Ridge
Member
Thank you dmallind
"Liberals" and guns - stand up!
- Thread starter dmallind
- Start date
- Status
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
I think of myself as a true liberal - not the wishy-washy stereotype of today.
If the dems dropped gun control and "wealth redistribution", they'd have my vote.
For now, I vote libertarian.
If the dems dropped gun control and "wealth redistribution", they'd have my vote.
For now, I vote libertarian.
RaggedClaws
Member
Well said!
We've had this discussion before, by the way:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=109535
I've been termed a liberal, a moderate, and even a conservative by various people at various times, though my views in each instance were consistent.
It does bother me how the term "liberal" has been co-opted to refer to extreme left-wing socialists, communists, and anarchists, and even in some instances to refer to right-wing fascists and authoritarians.
The labels don't actually mean much anymore.
B
boofus
Guest
Kerry, Boxer, Schumer, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Feinstein, McCarthy, Lee, Waters, Jackson, Sharpton, Kucinich are gun grabbers.
Dave considers the aforementioned paragons of integrity and will toss his vote their way.
Who the hell cares whether Dave is a grabber or not, he enables others to do the grabbing and therefore earns my disdain.
No liberal or conservative labels in my argument.
As horrible as some Republicans behave, NO Democrat will ever receive my vote until they personally write me a check for $8000 to reimburse me for the money their gungrabbing schemes have screwed me out of that I could be using for healthcare, AIDS research, buying a more fuel efficient car, more gun goodies, or whatever.
RangerHAAF
Member
In my personal experience, most liberals are anti-gun and a lot of us on this board are single-issue NRA/RKBA voters. What do you expect? I know and understand that there are good pro-RKBA Democrats who consider themselves liberals and I respect their opinions but just as the "kill the infidels" faction of Muslims dominate TV and the media, the same goes for the anti-gun faction of liberal Democrats. They are front and center setting the image that is in the mind of the average American voter and until the liberal gun owning, pro-RKBA people stand up, denounce and toss overboard those rascals who are giving everyone a bad name, gun owning voters cannot and will not make a distinction. Which is a shame because some good ideas are being stifled.
You still haven't answered this point:
I'll add that most people who vote for their guns, use the gun issue as a weathervane: if someone is anti-RKBA, then they're anti-freedom, and they don't deserve a vote, it's not just about "guns".
And if there are so many pro-RKBA liberals as you claim, why has their party become the driving force behind civilian disarmament?
I'll add that most people who vote for their guns, use the gun issue as a weathervane: if someone is anti-RKBA, then they're anti-freedom, and they don't deserve a vote, it's not just about "guns".
And if there are so many pro-RKBA liberals as you claim, why has their party become the driving force behind civilian disarmament?
2nd Amendment
member
As usual: There are no liberals in any position of power today. The Founders were liberals and there are none like them today.
The Dem leadership and the party faithful are Leftists. They tend towards the socialist economically and politically, while favoring any new scheme socially, so long as it in some way defies or insults established and functional existing society. The Followers generally don't even know what the Dem Party really endorses, don't know anything about global politics and only care that the Dem policies "feel" good. They are neither left nor right in reality.
Those few who support the 2A and establish some balance to their social views are probably as close as we have today to the group type the Founders came from. As such they may kid themselves they have a place in the Dem Party but they don't. What they really need is to either take that party back over by whatever means, or abandon it it completely and start anew.
Continuing to lend it credibility by their presence only hurts the rest of us, as well as themselves.
The Dem leadership and the party faithful are Leftists. They tend towards the socialist economically and politically, while favoring any new scheme socially, so long as it in some way defies or insults established and functional existing society. The Followers generally don't even know what the Dem Party really endorses, don't know anything about global politics and only care that the Dem policies "feel" good. They are neither left nor right in reality.
Those few who support the 2A and establish some balance to their social views are probably as close as we have today to the group type the Founders came from. As such they may kid themselves they have a place in the Dem Party but they don't. What they really need is to either take that party back over by whatever means, or abandon it it completely and start anew.
Continuing to lend it credibility by their presence only hurts the rest of us, as well as themselves.
StrikeFire83
Member
I voted for Kerry and I am vehemently pro gun.
If I were to go back in time, I wouldn't do it again. I've spent a lot of time on the NRA website and it turns out he voted FOR the assault weapons ban, which is one of the most ridiculous laws ever to come out of Washington.
I agree with the members of the Democratic party on some issues: legal homosexual civil unions, a government health care option, religion being KEPT OUT of government and schools, etc.
I disagree with members of the Democratic party on other issues: Affirmative action, bilingual education, Immigration policy, etc.
Gun Rights are a key issue for me, I don’t really think there is a party out there that represents my varied viewpoints. Depending on the presidential candidates fielded in 2008, I may vote solely with my guns in mind. But I don’t see Bush as being as seriously pro gun as the NRA makes him out to be. He’s never actually come out and said unequivocally that he’s AGAINST the assault weapons ban, and even hinted that he is in favor of it.
If I were to go back in time, I wouldn't do it again. I've spent a lot of time on the NRA website and it turns out he voted FOR the assault weapons ban, which is one of the most ridiculous laws ever to come out of Washington.
I agree with the members of the Democratic party on some issues: legal homosexual civil unions, a government health care option, religion being KEPT OUT of government and schools, etc.
I disagree with members of the Democratic party on other issues: Affirmative action, bilingual education, Immigration policy, etc.
Gun Rights are a key issue for me, I don’t really think there is a party out there that represents my varied viewpoints. Depending on the presidential candidates fielded in 2008, I may vote solely with my guns in mind. But I don’t see Bush as being as seriously pro gun as the NRA makes him out to be. He’s never actually come out and said unequivocally that he’s AGAINST the assault weapons ban, and even hinted that he is in favor of it.
StrikeFire83
Member
I don't have much faith that Bush's supreme court apointees would be any more pro-second amendment. The candidate for apointment would HAVE to state, bluntly, that they were in favor of the unmitigated right of non-criminal citizens to own and maintain firearms.
Most of Bush's apointees would use their power to suppress FREEDOMS such as the right to abort an unwanted fetus.
Here we go again, at the mere mention of liberal the stereotypes come out of the gates!
Yes, but JFK was President almost 50 years ago. I'd like to think we've progressed socially in that time. JFK also had charisma
Also Liberal != Democrat.
I am pro-gun, pro-gay marraige, I don't think taxes are always bad (Giving a tax refund when the country is in a record deficit is moronic. We should amend the consitution to say that the Federal Government can't pass a budget that puts the nation in debt aside from a time of Declared War), I would like to see some form of national health care and more funding going to higher education (Since costs are SKYROCKETING compared to many other places in the world). I am against the death penalty, and am pro-choice. I would like to see drugs and prostitution legalised/decriminalised ala the Netherlands.
I'm definately not a Republican, not quite Democrat or Libertarian.
I believe liberal is a label that fits me well.
I would like to see disparaging terms about "liberals" stop being used. It's a broad category. The Democrats have their fair share of pro-gun people and the Republicans have their fair share of anti-gun people. Why don't you call anti-gun people what they are, anti-gun instead of using a broad political label.
Yes, but JFK was President almost 50 years ago. I'd like to think we've progressed socially in that time. JFK also had charisma
Also Liberal != Democrat.
I am pro-gun, pro-gay marraige, I don't think taxes are always bad (Giving a tax refund when the country is in a record deficit is moronic. We should amend the consitution to say that the Federal Government can't pass a budget that puts the nation in debt aside from a time of Declared War), I would like to see some form of national health care and more funding going to higher education (Since costs are SKYROCKETING compared to many other places in the world). I am against the death penalty, and am pro-choice. I would like to see drugs and prostitution legalised/decriminalised ala the Netherlands.
I'm definately not a Republican, not quite Democrat or Libertarian.
I believe liberal is a label that fits me well.
I would like to see disparaging terms about "liberals" stop being used. It's a broad category. The Democrats have their fair share of pro-gun people and the Republicans have their fair share of anti-gun people. Why don't you call anti-gun people what they are, anti-gun instead of using a broad political label.
The thing is, you don't get to redefine words to please youself. The word "liberal" has been redefined to mean what it does today, which is distinctly authoritarian socialist. If you don't want people to use it in a disparaging way, you'll have to stop the people who call themselves "liberal" i.e. the democratic party, from using it, not by berating us from reacting to that use.
Rush Limbaugh and his ilk relabled it.
Also the Democrats are nowhere near being socialist (Which would be state control of the economy basically). Wanting to help poor people is not a socialist idea, it's called having a soul.
And these days, I don't know who is more authoritarian, the anti-gun part of the Democratic party or the bible thumping wing (Which seems to be taking over completely) of the Republican party with their anti-terror bull???? laws and TV indecency nonsense. Let's not get started on Terri Schiavo or the gay marriage thing.
Really the ONLY thing the Republicans do that I find useful is keeping my gun rights and even then the Republicans are starting to wane.
ThreadKiller
Member
For my money the gun control issue is the single best political litmus test available. If a candidate, regardless of party affiliation, believes or appears to believe that gun control is an effective means of crime control then I know straight away that he or she is either a fool or a liar. I will vote for neither.
I firmly believe the driving force behind so many anti gunners is not a fear of guns or even a desire to fight crime, it is their lack of faith in their fellow man that motivates them. I can not and will not support such blatant pessimism.
Fear the government that fears your guns.
Tim
I firmly believe the driving force behind so many anti gunners is not a fear of guns or even a desire to fight crime, it is their lack of faith in their fellow man that motivates them. I can not and will not support such blatant pessimism.
Fear the government that fears your guns.
Tim
ThreadKiller
Member
Helping your fellow man should be between a man and his maker. Not the government.
Where's my freedom of choice to choose who I lend a helping hand to?
That issue was shot down in all 11 states where it appeared on the ballot in the Nov '04 election. Even in states where Kerry won.
Tim
2nd Amendment
member
So Limbaugh has been on-air for 70 years or more? That is when the "re-labeling" commenced.
Perhaps you should actually read the Dem Party platform and the many statements of its leadership? And yes, "helping poor people" is socialist when the "help" takes the form of big centralized government stealing from one group to give to another(and lining its own pockets along the way).
As pathetic as the Repubs are they remain the only reason taxes aren't in the 70% range, private property is still at least marginally private and the US is still at least somewhat a sovereign nation. Meanwhile I am frankly not certain what useful thing it is the Dems do? Tax me? Demand that I not only accept social and moral conventions I find offensive but APPROVE of them as well? Pursue a Globalist Agenda I despise? Yes, those are some definite positives...
I've re-read the whole thread up to this point.
And I must say, I'm struck by something over and over.
Any time "liberals" see the term "liberal" being cussed and discussed, they predictably get all breathless about how the neanderthal, knuckle-dragging, racist right-wing red staters are so simple and ignorant as to not realize all the different and multiple definitions and flavors of liberals.
It's just like Mario Cuomo said, after all....Liberals write with fine quill pens whilst conservatives write with crayons.
Only liberals are nuanced and sophisticated enough to dodge and dance and justify how their specific individual beliefs allow them to be considered liberals, but not like all the other liberals out there.
And, of course, it's only those racist hillbilly red staters who are so simplistic and monolithic as totally explained by stereotypical labels like "ditto heads."
You see, stereotypes and labels are true only when they are politically correct and liberal-approved.
hillbilly
And I must say, I'm struck by something over and over.
Any time "liberals" see the term "liberal" being cussed and discussed, they predictably get all breathless about how the neanderthal, knuckle-dragging, racist right-wing red staters are so simple and ignorant as to not realize all the different and multiple definitions and flavors of liberals.
It's just like Mario Cuomo said, after all....Liberals write with fine quill pens whilst conservatives write with crayons.
Only liberals are nuanced and sophisticated enough to dodge and dance and justify how their specific individual beliefs allow them to be considered liberals, but not like all the other liberals out there.
And, of course, it's only those racist hillbilly red staters who are so simplistic and monolithic as totally explained by stereotypical labels like "ditto heads."
You see, stereotypes and labels are true only when they are politically correct and liberal-approved.
hillbilly
thorn726
Member
yeah sure buddy, and if you arent a member of my freedom for social justice party you are not anti freedom.
wow, only took like three posts for us to start getting bashed.
Democrat. liberal.
i still dont get it . conservative republicans want to take away all our freedom except guns, dems want to take away guns and make everything else legal.
the republican conservative agenda is anti poor, anti gay, anti just about everyting but religion.
it is just pathetic. if conservatives were as generous as they are supposed to be (given that they are usually religous) -we wouldnt need so much taxes.
its impossible to get most small minds to understand a simple concept=
if you made $1 million , you made it because large numbers of people drove on roads, used sewers, need police, medical , everything else.
morons can't figure out why we were stuck in the Dark Ages for hunderds of years?
the rich never gave one dime back to the poor, ever. finally the church sent the men to war, some of the money started trickling back down poor folks got a way to move up
basically i vote for the environment, and freedom. not religion, even though i am religous, the constitution i agree with- we dont force anything on anyone.
Bush and his $300 refund - thanks for nothing. i am paying 2x as much for ghas, roads cant be fixed cuz the govt is broke. smart move buddy.
anyone who looks at Bush previous record and really believes he is qualified to run this nation? how so many people can be so numb is beyond me.
my favorite line is this= (borrowed for ma comedian) "just how drunk did you have to be in 1976 to get arrested for drunk driving?"
thorn726
Member
i dont expect anyone who votes for bush to understand anyone who doesnt when it comes to world economics, the environment, or religion.
the real problem with govt and $$ is the waste, but reducing taxes with the same garbage distribution process is fixing nothing.
all you guy want to stop illegal immigration.
NONE of you want to pay for it.
sure, wh oyou hand out to should be between a man and his maker- until all these other men are helping you make it.
you all forget= if there was no road, you cant get to work.
if there are no cops, you may think you are some bad dude, but get real.
no cops= people would never sleep. it would be chaos.
you think you just went to work, earned money, and no one else had anything to d owith it, you didnt use a dime of taxes to get to work. traffic lights are a violation of your freedom, right?
mass transportation is a complete waste. get rid of it.
why do i even bother
did you all never hear of something called the industrial revolution???
heheh- i d really like to see where you conservatives would be working today without all the fighting back against unfair bosses.
the real problem with govt and $$ is the waste, but reducing taxes with the same garbage distribution process is fixing nothing.
all you guy want to stop illegal immigration.
NONE of you want to pay for it.
sure, wh oyou hand out to should be between a man and his maker- until all these other men are helping you make it.
you all forget= if there was no road, you cant get to work.
if there are no cops, you may think you are some bad dude, but get real.
no cops= people would never sleep. it would be chaos.
you think you just went to work, earned money, and no one else had anything to d owith it, you didnt use a dime of taxes to get to work. traffic lights are a violation of your freedom, right?
mass transportation is a complete waste. get rid of it.
why do i even bother
did you all never hear of something called the industrial revolution???
heheh- i d really like to see where you conservatives would be working today without all the fighting back against unfair bosses.
Just a couple of posts above, I wrote that stereotypes are true and valid only when they are politically correct and liberal approved.
Afterall, liberals are complex and nuanced whilst conservatives are knuckle-dragging racist hillbillies, etc. etc. etc.
Thank you, thorn726, for volunteering so quickly to serve as "Exhibit A" to go along with my post up there.
I can't even get crows to fly to my plastic owl and audio tape of owls and crows fighting that quickly.
hillbilly
Afterall, liberals are complex and nuanced whilst conservatives are knuckle-dragging racist hillbillies, etc. etc. etc.
Thank you, thorn726, for volunteering so quickly to serve as "Exhibit A" to go along with my post up there.
I can't even get crows to fly to my plastic owl and audio tape of owls and crows fighting that quickly.
hillbilly
thorn726
Member
guys , if youre gonna keep saying its nonsense, show me how and where.
i am mostly making generalizations, i know they are a bit off, but what specifically = lets take one point and debate it.
show me something here, cause all i ever see is republicans ripping me off.
$300 tax refund, less work, 2X for gas. thanks.
oh yeah, and invade my privacy, force religion on the nation.
i am mostly making generalizations, i know they are a bit off, but what specifically = lets take one point and debate it.
show me something here, cause all i ever see is republicans ripping me off.
$300 tax refund, less work, 2X for gas. thanks.
oh yeah, and invade my privacy, force religion on the nation.
2nd Amendment
member
Let's see, the Dems are after land rights and water rights and religious freedom and parental rights and non-approved "free speech" and small business and an almost endless list of other things but the Repubs want to take away everything because:
...they don't believe(supposedly) that Big Government has the right to redistribute income or demand everyone not merely accept but approve of social and moral items society normally finds abhorrent?
That's your argument, regardless of the amount of verbiage you used to say it. Well sorry, it just doesn't fly.
- Status