What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?

[gc70]

Broad labels like "liberal" and "conservative" have been hijacked by the political parties to generalize thought and try to channel people into choosing between the two main political parties. Each party tries to use a positive label for their party (i.e. the recent Democratic rebranding from "liberal" to "progressive") and a negative label for the other (i.e. the Demcratic effort to plaster the Republicans with "neo-con").

Except for the wackos at the ends of the spectrum, people are far too complex to be categorized into only two camps. Unfortunately, when we exercise our democratic right to vote, we often have only the two polarized choices - bad and worse.

My self-adopted label is "personal freedom and responsibility" - pigeon-hole me wherever you think that falls in the political spectrum.

 

[Fly320s]

When people ask me that question, here's how I answer:

...I'm a liberal because I believe that health care is a right that every citizen should have. We've got a lot of smart people in this country, and i'd like to find a way to give every CITIZEN of the US health care, without falling into the socialist traps of countries like Canada.

So, by that same logic, you'd like to find a way to give every citizen of this country a firearm, since that is a right, right?

I'm with ya, buddy. Now, who's going to pay the costs?

 

[Manedwolf]

Using the term "liberal", when meaning something distinctly different than modern usage, is poor communication. In practical terms, I think liberal really means not letting a Constitution stand in your way or using that Constitution selectively to support only the parts you like. That pretty precisely defines ACLU. Those who want to promote an archaic definition of liberal would rather be pedantic than well understood.

Fine. Then "Conservative" shall henceforth mean those who support uncontrolled deficit spending, unsecured borders, big, no, HUGE government with exponentially increasing bureacracy, and those who support more and more and more laws, regulations, and restrictions for the populace.

It's not the original definition or intent by any means, but since that's what I see people who label themselves CONSERVATIVE politicans doing, that's what the word must really mean!

Happy?

 

[Manedwolf]

Tax reduction shrinks government. Tax increases enlarge the government. Which party just reduced taxes, and which party wants to raise them ?

Tax reductions only shrink government when those taxes weren't required to pay the bills.

What we have now is a case of expanding government AND tax cuts at the same time, which is why the deficit is spiralling out of control!

 

[xd9fan]

I'm a liberal because I believe that health care is a right that every citizen should have. We've got a lot of smart people in this country, and i'd like to find a way to give every CITIZEN of the US health care, without falling into the socialist traps of countries like Canada.

I wish others would try and think a bit more freely.

As a professional in the healthcare field I would just love for you to tell me how this would work. Because I think healthcare IS NOT a "Right". Soon your thinking will turn SAFETY into a "right". and "risk in life" something that the Govt should prevent .....at all costs requardless of liberty.

American healthcare is in this grey area. We want/demand capitalist innovations and new healthcare Technology ..but think we can get thier via socialist Govt control. In other words we have a half-ass socialist system but we want free market/capitalist outcomes. And we think more Govt is the answer. Tell me how in a socialist system you will atract the best medical talent (knowing they spend 15+ years in school learning thier craft) when everybody knows that socialist systems will not reward/pay them for thier worth???

Tell how making healthcare a "Right" (which by the way violates every meaning of that word) will not grow this Govt and not turn healthcare into just another socialist system??? There are only two choices....the free market and the Govt. Right now we have an unworkable mix.

Because patients/consumers have no cule what things cost in healthcare. Third parties get in the way and drive up costs of mediacl products.
My wife just got some stockings to help increase venous return from her legs. (she pregnant) the "this is not a bill" letter put the cost of these stocking at $300 ( an ipod is cheaper)
There is NO way God's Green earth that those stocking should cost that much, and in a free market healthcare system we would shop around to make damn sure we didnt pay that price.

Carefull in wishing others to think a bit more freely. Socialismn is NOT free... its damn expensive.

 

[beerslurpy]

It is a highly misleading term because a "classical liberal" is really what would today be called a libertarian. Today they would be called "right wing extremists with guns."

A modern "liberal"/"progressive" is really more of an authoritarian socialist. They are socially permissive in the sense that anything that doesnt threaten or contradict their ideology is permitted.

Can you be a pro-gun liberal? No, not in the modern sense of the word "gun" or "liberal". Individual ownership of firearms is anathema to the socialist authoritarian, because it raises the transactional cost of controlling wealth. Anyone who calls themself a "liberal" and "pro-gun" is either mistaken or lying.

 

[beerslurpy]

Also, "neo-conservatives" are not conservatives, they are socialist hawks. They are collectivists who espouse an aggressive foreign policy. This is unfortunate, because socialism's best friend is wartime centralization of power.

They are not conservatives because they embrace big government, the welfare state and redistribution of wealth. One cannot do that and still be conservative.

Dont you get it? Bush is a socialist!

 

[beerslurpy]

What I mean by pro gun liberal.

1. I couldn't care less how many abortions there are.

Me neither. You definitely arent a christian fundamentalist.

2. I like being outdoors so I absolutely hate pollution. I am a tree hugger.

How do you propose to prevent pollution? Your approach will determine your ideology.

3. I want the govt. to leave me alone. The only way that will happen is if govt. is as small as possible.

Ok, now youre definitely heading in a libertarian direction. But remember that businesses want to be left alone too. They bear a far heavier burden of government intrusion than you do. Try and run a business someday. Better yet, a "medical device" business. You will have 30 different flavors of government inspector crawling up your ass.

4. I want corporations to leave me alone as well.

As long as congress has the power to affect business, businesses will lobby congress to get policies made to favor them. The problem is the New Deal era court decisions that expanded the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses to virtually unlimited scope. Your intrusive corporations are a result of that power being diverted by influentual constituents.

To summarize, I think you are partly libertarian and partly confused. You arent socially conservative, but you havent yet caught on that most political conservatives arent necesarily socially conservative. The problems you are complaining about today are the indirect result of structural changes in government introduced by previous generations of socialists/liberals that have subsequently degenerated into a pile of corruption.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Tax reductions only shrink government when those taxes weren't required to pay the bills.

In the long run reduced taxes means reduced government.

Going the other way, if the Dems get in and increase taxes, do you think 100% of those taxes are going to be used to pay down the debt ? Not likely; some of it will be used to enlarge the bureaucracy.

 

[Kodiaz]

Beer I don't know how to prevent pollution. There just isn't an easy answer. I can't even define it. The full out greenies would say the lead in our bullets is pollution. Therefore shooting ranges are polluters.

Telling some one to put a million dollare widget in their factory by making a law isn't right. Man I live in Fl if you like to fish imagine this. You have a great spot you always catch always. Then they start dumping the water out of Lake Okeechobee I fish from a kayak and I won't even paddle there anymore the water looks like chocolate milk.


The lake gets kept high for Big sugar. Their phosphate filled water causes a million problems. But also up river from Lake O(Lake Okeechobee) there is also lots of farming and cows. So if you don't dump water from Lake O it over flows if you send the water south you poison the everglades. You can't tell the farmers north of the lake not to farm. So how do you stop polluting the lake which by extension pollutes the intracoastal which dumps into the ocean on the east side and the gulf on the west side.

I wish I knew but making more laws and suing people both suck.


And your right king jorge is a socialist the problem is that most of the major party candidates are also socialists.

 

[beerslurpy]

If companies are polluting, anyone harmed by it has standing to sue. This is the sort of thing our court systems were built for. The problem is when the pollution causes harm to populations without standing such as manatees or grouper. But that is what state law is for. The government of Florida has authority (10th amendment) to protect wildlife and regulate uninhabited areas. As such, shooting bears, panthers, gators and manatees (and a few other species) are felonies. I would imagine that the reach of state law is bounded by the 14th amendment and probably by the state constitution.

The problem with environmentalism is not that the environment isnt worth protecting, it is that environmentalism is used as a vehicle for attacking the concept of private property. See U. S. v. Rapanos (originally denied and recently granted certiorari by the SCOTUS) for an excellent example of using "protection of wetlands" as a vehicle to take money and property from people on the weakest of pretenses.

The fault with this lies in the New Deal supreme court cases that redefined certain areas of the constitution to become unlimited grants of power.

 

[beerslurpy]

In the long run reduced taxes means reduced government.

Going the other way, if the Dems get in and increase taxes, do you think 100% of those taxes are going to be used to pay down the debt ? Not likely; some of it will be used to enlarge the bureaucracy.

We have a winner.

If you overfeed a fat man, he isnt going to exercise more.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Kodiaz,

That is just it, There is no middle ground. The forces pushing for wilderness designation want to do just that, no roads, no vehicles, no machines of any kind. The other side want open development and logging. I want niether, I want to enjoy the forrest, but I also realize that for EVERYONE to enjoy it, there will have to be some access.

I hope this isn't a big source of worry for you. Very, very little of the remaining public wild land is even eligible for designation as wilderness. There are many thousands of road on public lands, and most of those that have hunting potential are accessible by road.

I would put it back on you: Can't we have any of the remaining roadless land left that way so that those who want to get away from the crowds can do so? My 12-mile backpack days in steep ground are probably behind me, but I like the idea that some places like that are left so my kids (and their kids when that time comes) can have the experience.

 

[progunner1957]

What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?

I would say it's like a whore masquerading in a Nun's habit - remember Kerry in the duckhunter costume?

 

[TallPine]

The other side want open development and logging.

I guess I don't understand some folk's phobia about logging ... it borders on the same insanity as hoplophobia. The alternative to logging is disastrous wildfires, since our modern fire suppresion practices have built up an overload of fuel in the forests. Logging/wildfires are related in the same manner as hunting/predators. A well managed forest is better for all concerned: wood products are supplied to the consumers rather than going up in smoke; the woods are more accessible for recreation; and wildlife habitat is enhanced.

Most of us in MT know that if you want to see or hunt game, the best places are clearcuts and thinned areas. Plus the logging roads make great access (unfortunately many are gated off now ). Up in the Little Belt Mts, the FS has been fixing up trails for ATV/hiking/horse usage.

I myself have 40 acres of mixed forest and grass. I have two choices: I can either keep it thinned out and hope a wildfire just burns through on the ground and leaves the trees alive, or I can leave it "natural" and watch it all burn up someday, leaving it barren for at least a generation.

 

[Kodiaz]

Malone there are places that are not road accessible. You have to get to them by boat. The everglades trail is a boat only trail there are chickees(platforms above the water wheer you can pitch your tent and sleep) You can set up a 10 day paddle and go 100 and some odd miles without seeing a road. Granted roads thru the everglades are easier said than done.

 

[ID_shooting]

I would have no trouble with logging provided it was not clear cutting. Selective cutting is fine.

I only speak for Idaho here, but we allready have 1/3 of the state locked up in a roadless wilderness, there is no reason to claim the Whiteclouds and Sawtooths as well. They are also going after the Owyhees. Next it will be the Boise and Payette area, much of that is allready closed off to ATV access.

I am not talking about paving the whole thing, just allowing access on the exsisting roads. Heck, it would give rangers somthing to by ensuring people stayed on trials.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

I see Mr V. And Kodiaz describe themselves as pro-gun liberal, and I wonder what they mean, betting that it is far from simple. It might also be misplaced, even schizophrenic. I would think one would need to do more than enjoy guns and want to ward off laws that interfere with that enjoyment.

It's possible. It's like the idea of a pro-freedom liberal. That's sort of what I am. What does that mean?

A lot of liberals have a vision of a perfect world that would look (very approximately) like this:

• People are tolerant of other people, regardless of race, religion, etc
• Disputes (personal disputes, international disputes, etc) are resolved peacefully
• The environment is protected
• No one goes without food, basic medical care or basic education
• Workers are protected from exploitive, unsafe work conditions or work agreements
• Etc

That sounds pretty good to me! The problem is that deep down inside most liberals believe that this can only be achieved with an authoritarian state. This authoritarian state is needed to forcefully redistribute wealth, crush religious expression, etc. I have seen what authoritarianism can achieve, and it rarely results in any of the above worthy goals. That's why I'm libertarian; I think that the free market is the best shot we have at achieving those things.

But that's why there can be pro-gun liberals. They may want the same liberal goals but have a bit more realistic view that authoritarianism doesn't get there.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

(deleted)

 

[RealGun]

Fine. Then "Conservative" shall henceforth mean those who support uncontrolled deficit spending, unsecured borders, big, no, HUGE government with exponentially increasing bureacracy, and those who support more and more and more laws, regulations, and restrictions for the populace.

It's not the original definition or intent by any means, but since that's what I see people who label themselves CONSERVATIVE politicans doing, that's what the word must really mean!

Happy?

The administration, with which you seem so angry, certainly frustrated, is and always was moderate, not conservative. Those who win elections are essentially moderate, only leaning left or right. The term "conservative" is lately only applied when referring to the new found pandering to church people and in many cases is just a code word for anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro mentioning God and prayer at every opportunity. We saw the signs in the recent Supreme Court nomination hearings and floor debate. What were the questions? What were the issues?

The GOP is certainly not now defined by the secular right, classical conservatives. Get over it. If they were, they would not be a viable party and would certainly not have achieved the level of dominance they now enjoy.

 

[afasano]

Broad labels like "liberal" and "conservative" have been hijacked by the political parties to generalize thought and try to channel people into choosing between the two main political parties. Each party tries to use a positive label for their party (i.e. the recent Democratic rebranding from "liberal" to "progressive") and a negative label for the other (i.e. the Demcratic effort to plaster the Republicans with "neo-con").

Except for the wackos at the ends of the spectrum, people are far too complex to be categorized into only two camps. Unfortunately, when we exercise our democratic right to vote, we often have only the two polarized choices - bad and worse.

My self-adopted label is "personal freedom and responsibility" - pigeon-hole me wherever you think that falls in the political spectrum.

It means your liberal but your're pro-gun instead of a usual liberal anti-gun bigot. At least that what the token spokepersons in the media press room say.

 

[Derby FALs]

Tax reduction shrinks government. Tax increases enlarge the government. Which party just reduced taxes, and which party wants to raise them ?

You have got to be kidding. :banghead:

 

[Nitrogen]

As a professional in the healthcare field I would just love for you to tell me how this would work. Because I think healthcare IS NOT a "Right". Soon your thinking will turn SAFETY into a "right". and "risk in life" something that the Govt should prevent .....at all costs requardless of liberty.

See, I realise it's expensive, and you know what? I admit I don't know how to pay for it. But I DO THINK some amount of health care should be a right.
It is for older people, whose cost of care is much much higher than most people. I would love to figure out a way to try and make it work, and have it not break the bank to do it.

As a liberal, I believe in a lot of the things Jesus taught (and i'm not even a Christian, i'm Jewish) about taking care of the less fortunate among us.
(I don't believe we should subsudise the lazy though.)

You're also twisting my words and my ideals around. If you read my whole post, Liberty is the #1 thing I want to preserve. "All 10 amendments in the bill of rights" etc.

So many people want to say "Liberals" want to take their rights away. Anyone that wants to take your rights away isn't a liberal, they are Radicals.

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Spectrum.html

I'm at the center left of this spectrum; as where all people I'd call Liberals should be.
The people accuesd of being "liberals" by today's "fox news crowd" are down toward the bottom of this chart.
The reason I like this chart is it shows how both sides of the political spectrum can end up toward the same ends if they arent careful.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I only speak for Idaho here, but we allready have 1/3 of the state locked up in a roadless wilderness, there is no reason to claim the Whiteclouds and Sawtooths as well. They are also going after the Owyhees. Next it will be the Boise and Payette area, much of that is allready closed off to ATV access.

Google is a wonderful thing:
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=feature0405

Currently, 7 percent of Idaho's 52 million acres is protected as congressionally designated wilderness.

Now, we may just have a little semantic difference going as to the definition of wilderness. Not all roadless land is considered wilderness. The rest is roadless due to the circumstances of it's history. Usually because roads are impractical.

I am not talking about paving the whole thing, just allowing access on the exsisting roads.

the locked gates you talked about are another issue. Lots of roads are closed seasonally to prevent resource damage. Sometimes roads are locked to keep access out of active timber sales. Most often, they are locked because there is a parcel or two of private land down the road.

Sometimes, you'll see a locked gate on a spur road leading to a wilderness trailhead. That's because the agency is trying to keep people from parking too close to the wilderness boundary, or trespassing. Sometimes the best place to put a gate is not on the boundary for strategic reasons.

 

[gc70]

It means your liberal but your're pro-gun instead of a usual liberal anti-gun bigot. At least that what the token spokepersons in the media press room say.

Thank you! I really would hate for anyone to think that I was a "usual" bigot... of any sort.