged due to the fact that all the people I hung out with thought exactly like I did. Once that changed, I changed.

My only advice: be who you are in the present, but keep your mind open. Don't just tolerate opposing points of view, seek them out. Only when you fully and completely understand where someone is coming from can you even begin to make fun of them in any meaningful way.

- Gabe
 
Doc, (whoa, that's wierd! Usually everyone's calling ME doc!)

If you are strongly pro-gun then you cannot possibly be a liberal.

I firmly believe liberalism to be a mental disorder.

One of the many symptoms is liberal (no pun intended) use of "isms" like "imperialism," "colonialism," etc.

I'm not 100% thrilled with Bush either, but because he's not conservative enough.

Basically Doc, you're not a liberal. You're just confused. :neener:
 
I got ahead of myself.
Doubtless that some of you knew what I meant but I apologize for the confusion.
I edited the post for your clarification (and mine).;)
 
I want to elaborate on what I said above.

I have found liberals to be completely devoid of anything that could even pretend to attempt to resemble logic.

Gun control is a bright, shiny example.

Their communistic/socialistic views on economic issues are another; tax the hell out of the rich and give it away to non-citizens, for example.

They honestly believe that Bush "stole the presidency" for the sole purpose of taking this entire country to war in order to make some money for himself and a dozen or so close friends.

If you do not think that is the most absurd statement you have EVER heard then you probably suffer from the disease known as "modern liberalism." I'm not a huge fan of Bush as I said above, but I think so far he's done a great job. My opinion of him will take a sharp turn for the worse if he gets us involved in the Liberian cesspool. I am by no means any sort of a "line-tower" or "bush-worshipper." I'll even admit that I voted for Gore. I was young and stupid, allright?

They believe this country was founded by racists, with racism and slavery, and largely still is racist and oppressive.

Liberals believe that third world murderous dictators should be given a voice in world politics via the UN.

So on and so forth.

How anyone could "get" the gun issue but have liberal (illogical) views on other issues is beyond me. :scrutiny:
 
doctorhumbert, good for you. I hope you are liberal enough to stomach joining the AMA and fighting for gun owner's rights against the hoards of blissninnies who have infested the medical establishment! :D

Jonesy, nowadays the commies call themselves Progressives (I call the Pregressives) instead of liberals. The only ones left in the liberal camp are the old Moderates. :neener:
 
Liberals are necessary.
How would you all like to goosestep down the street on your way to THE ONLY CHURCH ALLOWED? We could all then form up and file in and wait for the command to "Take... Seats!"
Yeah, your guns might be safe, but what about the rest of your freedoms?
The far right is just as bad as the far left.
If you look at the middle ground, there isn't really that much difference between the moderates in either party.
I personally lean to to both sides, depending on what the issue is.
I am adamantly pro-gun and pro-life.
I am in total support of the idea of all individual liberties.
Neither side supports both points of view so I have to see both sides.
I have found that I am a Libertarian.
 
"The far right is just as bad as the far left."

If, by "far right," you mean that Bill Gates and I should pay the same percentage in income taxes, then count me as part of the "FR." The so-called Progressive tax system in this country was enacted when Socialism was an interesting theory. That theory has since been disproved, but the tax system upon which it was based is still alive and bleeding us dry.

If, by your definition of "FR," you mean that government should not blindly give money to people who claim to be impoverished, and who often are not and who often scam the system, then once again count me as "FR." I've taken food to families whom I was told were in financial trouble, gave them rides to wherever they needed to go, and got to know them at least as acquaintances. There was no middleman, no bureaucrat, and thus no markup. 100% of my contributions went to those in need.

If, by your definition of "FR," you mean that the federal government should not take X amount of dollars from one state and redistribute it to another state based on the latter state's compliance with arbitrary federal regulations, well, then count me in again as part of the "FR." I have no idea as to which politician started the idea of taking my tax dollar, sending it to DC, giving 25% of it to paper-shufflers, and then sending a portion back to my own state, that portion dependent upon how closely my state adheres to that politician's pet paranoias. I do know, however, that the politician should have been hanged.

If, by your definition of "FR," you mean that I oppose legislation such as the "motor-voter" act, no proof of residency for voters, no ID cards, and voting rights for those who are not actually US citizens, then I plead guilty. The Democrats have become experts at abusing and hiding ballot fraud. In fact, the party has become dependent upon using illegal votes, a practice that used to be confined to Chicago and New York. Let McCain and Feingold squawk about "soft money." The real catastrophe is that we have less than 40% of qualified voters actually exercising that right and that, of those, probably 75% base their decisions upon the analysis provided by Jay Leno, Oprah Winfrey and David Letterman.

If, by your definition of "FR," you mean that I oppose the Kyoto Accords, again I throw myself on the mercy of the court. When a conference of world governments decides that the US must adhere to strict environmental rules (and thus constrain US businesses and their ability to hire employees) while
simultaneously giving countries like India, China, Mexico, and other "emerging economies" a pass on those same environmental standards, then we're looking at a whole new dimension of Affirmative Action.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Keep the government out of my bedroom, my wallet, and my gun safe. That would be a good start.
 
It is pretty clear Dr. Jones has no real idea what liberals believe. It is easy to pick a couple of straw-man positions, and by selecting gun rights as his example he tries to bias us right away. Why not freedom of the press, freedom of religious worship, civil rights, the fight against slavery, industrial pollution, abortion rights, the teaching of evolution in schools, gay rights, etc., etc.? In my opinion, conservatives are wrong about all of these issues, but are right on gun issues. What the heck, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Dr. Jones, you may have a conservative position on these issues, but I'll bet any smart liberal can go toe to toe with your 'logic'.
 
Liberal Logic 101 for roscoe:

- Guns are bad. Guns kill people. Let's ban them all. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. Firearms are the leading cause of death among children. It is better to just give your attacker what he wants. Don't resist. Ladies, just sit back and enjoy rape. It really isn't that bad.

- Tax the rich. A lot. Give it to the poor and the minorities. California demos right now still want to raise taxes. Roscoe, are you seriously trying to tell me that liberals and demos in general do NOT support higher taxes than conservatives/libertarians/repubs?

- Let women kill their babies. Oh, but it isn't really a "baby" until its born. By conveniently controlling the language (as with the contrived term "assault weapon") liberals can twist arguments to fit their needs.

- Colored people are incapable of achieving anything on their own and without special advantages from the state.

- Bush lied about all aspects of this war.

There's a start. Am I on the right track?

If not, why don't you tell me what you think liberals believe.
 
dochumbert:

I'm not saying that you necessarily believe in all of the things I mentioned, but when someone says "I'm a liberal" that's what jumps into my head.

I'm not going to try to change your views of course, but I don't understand...oh well...
 
No, Doctorhumbert, you aren't alone. I'm a moderate Democrat, although I have some issues with them (most notably gun control and abdication of personal responsibility.)

Here's my problem: I love the WHOLE, ENTIRE Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment. So I have serious problems with all the major political parties.

I see the Republicans trashing the 1st amendment by trying to silence the left (although the left does a bit of that, also, and calls it "political correctness.)

I see the Democrats trashing the 2nd amendment, which we all know about.

I see the Republicans trashing the 4th amendment (right to privacy) with abominations like Patriot Act 1 & 2.

I also see the Republicans selling out American workers BIGTIME by giving big tax breaks to companies who ship American jobs overseas. My husband might lose his high-paying software development job because some Indian is willing to do his job (in India) for $5,000/year. This angers me tremendously. They also hand out those damnable H1-B visas like candy, allowing foreigners to come over here and undercut American workers by working for 1/3 of what my husband gets, then they bring their whole extended family over here.

And don't look so smug, Libertarians: if it were up to you all, the roads and infrastructure would all go to hell since none of you want to pay taxes.

The Greens? Love their stance on the environment, but hate their gun control mindset.

Nutshell: there is NO major political party sticking up for all of our constitutional rights. Not one.

For now, I'll stick with the Democrats and lobby them to back down on gun control. What Republicans don't understand is that if their party has its way, big business will outsource more and more American jobs overseas. The second amendment becomes a moot point when you lose your job and can't afford ammunition or guns.
 
Oh, yeah--I forgot about the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments. I think those are the right ones--the ones about fair trials. The Bush administration is also trampling those for accused terrorists in the name of national security. They don't seem to quite understand that if we sacrifice all our rights in the name of national security, we will no longer be a real NATION, nor will we be secure: we will be scared sheep/slaves.
 
I see the Republicans trashing the 1st amendment by trying to silence the left (although the left does a bit of that, also, and calls it "political correctness.)
I'd LOVE to see an example of the right trying to silence the left.

I see the Republicans trashing the 4th amendment (right to privacy) with abominations like Patriot Act 1 & 2.
Agreed.

Nutshell: there is NO major political party sticking up for all of our constitutional rights. Not one.
Agreed. I think its best said that the two major political parties are like cars headed to the same bad destination. However the left/demos are going substantially faster than the right.
 
Oh, yeah--I forgot about the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments. I think those are the right ones--the ones about fair trials. The Bush administration is also trampling those for accused terrorists in the name of national security.
How so?

Oh, and welcome to THR! :)
 
As a Libertarian, I personally have no qualms with paying for roads and infrastructure that I use or am going to use. I have no problem with paying for a national defense. I have no problem with paying for local roads and national interstates.

What I have a problem with is that the federal government has no power to tax income as outlined in the constitution (see 10th amendment). That power is given to the states.

I do have a problem with others getting extra treatment just because of their sexual orientation or the color of their skin or their immigration status. I work for my money, and they can too. If they have more money at the end of a pay period than me by earning it, kudos to them. But if they got it from a handout which I paid a percentage of, then I have a problem with it. I dont believe in anyone starting out with extra rights over another. Just because I am a heterosexual caucasian male doesnt mean that I should be given less or more rights and equal treatment than a black homosexual female. If I want to marry a woman, I should have that right. If she wants to marry a female, its her right. The "far, far, far right" wants to get in everyone's bedroom and life. I say to hell with them and their desire for control over my life or anyone elses private life.

Monkeyleg's post adequately describes how I feel about a great many things.

As a Libertarian, a majority of Tam's post also describes how I feel.
 
With the some of the things my country's 'regime' is doing in the name of national security, I lament for America's future. Imprisonment of suspects without a trial. Asking postman to spy on neighbors. Sensoring & SteamRolling Dixie Chic CDs (remeber the book burnings?). Going unilateralism while shunning international opinions. To name the few. Terrorist threat is real, but we cannot let fear justify the injustice.

"Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!" Lord of Flies.
"BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU" Orwell, 1984.
 
Dr. Jones,

It is easy to offer caricature, but tougher to counter real arguments.

Taxes - complain away, but you try to find a better tax structure anywhere in the world. You want a first-world country with roads, Social Security, and a decent military, you gotta pay for it. And tell me what substantive changes you would make in the federal budget - it is not too easy and I bet you would be surprised how much we pay for debt service. And here we go with Bush putting us in the hole again.

Abortion - well, this is a thread locker, but I think the government has no right to tell women what they can do with their bodies. That is a pretty straightforward principal.

Speaking of 'colored people' getting unfair advantage - as if that were some kind of a real problem . Conservatives fought the repealing of Jim Crow laws and desegregation tooth and nail. If I were conservative I would be real proud of that. Sorry if we have given blacks one generation of relatively minor assistance geting integrated into the mainstream economy.

We could go in uninformed circles about whether Bush was intentionaly deceptive, but more to the point are the issues you did not raise:

- Freedom of the press is virtually exclusively defended by liberals.

- Conservatives have consistently tried to impose their religious beliefs through prayer in public schools and the teaching of 'creation science'. (Talk about spin - find the science in creation science)

- Conservatives think that the state government has a right to tell me what form of consensual adult sex I can have in my bedroom. Sorry, just because it is the state government rather than the federal does not mean it is not government oppression.

- Liberals are responsible for legislation protecting clean water and air. Conservatives have consistently fought to give protection to polluting industries.

- Police powers - liberal consistently fight to protect individuals from illegal use of police power, including warrantess searches and holding suspects without arresting them. You can also add electronic surveillance, since police are prohibited from tapping your phone without a warrant thanks to liberals.

I could go on, but you get the idea. If you look carefully at these positions you will find that they are based on reasonable premises and follow quite logically from those premises. If you want to make cogent arguments against these premises, fine. But you haven't yet. And, incidentally, finding the most outrageous position held by someone on either side of the spectrum does not refute the logic of any of these positions. Check your logic text - this is known as the 'straw man argument'.
 
With the some of the things my country's 'regime' is doing in the name of national security, I lament for America's future. Imprisonment of suspects without a trial. Asking postman to spy on neighbors. Sensoring & SteamRolling Dixie Chic CDs (remeber the book burnings?).
See! There's another problem with liberals!

1) The government sponsored the Chick-smashing sessions? Really? Actually, no. They didn't. As such, it is not infringing upon Amendment I. Sorry.

2) Liberals do not understand that the common folk have freedom of speech too. (Yes, really!) The chicks grossly offended the vast majority of their fanbase. Their fans (the common folk) are well within their RIGHTS to say anything they want about the chicks. (Don't know if death threats are covered under 1A, but you get my point...)

3) How is it "infringing" upon the 1A if someone says something stupid and another person reacts to that? If you call me a name, I'm well within my rights to call you every name in the book until I'm blue in the face, and NO, I'm not infringing upon your freedom of speech by doing so. Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from reaction to your words.

4) Unless the GOVERNMENT is somehow involved in INFRINGING upon the 1A (however no infringement was taking place at all with the chicks) then you can scream "1A." Until then, the sound of those CDs cracking is the sound of freedom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top