What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?

[gc70]

... 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.

There's one of the problems - defining the amount of health care.

My mother is 80. She would not go to the doctor very often if she had to pay the bill, but she will go for any ache or pain as long as the government is picking up the bill. And high-coverage insurance gives people the same inducement to use the health care system too often.

 

[Silver Bullet]

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?

Good one !

 

[No_Brakes23]

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.

So should we call the insurgents in Iraq that are butchering civilians "Freedom Fighters"? That is what they call themsleves, with just as much truth as when Ginny Burdick or Chuck Schumer call themselves "liberal." Maybe we should use Freedom as a dirty word, since "freedom fighters" cut people's heads off and plant IEDs, right?

Not letting Orwellian socialists get away with stealing a term of honor is not pendantic. But you can keep drinking the right wing kool-aid if you want. Ya know, these leftists call themselves liberals, but then they vote for the PatAct and try to ban music they don't like and video games they don't like, and cars they don't like, etc etc etc. Not liberal at all. Firearms liberties are not the only liberties that these so-called "liberals" are trying to restrict.

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."

Well, it is what you would call a libertarian. Personally I think over-suffixed terms like liberal-ism and libertar-ian are inane. If you support liberties over restrictions, you are in fact a liberal.

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.

+1 I had to evac from San Diego military housing in '03 because Cali is sthensthitive about the trees and doesn't practice controlled burns. In '93 I had to evac from UCI dorms in Orange County for the same thing. I consider myself pro-environment, but the anti-logging stuff is just nuts. I love how people will argue that logging companies are greedy and only care about money, and then suggest that they are stupid enough to cut all tress down, thereby giving up their income. No businessman I know thinks like that.

 

[hso]

BTW if you are wheelchair bound you might want to try kayaking.

You are talking about flat water aren't you?

 

[beerslurpy]

If you support liberties over restrictions, you are in fact a liberal.

You might want to try telling that to the people that call themselves liberals in this country. I had to move to a conservative southern state to taste liberty and low taxes for the first time.

Liberals in the 18th century were very pro-liberty. Liberals in the 21st century are socialists with a touch of liberty (but only where it doesnt interfere with your dependence on the government).

And you know what they say about socialism and liberty (they being FA Hayek):

Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker de Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said. "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man," he said in 1848, "while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

What is promised to us as the Road to Freedom is in fact the Highroad to Servitude. For it is not difficult to see what must be the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of planning. The goal of the planning will be described by some such vague term as "the general welfare." There will be no real agreement as to the ends to be attained, and the effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all.

Tell me, fellow lover of liberty, which group in this country has the strongest urge to meddle in business and the economy and to direct the wealth and actions of the citizenry? Was it liberals perhaps? Lately it has become "compassionate conservatives" but the socialist underpinnings are all the same and the biggest offenders are still the liberals in this country. We need to reject this mode of thinking no matter where it springs up.

 

[RealGun]

If one uses "liberal" as code for "I am a Democrat', they should stop doing that. If one uses "conservative" as code for "I am a Republican", they should stop doing that. The effective heart of both parties is moderate, and that's how they get elected. The polarity in the parties comes from the farther left or farther right. The parties become, in some cases, incorrectly identified by their fringe elements.

For example, the block of 22 leftist US Senators approach only half of the Democrat caucus, but who gets selected as or takes on the role of the attack dogs when there are cameras around?

I think "liberal" is most commonly used today as a pejorative. I think benEzra correctly pointed out that "leftist" would be the better term, reserving "liberal" as something honorable, certainly not unknown to moderate Republicans.

"Neocon" is equally a pejorative that doesn't deserve air time. Republicans are not obliged to be right wing conservatives. If they were, they wouldn't get elected.

 

[antsi]

Liberals are notoriously anti-gun, so I don't get what pro-gun liberal means and bet there would be a better label.

A pro-gun Liberal is a Liberal who is campaigning. Like Kerry's media event with the skeet shooters.

After the elections, it's back to business as usual.

 

[cracked butt]

Quote:
Quote:
What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?

Delusional.
It's posts such as this that go a long way to foster divisiveness among the ranks of gun-owners. That post is a truly pointless addition to this thread.

Where I grew up, in Michigan, among my family were two major groups, academics (father was a college prof) and auto workers (obviously, the major employers in my region) -- both of these groups could be considered "liberal" in the political sense as they consisted of a voting bloc that ran heavily Democrat. Yet, amazingly enough, gun-ownership was prevalent in both these groups and those in my family tended to support the 2nd Amendment as most here do ... One can support the RKBA to its fullest extent and still be otherwise politically or economically liberal.

Labels are a fact of life these days. I care not whether someone considers themselves a "liberal," "conservative," "libertarian" or "moonie" ... whatever. I just people based on their intellect, passion for life and convictions. If their convictions differ from mine, so be it. As long as they are consistent and display integrity in their life, I can usually get along with anyone.

Boy, am I seeing a lot of broad (and misleading) generalizations and stereotypes already in this thread ...

Believe what you might, but I said more in one word than you did in 4 paragraphs of rambling. There may be a few moderates and leftists that are progun at state levels, but when push comes to shove, the socialist money talks and 2A rights become disposable.

 

[RaySendero]

Whatever you guys want to call yourselves - There are not enough "pro-gun" Democrats to pass even one pro-gun law if only the democratic votes were counted! But they will sure vote to pass any and all gun control laws without regard to the 2A. Democrats look to change this perception (Kerry's hunting trip is a good example) but they have not shown any inclination to change their underlying values/views. Just check their party's platform on gun control from each of their election conventions!

 

[TallPine]

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.

My observation is that many of the road closures are due to the demand on the FS management to enact a "plan" ... so they close some roads and leave others open just to show Washington that they are doing something "meaningful"

 

[Helmetcase]

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.

What is it with people trying to tell others what they can and can't think? Talk about authoritarianism.

I am, by anyone's metric, a liberal. Look at my stance on just about any issue other than guns and you'd have no trouble figuring that out.

But I'm also pro-gun. Why? Because I believe my liberalism inherently necessitates individual choice and a love of personal freedoms. I also reject the notion that liberalism necessarily means not defending the self. It doesn't. I have no problem suggesting that Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer have liberalism wrong, and I have it right.

Once in a while I've been accused of being an anti-gun plant or spy in sheep's clothing. I spend a lot of timing blogging (www.progunprogressive.com) and lobbying in Annapolis for someone who doesn't really support the RKBA--so if you're thinking of suggesting I can't really be a CCW activist and gun enthusiast, you need to go sit under a tree and contemplate just how your mind got to be so myopic and narrow.

 

[gc70]

Most people want to be left alone and not have anyone else tell them how to live their lives.

The biggest difference I see in people is whether they mind their own business or feel compelled to tell other people what to do.

Here, in a discussion between gun enthusiasts, we have a fair number of people who sling around pergorative labels trying to shame others into conforming to their point of view. I'm not buying it; authoritarians, whether leftist or rightist, are enemies of freedom.

 

[BigG]

All the self-congratulatory backslapping by those who have on occasion consulted a dictionary is misplaced. Anybody can quote their Funk and Wagnalls till they're blue in the face. Notwithstanding, it doesn't take a genius to realize that "liberal," for better or worse, has been co-opted by the Left as their label of choice. No guy who does not subscribe to their baggage can in good conscience identify themselves with that label, imho.

I will continue to mistrust anybody who identifies themselves as such, even though I know the definition of classical liberal, which has been out of date only since about the time Karl Marx wrote his little book. :banghead:

 

[Kodiaz]

Good point we need a new label

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Most real leftists can't stand liberals.

 

[ID_shooting]

"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."

It is those "seasonal" closures that I refer to. These are forrest service gates that are locked every fall just before big game season startes. The land behind them is all puplic, no private land at all.

As for the last sentence, if I buy a 1/4 acre of land on a puplic road, I can gate it so I can keep thousands of acres to my self with out ever paying a dime, huh, I just might have to look into that. Where is your favorite hunting spot again?

Since everyone is so fond of google, how about googleing up how many acres of puplic land is accesible to the mobility impaired? and yes, wilderness is more than just land designated by fed law.

 

[Helmetcase]

No guy who does not subscribe to their baggage can in good conscience identify themselves with that label, imho.

I will continue to mistrust anybody who identifies themselves as such, even though I know the definition of classical liberal, which has been out of date only since about the time Karl Marx wrote his little book. :banghead:

...yawn...

Like I was saying, what's with all this baloney about telling people what the words they use to describe themselves really mean? This "you're not really a liberal" bullhockey is really getting tiresome.

I love it when conservatives pretend they know what liberalism "is really about", moreso than self-described guntoting libs like me. Funny.

 

[beerslurpy]

Sorry, we're basing our conception of what "liberal" means by what self proclaimed "liberal" politicians advocate and carry out in office and have since the 1930s. I know that may not be what YOU want liberal to mean, but it does to 95 percent of americans.

If you describe yourself as a liberal, people are going to assume you are big-government socialist because there is a huge, decades long overlap between big government socialism and liberalism.

 

[RealGun]

...yawn...
I love it when conservatives pretend they know what liberalism "is really about", moreso than self-described guntoting libs like me. Funny.

What's a conservative?

 

[Art Eatman]

Any more kayak stuff and I'll go back and delete all of it.

Art

 

[beerslurpy]

You advocate redestribution of wealth under the cover of compassionate social programs and control of industry and property under the cover of environmentalism. This makes you a socialist- a communist that doesnt have all the guns yet. Repeated political defeats have caused you to take the path of incrementalism, but you are no less evil than socialists that have revealed their plans in full.

The 2nd amendment ensures that those who would impose their will upon society by force will always be outnumbered by a populace largely armed and unsympathetic to their cause. This is why liberals-who-are-really-socialists oppose gun rights. It is the bedrock of the State Monopoly on Force that became so popular in the first half of the 20th century.

This is why "pro-gun liberals" are either:
-socialists who espouse incremental disarmament under the rubric of "sensible and safe gun ownership"
-political conservatives that dont feel comfortable in the republican party, but havent realized that the democratic party is bad in the same ways, only with different trimmings.

 

[beerslurpy]

Weird, I responded to you, but my post came out on top.

edit: somehow your post takes place 10 minutes in the future, methinks there is a bug

hey mods, helmetcase posted like 20-30 minutes ago but the post time is behind so all my replies come out before his/her post

 

[Helmetcase]

Sorry, we're basing our conception of what "liberal" means by what self proclaimed "liberal" politicians advocate and carry out in office and have since the 1930s. I know that may not be what YOU want liberal to mean, but it does to 95 percent of americans.

Your mistake is to assume that there's a hard and fast rubrick that 95% of people can agree on that encapsulates liberal; there are some tenets that some people think fall into liberalism, while others will reject them. There's no hard and fast set of beliefs or principles that you can lump everyone together with; think for a minute about all the self proclaimed conservatives here who back away as fast as they can from the religious right's whacky dogma. Is it fair for me to say "well you're not a real conservative?" Of course not. Same thing applies, whether you like it or not.

I'll be the first to admit that too many liberals let their belief in activist government rope them into anti-gun positions. Those are the liberals that I intend to confront head on. I do believe govt, applied properly, can be a force for good works in society--but I even more firmly believe in individual liberties.

If you describe yourself as a liberal, people are going to assume you are big-government socialist because there is a huge, decades long overlap between big government socialism and liberalism.

Socialism is the most overused word in politics, save for terrorism. It's like Inigo Montoya: "you keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[Dannyboy]

Socialism is the most overused word in politics, save for terrorism. It's like Inigo Montoya: "you keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means."

Thank you! I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way. At least with terrorism(ist), people tend to be somewhat more accurate.

 

[wallysparx]

oh boy, a whole can of worms opened up here. i believe that gay people should be able to get married; that undocumented immigrants are fundamental to our economic system and contribute more than they take out; that we should have a nationalized healthcare system built on heavier taxation of the wealthy; that illegal drugs should be decriminalized; that it would be great if we were forced out of iraq and finally ate some humble pie; it's great that leftist politicans have been gaining ground all over South and Central America; and that the Holy Qur'an is God's final revelation to his creations.

oh, and did i mention I'm from California?

but nonetheless i love my guns and i love shooting. and should anyone dare threaten my (or anyone else's) right to keep and bear arms, they can expect a fight.

call me what you will.