Nope that's immoral. Killing animals that is. You are supposed to pay someone else to do that for you.
NY Times: "The Rise of the Armed Left"
- Thread starter roscoe
- Start date
- Status
Nope that's immoral. Killing animals that is. You are supposed to pay someone else to do that for you.
I am a believer in capitalism, but there is no necessary relationship between an economic system and personal freedom. Sweden is far more socialist than the UK, but they have more individual freedoms. And the fascist governments of the 1930s (later the Axis) that killed 30-40 million in just a few years were explicitly NOT Marxist. So, yes, the Soviet Union and Mao's China killed lots of their own people, but there is a lot of killing and oppression in history that has nothing to do with Karl Marx. Today, oppressive governments can be socialistic (e.g. Venezuela, North Korea) or capitalistic (Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, Uzbekistan).
So some Americans want single-payer health care; that does not mean they want to oppress other Americans, nor are they necessarily in favor of gun control.
The right to defend yourself (and thus the tools to do it) is a universal human right. Just like all rights goverments seek to restrict them because it makes the people easier to control. The first stage is brainwashing the people into supporting you as you usurp these rights.
Speedo66
Member
As we've read in this thread, and as I see in person, gun ownership is not limited to one political ideal or another. I personally do not feel I'm boxed in to one party or direction, I'm liberal on some things, conservative on others.
It seems it's only our politicians who feel they have to suck up to whoever is providing them money at the time and take a hard, immovable line, much to the detriment of any working relationship with the other side. They've managed to bring our gov't practically to a standstill.
If people on a traditionally anti gun side of the political spectrum wish to invest in guns and training, I'm all for it. Their leaders can learn a lot from them. Having lived and worked almost all of my life in NYC and socialized at times with rabid liberals, folks who would prefer to be killed rather than touch a weapon, I for one am glad to see people willing to take it upon themselves to provide for their own protection, whatever the threat.
It seems it's only our politicians who feel they have to suck up to whoever is providing them money at the time and take a hard, immovable line, much to the detriment of any working relationship with the other side. They've managed to bring our gov't practically to a standstill.
If people on a traditionally anti gun side of the political spectrum wish to invest in guns and training, I'm all for it. Their leaders can learn a lot from them. Having lived and worked almost all of my life in NYC and socialized at times with rabid liberals, folks who would prefer to be killed rather than touch a weapon, I for one am glad to see people willing to take it upon themselves to provide for their own protection, whatever the threat.
Ironicaintit
Member
I support the rights of people to be able to arm themselves as they see fit. Even those with whom I may disagree on a whole slew of issues.
I think a "classic liberal" these days can probably call themselves a libertarian. (small "L") thats the pigeonhole I fit into
I think a "classic liberal" these days can probably call themselves a libertarian. (small "L") thats the pigeonhole I fit into
If you want to keep and bear arms you are "boxed" into voting for Republicans. By doing so youf're saying no to heathcare reform, protection of enviroment,.....yes to building needless boarder wall,.....
Speedo66
Member
I vote my conscience. Although I enjoy guns, they are not necessarily the most important things in my life.
TomJ
Contributing Member
I don't want to veer too far into politics, as I don't want this shut down. You'll notice I used the word often, not all or every. While there may be some countries with some socialist policies who are not oppressive, in recent history I don't know of a political system that has caused more death and misery than communism and socialism. There is a percentage of those on the far left who have been unable to force this on us at the ballot box and are now using violence and intimidation to do so. To claim, as the article does, that they're arming themselves due to threats from the right is nonsense.
Of course some one who wants a single payer health care system is not necessarily going to force the issue at gun point. That does not excuse the actions of those that are using violence. The fact that there are governments that are not communist/socialist that are oppressive does not excuse the actions of those who are. You can have bad actors with different beliefs.
WestKentucky
Member
To the point of people feeling a need for protection, and arming themselves to protect themselves, I would say that there are many more categories of people than there are groups of people. Battered women, people who have been threatened, “minorities” in the communities they are in... the extreme ideological groups, or the extreme self centered groups often do not even intend to do well and arm themselves more for offense than defense typically. When they legitimately arm up for defense, they usually need it.
entropy
Member
“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people.”
George Mason, Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention-1788
Yeah, 100 years ago, maybe. Most people under 40 think food is manufactured in plants. Your premise is the basis of the Fudd school of thought. It might seem good, but the last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.
ewlyon
Member
not to hijack but does anyone know the model of the bottom rifle on the middle rack in the picture?
jar
Contributing Member
Or it might mean back-ground checks and other "common-sense" gun control ideas.
Bruce D Pease
Member
Personally I know people on both sides of the political spectrum who are gun owners and enjoy the shooting sports. I have taught a few who are extremely liberal about guns and how to safely handle and shoot them. I also know people who have their minds made up that if it’s a gun (any gun) it is a slavering weapon of mass destruction just looking for innocent lives to take. These people look at you as if you have two or more heads when you try to explain gun ownership and/or the second amendment to them. When you explain semi-automatic all they hear is the word automatic. So, even though they believe I’m demented for being a gun owner and a concealed carrier, I still keep trying to fight for the 2A. I feel that is the most important one as it keeps the government in check, otherwise all of it is subject to the whims ( or pen and phone) of which ever kook, from either side, wants to set parts of the Constitution aside. We all should resist this with every fibe of our being. That’s my 4 cents worth(I rambled)
Good Ol' Boy
Member
This is problem with the line of thinking with those that claim to be both pro gun and liberal.
They're not the most important things in your life until your life depends on them.
You show me a liberal that cares more about guns than healthcare, taxes, immigration or legalized pot and I'll sell you some beach front property in Arizona.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
It's better that some imbeciles of the far left and far right be legally armed than to disarm EVERYONE in a futile attempt to disarm them. In the end, they will still be armed and everyone else disarmed and at their mercy.
Anyone who thinks that someone committed to imposing by force, a totalitarian regime of the right or left will be bound by gun control laws, is by definition a fool.
Anyone who thinks that someone committed to imposing by force, a totalitarian regime of the right or left will be bound by gun control laws, is by definition a fool.
Deanimator
Member
I'm a liberal. We have long since stopped dealing with "liberals". We're now seeing full blown Leninist and Maoist totalitarians, bent on absolute power by any means necessary.
LRDGCO
member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2018
- Messages
- 689
I am not an attorney, Constitutional scholar, nor have I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
My understanding is that there is the militia as referenced in the Second Amendment and other parts of the Constitution, which are all adults 18 - 45 who could be, via the Selective Service or other means, called up or otherwise embodied to defend the nation. There are also militias embodied by the states, and the National Guard, although when we have NG units that have deployed seven times to Afghanistan, how we can call them a "militia" is beyond my understanding.
An unauthorized militia would therefore be one that is not authorized or regulated by a power under law to do so. My understanding is that unauthorized militia can and have been found to be in violation of federal and state laws.
So, a group that is selected and maintained on the basis of allegiance to a particular political ideology and that has not been duly embodied or somehow chartered by an authorized government entity, such as the Socialist Rifle Association, would seem to be an unauthorized militia. And I wonder why while those chaps in Oregon were clapped in irons, our working class Math Professor and his comrades in GA are not?
Trunk Monkey
member
No
jar
Contributing Member
As a Conservative I find it strange that anyone anyone would care more about guns than about healthcare, immigration or decriminalizing drugs. Not all Conservatives have the same set of priorities.
RecoilRob
Member
This comment made me laugh...because around here it was very true! A gun dealer I used to frequent was prominent in the Militia Movement and he said it was hilarious going to meetings and seeing about 6 actual members with the other 20+ being various Gov Agencies all there looking suspiciously at everyone else. They all took pictures of every license plate in the parking lot and he was sure they were surveilling him. Funny enough a short time later the BATF closed him down for various 'infractions' including the heinous 'missing apostrophe' on 4473 form. Nit picking to the max and he couldn't afford to fight them...so he quit.
Clinton was paranoid as all get out about the Militias and he had pretty good reason to be...the things he was doing could have started something pretty terrible if they hadn't impeached him which seemed to curb some of his activities.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,079
I personally know a lot of liberals that own guns and they have for years. Not just because they felt endangered recently, but because they enjoy hunting or the shooting sports. It's not really that rare or new. As a gun enthusiast, I have no problem with other folks owning firearms, regardless of their political affiliation, religious beliefs or ethnicity, as long as they are responsible and safe, and are not legally prohibited. Don't know why or how any other firearm enthusiast would feel differently.
- Status
