What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?

[dm1333]

Kodiaz, tarpleyg and manedwolf can have a beer at my place anytime they want.

I'm liberal and pro gun. And I am in the military. I even go to church. I don't push my beliefs on others, this is a free country after all. I'm also from a long line of stubborn, argumentative SOBs so bring it on!

You too Wallysparx! Just knock on my door. Here is my question to everyone who thinks you can't be pro gun and liberal. Oh forget it. Ignore this post.

 

[GoRon]

The problem with leftists,liberals and their big government republican brethren is this.

All of your social utopia ideas are enforced at the point of a gun.

If I don't want to participate in your tax schemes, if I don't want to ban smoking in my establishment, if I don't want to pay for your retirement or health care eventually guys with guns are coming for me.

Oh sure, first you will fine me, maybe send "hither swarms of officers to harass the people".

Eventually if I hold out long enough guys with guns under color of law will come and take me away.

The statist big G republicans are just as guilty as the progressive leftists. They just have different targets for their attention.

True conservatives believe in limited government and would garner most libertarians at any election.

True progressives believe government is the solution, not the problem.

I welcome pro gun progressives to the fight for our gun rights but could never give you a pass on your misguided view of the role of government.

 

[antsi]

that we should have a nationalized healthcare system built on heavier taxation of the wealthy.

The rest of what you said is arguable - reasonable people may differ.

But this one is a non-starter. First off, the math doesn't add up. There just aren't enough people that wealthy to confiscate enough money from them to accomplish what you want to do. Second, what you want to do doesn't address the real problem.

The primary problem of health care financing right now is the near-total insulation of users from costs. Think about anything where users are exposed to costs... like cars, for instance. If I know that my car is going to suffer major damage and need expensive repairs if I never change my oil, I'm going to change my oil. In the health arena, nobody pays for their own bypass or chemo, so they keep on smoking. Go on, Light Up. Under the Wally Sparx plan, Richie Rich is paying your health care bills so go ahead and smoke all you want. In cars, I make reasonable tradeoffs between price and value. For instance, I know it would be nice to have a Rolls Royce, but I recognize that a Honda is perfectly serviceable to meet my needs. In the health care arena, everybody wants a Rolls Royce.

Right now I have pregnant medicaid patients coming in for $2000 ER visits because they have a yeast infection that could have been treated for $25 in their clinic if they had bothered to show up for their appointment. People who are at least somewhat exposed to the costs of their actions don't act like that.

Your plan of magically financed unlimited Rolls-Royce health care for everyone is will do nothing but increase costs with no corresponding improvement in health, even if the numbers could be made to add up on the $ side.

 

[antsi]

I welcome pro gun progressives to the fight for our gun rights but could never give you a pass on your misguided view of the role of government.

I would agree with this - say, temporary truce whenever we are arguing gun rights - but as long as these people keep on voting for gun-grabbers like Kerry, Gore, Clinton et al, they're not really fighting on our side. They're giving lip service to our side, then voting against us because they've decided their social spending programs are more important than gun rights.

 

[RON in PA]

We don't need to pigeon-hole people into some political category, all we need are people who are pro-second amendment.

 

[beerslurpy]

I welcome attempts to steer democratic politicians in a more pro-gun direction, but I am deeply suspicious of attempts to subvert the gun rights movement and take it in a more "safe and sensible" direction.

 

[roscoe]

True progressives believe government is the solution, not the problem.

And conservatives believe government is the solution - to a whole other set of problems.

Don't like gays marrying? Outlaw gay marriage.
Don't like abortion? Outlaw it.
Don't like the teaching of evolution? Outlaw it.
Don't like flag burning? Outlaw it.
Don't like affirmative action in universities? Outlaw it.
Prefer 'security' (or 'law and order') to freedom? Legalize wiretaps and warrantless searches and arrest without conviction.

Don't tell me that conservatives are against government, they are FOR their type of governental power.

And for the record, it was Ronald Reagan who signed the Mulford Act, as governor of California, imposing strict gun control regulations on acquiring and bearing arms. He was afraid of the Black Panthers, you see.

 

[cz75bdneos22]

Do countries with Anti-gun/ no-guns laws have liberal and conservative factions within their political systems or is it a phenomena unique to the USA?

because if they do, guns are not the reason for their being. i think. what do i know, though..

 

[beerslurpy]

And conservatives believe government is the solution - to a whole other set of problems.

Don't like gays marrying? Outlaw gay marriage.
Don't like abortion? Outlaw it.
Don't like the teaching of evolution? Outlaw it.
Don't like flag burning? Outlaw it.
Don't like affirmative action in universities? Outlaw it.
Prefer 'security' (or 'law and order') to freedom? Legalize wiretaps and warrantless searches and arrest without conviction.

Don't tell me that conservatives are against government, they are FOR their type of governental power.

And for the record, it was Ronald Reagan who signed the Mulford Act, as governor of California, imposing strict gun control regulations on acquiring and bearing arms. He was afraid of the Black Panthers, you see.

Christian conservatives, neo-conservatives (puke), libertarians, paleo-conservatives etc all espouse different views on the matter and are all called right wingers/conservatives despite this.

Many conservatives are against big or even medium sized government. Remember the Contract with America? That was all about republicans getting elected on a small government platform. Which they have since abandoned, much to the displeasure of their base.

 

[antsi]

Don't like the teaching of evolution? Outlaw it.
.

Who, exactly, is trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution?

I mean, in the last 50 years, that is.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

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.

I understand how you feel, but unfortunately, in the Western US, October is the begining of the rainy season. Those roads are the major source of sediment to streams, and traffic in the wet season is one of the major causes of road erosion.

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?

No, if the road passes through the private land, there will usually be an easment. The gates usually are on roads to summer cabins or parcels where the road dead ends (spur road.)

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.

Agree that not all wilderness is designated. But I think most people will agree that if there's a road there it's not wilderness. It might still be good public wild land, but wilderness generally refers to land that hasn't been fundamentally altered by humans. A road is the biggest impact you can have on wild land.

 

[Byron Quick]

But I think most people will agree that if there's a road there it's not wilderness.

Malone,

Have you ever been to the Big Bend area of west Texas? The ecology has been changed by overgrazing, introduction of non-native plants (the few that lived), etc., it's still a wilderness. What passes for roads in hundreds of thousands of acres require a high riding four wheel drive vehicle. Even then, you'd best have plently of spare tires and water. Now I wouldn't call the area a virgin wilderness but even with the changes wrought by man, it's a wilderness. Then again, what passes for roads in much of Brewster County wouldn't be called roads by most folk.

 

[RealGun]

We don't need to pigeon-hole people into some political category, all we need are people who are pro-second amendment.

And who contribute and vote accordingly. If some other issue is somehow more important, then I suppose one might be pro-gun in the sense that they enjoy owning guns in a short sighted way, but they may not be pro-Second Amendment.

 

[RealGun]

And conservatives believe government is the solution - to a whole other set of problems.

Don't like gays marrying? Outlaw gay marriage.
Don't like abortion? Outlaw it.
Don't like the teaching of evolution? Outlaw it.
Don't like flag burning? Outlaw it.
Don't like affirmative action in universities? Outlaw it.
Prefer 'security' (or 'law and order') to freedom? Legalize wiretaps and warrantless searches and arrest without conviction.

Don't tell me that conservatives are against government, they are FOR their type of governental power.

And for the record, it was Ronald Reagan who signed the Mulford Act, as governor of California, imposing strict gun control regulations on acquiring and bearing arms. He was afraid of the Black Panthers, you see.

Your misuse of the term conservative goes to the heart of this thread. Liberal does not mean Democrat. Conservative does not mean Republican. You seem to use conservative as a pejorative in the same way that liberal is freqently if not usually used as a pejorative. Even those often targeted with the term liberal have chosen to now call themselves "progressives".

Conservative is far too broad a term to be inferred as necessarily applying to controlling church people. Secular conservatives more concerned about real government might object to being grouped with those for whom resolving social issues to their satisfaction is top priority.

 

[roscoe]

Remember the Contract with America?

Newt Gingerich was a supporter of laws against abortion, as well as a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT against gay marriage. The only thing he was really for was limited FUNDING for government.

Who, exactly, is trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution? I mean, in the last 50 years, that is.

"In 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 in favor of science education standards that contain no mention of biological macroevolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin and early development of the Universe."
Wikepedia

You wanna bet whether those six were liberal or conservative?

Your misuse of the term conservative goes to the heart of this thread.

I happen to agree - but with Newt Gingerich and Ralph Reed advocating "conservative values", we are stuck using that term to describe a group of political movements and influences. My point is that, as long as people on this board use the term "liberal" as a purely negative term, to describe a very narrow range of people, the way Standing Wolf does for example, that is where we are.

There should be other terms to describe people who support individual liberty, like libertarian, but that one has also been co-opted by Lyndon Larouche.

Labels are very powerful things. It would be better if people in general had more sophisticated grasps of the various axes if political thought: free-market v. socialism, libertatian v. authoritarian, etc., but they dont. Instead we are stuck with a bunch of uninformative labels.

If only Teddy Roosevelt were around - a pro-gun, pro-big-business, pro-government reform, pro-federal land, pro-affirmative action, pro-strong central government, nation-building, imperialist, killer of animals by the thousands, and enemy of big business trusts. Figure that one out.

 

[Camp David]

What I mean by pro gun liberal....
Show me when the self proclaimed conservatives have shrunken govt...

A bit of a thread drift, but an answer to your question:

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0613.xml
The integration of numerous federal agencies into a unified Homeland Security Department will, among other things, consolidate like reporting structures and shrink the federal footprint of domestic security agencies.

A couple others:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/co...59&P=XI&contentId=12920&contentType=GSA_BASIC
E-Travel Initiative has reduced OMB costs on federal travel, and in turn, staff and government oversight personnel on travel logistics.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0103/011503a1.htm
The consolidation of the federal payroll system; reduced payroll agencies from 22 to 4.

You might read what the current administration has proposed; heritage Foundation study report:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1840.cfm

This administration's efforts to shrink the federal government fail to get the press that they deserve. Bush's conservative credentials in this regard are on display.

btw... I have no idea what a "pro-gun liberal" is; never met one!

 

[RealGun]

If only Teddy Roosevelt were around - a pro-gun, pro-big-business, pro-government reform, pro-federal land, pro-affirmative action, pro-strong central government, nation-building, imperialist, killer of animals by the thousands, and enemy of big business trusts. Figure that one out.

You are aware that Teddy Roosevelt didn't get reelected? He lost to a Progressive (Wilson).

 

[Optical Serenity]

I there there are more liberals here on this board than conservatives...So you shouldn't be surprised to see anyone call themselves a pro-gun liberal.

 

[benEzra]

Do countries with Anti-gun/ no-guns laws have liberal and conservative factions within their political systems or is it a phenomena unique to the USA?

because if they do, guns are not the reason for their being. i think. what do i know, though..

The UK does, apparently. Margaret Thatcher (very conservative) was very anti-gun, as I recall.

Weren't the Conservatives the ones who banned all UK handguns after Dunblane?

Of course, there's not much libertarianism in the UK at all, on either end of the political spectrum.

Christian conservatives, neo-conservatives (puke), libertarians, paleo-conservatives etc all espouse different views on the matter and are all called right wingers/conservatives despite this.

The same could be said of "liberals."

Not all "liberals" are statists.

Regarding the gun issue, one could quote Ben Franklin that "If we do not all hang together, we shall surely all hang separately." Whether you're conservative, centrist, or progressive, we ALL have a vested interest in having ALL politicians respect the Second Amendment.

If the Democratic party is to be turned from it's recent jihad against gun rights--and there are signs that it is happening--who do you think is going to do it? Bill Buckley and the Heritage Foundation? No, pro-gun liberals....

The integration of numerous federal agencies into a unified Homeland Security Department will, among other things, consolidate like reporting structures and shrink the federal footprint of domestic security agencies.

Err...I don't think I'd use the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as an example of shrinking government and reducing its reach. Call it a good thing or a bad thing, but it looks more like an expansion to me.

 

[dmallind]

well if government overspending is your problem

Here's the tables:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-2006-HistoricalTable-7-1.pdf

And here's the chart from that data handily labeled since WW2

 

[Colt]

Kodiaz,

I was confused until I saw your location.

Now you make sense.

 

[MechAg94]

Here's the tables:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-2006-HistoricalTable-7-1.pdf

And here's the chart from that data handily labeled since WW2

Hey, do you know why GDP was used instead of GNP? I didn't see the graph on your link anyway. I wouldn't mind seeing total govt revenue, economic growth(%), and budget deficits graphed in there as well. Looks like the Repub led congress made a dent in things in the 90's, but dropped the ball a little lately. The Dem led Congress was pretty free spending in the 80's. Without a line-item veto, Presidents have limited control of federal spending, but everyone blames them.

Also, do you have a link to the actual Office of Management and Budget instead of an obviously biased web site?

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Remember the Contract with America? That was all about republicans getting elected on a small government platform. Which they have since abandoned, much to the displeasure of their base.

much to the displeasure of the base

...who keep electing them.

Saying that all libs kowtow and look up to Uncle Kerry and Aunt Fienstien is as disengenious as me saying that all cons kowtow look up to Bush and Gonzales.

Here's the tables:
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-2006-HistoricalTable-7-1.pdf
And here's the chart from that data handily labeled since WW2

Zounds! What a way to wake up in the AM!

I welcome attempts to steer democratic politicians in a more pro-gun direction, but I am deeply suspicious of attempts to subvert the gun rights movement and take it in a more "safe and sensible" direction.

I don't think anyone is going to be able to "Subvert" the gun rights movement. that kinda assumes that our folks are dumb enough to allow such a subversion to take place.

As far as "Safe and Sensible"...you bet. I want to see Gun Ed in all schools. That takes care of the "Safe" part. As far as "sensible": I don't wanna see convicts with guns. (Makes me nervous to know that dude that served 30 years for murder gets to goof around with a gun when he gets out.)

They're giving lip service to our side, then voting against us because they've decided their social spending programs are more important than gun rights.

Social Spending programs meant nothing to me in the last election. I voted for those folks cuz I had no choice.

What, you want *me* to vote for W? Snort. Yeah, right...he proposed a constitutional amendment to DENY my people rights (kinda sad that I have to be distinct...kinda sad that I don't get the same rights as other people).

Tell your boy to knock off that anti-14th amendment garbage, and I might just *consider* voting for the feller. Otherwise, I kinda have to vote for people who will grant me rights that everyone else gets

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?

Mandatory civilian service. Everyone serves, everyone gets the tools to their trade handed to them. A nation of riflemen. No one escapes (except for the medically infirm), no deferments. No champaigne units.

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

Overall: I think that we have one thing going on here, and that is an overgeneralization.

The correct statement would be: "Some" Liberals are notoriously anti-gun.

OTOH, It *is* advantageous for folks to think in such didactic terms. It blinds them to political offensives and historically means they will get their pants handed to them for mending.

 

[dmallind]

Hey, do you know why GDP was used instead of GNP? I didn't see the graph on your link anyway. I wouldn't mind seeing total govt revenue, economic growth(%), and budget deficits graphed in there as well. Looks like the Repub led congress made a dent in things in the 90's, but dropped the ball a little lately. The Dem led Congress was pretty free spending in the 80's. Without a line-item veto, Presidents have limited control of federal spending, but everyone blames them.

Also, do you have a link to the actual Office of Management and Budget instead of an obviously biased web site?

The chart is taken from the table data, which is an OMB document in pdf form and resides on the OMB site (metapage).

So what did the Dem congresses do prior to the 80s? Why is the ENTIRELY Republican government dropping the ball now? If Presidents don't have much to do with spending do you apply that to any perceived budgetary successes in the 80's as well as any perceived budgetary successes in the 90s? When I hear that line it's almost used to make sure Clinton gets no credit for the frictional unemployment, low inflation and deficit-surplus trend of the 90s but somehow gets twisted around whenever any positive aspect of Reaganomics is mentioned.

Oh and your wish is my command - budget deficit/surpluses, again adapted from CBO tables

FURTHER EDIT: Raw Data of these stats and others of your choosing can be found at www.cbo.gov - a most useful resource for any economic discussion I recommend to all.

 

[MechAg94]

...who keep electing them.

As if we really had a choice.

What, you want *me* to vote for W? Snort. Yeah, right...he proposed a constitutional amendment to DENY my people rights (kinda sad that I have to be distinct...kinda sad that I don't get the same rights as other people).

Tell your boy to knock off that anti-14th amendment garbage, and I might just *consider* voting for the feller. Otherwise, I kinda have to vote for people who will grant me rights that everyone else gets

Technically, you do have exactly the same rights as everyone else.
I do think that if the activists who say they represent you would take a more live-and-let-live approach, they would get less resistance. They have used incrementalism over the last 30 years to get where they are, why change now?

Overall: I think that we have one thing going on here, and that is an overgeneralization.

That is true for everyone it seems. You are just as guilty as the rest of us.
We hate to go into long explanations all the time so we try to throw labels around to save words. Doesn't work much of the time, and we get these long threads arguing about what should be a simple question.