What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

As if we really had a choice.

agreed. I didn't like Kerry. Never did. I didn't have any choice, tho.

Technically, you do have exactly the same rights as everyone else.

yeah...and the Residents of Aushwitz *were set free* after hard work. Its all in how you look at it, isn't it?

 

[MechAg94]

During the 80's, taxes got cut and govt revenue doubled. The problem is that govt spending went through the roof as well. Not all that was on defense. That trend of overspending hasn't gone away yet. Most all Repubs I run into are upset about it also. The only reason the Repubs in Congress have gotten away with their crap in Congress the last several years is that the Dems have offered such a scary alternative. Repubs may not be great, but the Dems are worse. I am sure some will tell you it is all a good cop/bad cop routine.

Clinton did a couple positive things in the 90's like welfare reform. He did get credit for coming into office at the top of an economic wave and managed not to screw it up at least until the late 90's. Of course, that was partly because the Repubs didn't let his wife pass her crazy ideas. Bush I might have caught some of that economic upturn had he not raised taxes and done some other dumb stuff.

Of course, that is how I see it anyway. Everyone has their own view.

 

[hso]

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..

All countries, from the most leftest to the far right have "liberal" and "conservative" factions within their politcal systems. They are much better (and more widely) defined than here in most cases just as most sources of news fall into a whole spectrum of political and social agendas. It seems that many countries are much more comfortable with divergent political and social groups than we are and that we cluster into big ill-fitting parties.

Oh yeah, I'm a pro-gun lib.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I think it's usually the elitist view that THEY should have guns, but the filthy masses (us) shouldn't.

They know what's good for us. Just trust them

 

[MechAg94]

yeah...and the Residents of Aushwitz *were set free* after hard work. Its all in how you look at it, isn't it?

I don't think that is the same at all. No one is denying you life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at least nothing that they are not denying everyone else.

Personally, I am 50/50 on the marriage thing anyway. I listened to a pastor I respect a lot and he asked Why are heterosexuals getting upset about homosexuals destoying the institution of marriage when heterosexuals have not been holding to the institution of marriage for quite a number of years with sex outside of marriage and common law marriage and such. I think he was of the view that govt can't legislate moral traditions like that without becoming repressive.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

I don't think that is the same at all. No one is denying you life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at least nothing that they are not denying everyone else..

Mech: I stated that its all a matter of perception, i.e. I have the same rights as everyone else...as long as I am the same as everyone else.

And yeah, that would be denying liberty and the pursuit of happiness...just not YOUR idea of happiness

 

[longrifleman]

Personally, I am 50/50 on the marriage thing anyway.

I have another solution. Get civil govt completely out of the marriage business, other than to enforce mutually agreed to contract rights, just like any other private agreement. That also means MANDATING perks for spouses in employment should be completely eliminated. Govt sanction on marriage is only about 150 yrs old anyway. The date from memory so don't trust it too far.

 

[RealGun]

I think it's usually the elitist view that THEY should have guns, but the filthy masses (us) shouldn't.

They know what's good for us. Just trust them

There is more to it than $5000 shotguns.

 

[Barbara]

Eh, I call myself a liberal mostly because it annoys conservatives.

My liberal friends think I'm a staunch conservative because of my dislike of government interference and because I'm very vocal about supporting the 2nd and 10th amendments.

My conservative friends think I'm a bleeding heart liberal because of my dislike of government interference and because I'm very vocal about supporting the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments.

Personally, I don't care what anyone calls me. I vote for the person on the ballot that I most think will uphold the Constitution.

(still, I gotta admit, the reason I stopped considering myself a conservative was the whole "I absolutely believe in complete freedom for everyone who thinks just like me" BS that is way too prevalent in those who call themselves conservatives but are actually authoritarians who believe in gun rights.)

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

One progressive willing to be active in the Democratic Party is worth 100 garden-variety gun show conservatives in making us progress toward restoring gun rights. I've always said that if we depend on right wingers to protect gun rights, we're sunk. Evidence the condition of our rights today, after a half century of this issue being the domain of the Right.

On many issues, I tend to come down somewhere on the Barbara Lee end of the Democratic Party, if not a click or two over into Bernie Sanders country. Unfortunately, I'm also in there with Ron Paul and Bob Barr on some issues, too. But I can't consider joining the Republicans, because of the mess the current bunch of gangsters have made of our country.

I'm seriously considering registering as a Dem and getting active in the party.

 

[tellner]

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 also has to be more than rejecting pro-life and Judeo-Christian theocracy or more than the rich versus the poor, the haves and have nots.

I think labels, especially when applied to oneself, make one accountable for the beliefs and actions of others who claim those labels. Liberals are notoriously anti-gun, so I don't get what pro-gun liberal means and bet there would be a better label.

For me it's pretty simple. I am a liberal leaning towards Social Democrat on a large number of issues from civil rights and regulatory structure to the separation of Church and State, health care and a variety of economic concerns. I strongly support organized labor (or what's left of it), and am on the greener side of many environmental issues.

I am a strong supporter of civil liberties including freedom of expression, religion, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, and the rights of the accused. Unlike many who share my views on these subjects I believe that self defense is one of the most fundamental civil rights. Without the means to effectively exercise it that right is meaningless. Guns are the supreme tool for personal self protection in situations where life is in danger. Hence, I support the right for people to keep and bear them and to use them for legitimate self defense.

On a more radical level I have studied history a little. The ruling classes have always been armed. Or more precisely, they have been able to hire armed people to carry out their will - cf. the Pinkertons and private goons during the early 20th century, Blackwater, the "Regulators", the Inclusionists like Earp, etc. They are also the ones who own the governments and have the strongest influence on its massive capacity for armed force. Common people owning guns is simply extending to everyone the perquisites that the elite have always enjoyed.

 

[RealGun]

<>But I can't consider joining the Republicans, because of the mess the current bunch of gangsters have made of our country.

I'm seriously considering registering as a Dem and getting active in the party.

Would you be willing to have the Democrats characterized by the actions of a few bad actors? Maybe we have to now quibble over what "a few" means. Introducing the word [gangster] is a bit shrill, don't you think?

 

[Helmetcase]

One progressive willing to be active in the Democratic Party is worth 100 garden-variety gun show conservatives in making us progress toward restoring gun rights. ...

I'm seriously considering registering as a Dem and getting active in the party.

Ding ding ding!! Get this man a cigar!

Glad to see more and more people get it. Leave it to one party, and that party starts taking you for granted, which is exactly what's happened with the RNC. We'll never get all the Dems to our side or way of thinking...but thankfully we don't have to. We just need a few...which is what my site is all about.

Personally, I'm a registered Independent...but I see reforming the Dem party as the most productive use of my time.

 

[Helmetcase]

Oh yeah, I'm a pro-gun lib.

God luv ya. You, Malone, Tellner, Barbara just made cabinet positions when PGP becomes a corporation.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Would you be willing to have the Democrats characterized by the actions of a few bad actors? Maybe we have to now quibble over what "a few" means. Introducing the word [gangster] is a bit shrill, don't you think?

If a few Republicans would break ranks and stand up for environmental sanity, civil rights, against imperialism, the security state, etc, or any of the corrupt goings on in their party, you might have a point. They're not making Republicans like were around during the Watergate affair any more. And no, gangster is a prefectly accurate word, IMO. If you look at the records of a lot of these people in regards to Central America and the Middle East (for example), you basically have "made men" in the classic Cosa Nostra sense.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

God luv ya. You, Malone, Tellner, Barbara just made cabinet positions when PGP becomes a corporation.

I don't know how a corp can get me in the Cabinet, but I want to be czar of Homeland Security.

 

[tellner]

I have another solution. Get civil govt completely out of the marriage business, other than to enforce mutually agreed to contract rights, just like any other private agreement. That also means MANDATING perks for spouses in employment should be completely eliminated. Govt sanction on marriage is only about 150 yrs old anyway. The date from memory so don't trust it too far.

Either make it a civil contract and get the Church out of that part or make it a Church thing and don't give out special legal status for it. Either way, using religious tests to determine civil rights scares the hell out of me. As far as gay people marrying, what makes them so special? Let them be as miserable as the rest of us

 

[Kodiaz]

Hey we all agree on guns I think there might be 1 more thing we could agree on.



Repeal the stinkin income tax. This has been bothering me all day. I make 3000 more dollars this year than last year and I have to pay a 1000 more dollars in income tax.


I get nothing out of my tax money not a single stinkin thing.

 

[beerslurpy]

Hah, if you lived in CA, you would pay 1600 instead of 1000.

The problem with getting rid of income tax is: who is going to pay for... (2005 amounts)
-social security 512 billion
-medicare 277 billion
-medicaid 194 billion
-disability and other 312 billion
1.2 gigadollars/year, soon to be reaching 1.5 trillion a year for the 2008 election!

edit: oh crap this doenst include the presription drug benefit, so the actual numbers are going to be higher

And this hits us below the belt EVERY SINGLE YEAR. You cannot get rid of the income tax unless you are willing to chop away the social "safety net." I am willing to do this in a second, but the progressives/liberals/socialists arent.

Btw, this has nothing to do with guns, but everything to do with the enormous tax burden you dislike.

 

[Kodiaz]

Cut it all. All the entitlements the alphabet soup and a huge chunk of the military(Leave enough to close the border and push the button).

 

[beerslurpy]

If only more liberals were like you.

I would vote for any candidate that went even half as far as you in that direction. Unfortunately, it seems that every presidential election isnt a debate about the proper size and intrusiveness of government, but a fight over how best to abuse that power.

Each party seems to be in a race to pick our pockets and twist our arms for their pet causes. We havent even had a plausible primary candidate in years that would take either party in a new direction (ie away from accumulating and abusing power) for as long as I can remember.

 

[No_Brakes23]

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.

I certainly don't match either description, though I am closer to the second. Except that I have no illusions about Dems being any better than Repubs.

 

[Byron Quick]

Neither party impresses me about much of anything. Neither party has any member with meaningful presidential aspirations whom I would vote for. Both parties have many folk running for office whom I regularly vote against.

 

[Barbara]

Yep, same here. I can only remember off hand two Dems I've voted for in recent years. One was last election when a solidly pro-gun Dem was running against a pompous ass of a gun-grabbing Republican for our House seat, and one was for a local office. I've voted for several Republicans in that time, mostly notably the Shrub in '04.

Liberal does not = Democrat. Sheesh. They're worse than Republicans.

Really, both parties have their list of freedoms they're willing to sacrafice. It's always a case of which you're willing to give up. Myself, I'm not willing to give up any.

 

[hso]

God luv ya. You, Malone, Tellner, Barbara just made cabinet positions when PGP becomes a corporation.

No way! I deal with various government sorts, elected and not, all the time and I don't have the stomach for the double talk and numbing inefficiency I see in the gov.

Now Emperior I could get behind.