What does "pro-gun liberal" mean?

[Helmetcase]

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

This corp is going to own a private island, and it'll need a cabinet for external affairs and the like .

 

[RealGun]

A read a lot here about both major parties being held to left wing or right wing standards when both are actually moderate. Each party meeting the other halfway, becoming moderate, is the reason they are electable.

It should be no surprise that the reality of each party may be difficult to distinguish in many regards. One real difference is visible support for gun rights in the Republican party and an unmistakable lack thereof in the Democrat party. If the Democrats want their party to be seen as anathema to gun ownership, they can suffer the consequences.

 

[antsi]

If the Democrats want their party to be seen as anathema to gun ownership, they can suffer the consequences.

No, what they want is to be seen as friendly to gun ownership.

That way, they can get elected and pass laws to confiscate all our guns.

Just wait: if Hilary runs for president, there will be a media event where she goes out and shoots skeet or walks around in a field with a shotgun pretending to hunt pheasants or something. She'll say carefully-crafted things like "I support the Second ammendment rights of hunters and target shooters. The only gun laws we need are reasonable safety measures."

If she gets elected, AWB II will be introduced within a week of her taking office and it will be a million times worse than AWB I.

 

[xd9fan]

No, what they want is to be seen as friendly to gun ownership.

That way, they can get elected and pass laws to confiscate all our guns.

Just wait: if Hilary runs for president, there will be a media event where she goes out and shoots skeet or walks around in a field with a shotgun pretending to hunt pheasants or something. She'll say carefully-crafted things like "I support the Second ammendment rights of hunters and target shooters. The only gun laws we need are reasonable safety measures."

If she gets elected, AWB II will be introduced within a week of her taking office and it will be a million times worse than AWB I.

And then it would be time for the GOP to do a spot check and look for a set between their legs. Hilary will always be Hilary. My question is where the hell are all of the Limited Govt, Progun, anti tax and spend Reagen Conservatives????

 

[hso]

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.

Bingo! The major parties have become monopolies controlled by cryptofaciests on both ends of the social spectrum. They moderate their candidates offered and positions dependent upon the public's spasming when they get a glimpse of their true purpose which is dimunition of individual liberty in service of their agendas.

 

[Silver Bullet]

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.

Exactly right, except I'd change "convicts" to "children". I don't necessarily think its right that someone who commited a crime and did his time should be barred from his Second Amendment rights any more than his First Amendment rights. An exception might be a convict who was convicted of a felony while using a weapon.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Exactly right, except I'd change "convicts" to "children". I don't necessarily think its right that someone who commited a crime and did his time should be barred from his Second Amendment rights any more than his First Amendment rights. An exception might be a convict who was convicted of a felony while using a weapon.

Hmmm...interesting Idea. However, I am still a bit nervous about having people who have proven that they are incapable of holding up their end of a relatively easy social contract running around armed. Lets face it: NOT killing someone is relatively easy, as is NOT raping someone, and NOT commiting things like armed robbery. If you can't avoid the easy stuff...should you be trusted with something that is, at times, complicated?

But I could be persuaded on this issue. I would want to see rates of recivitivism and so on based upon w/gun or w/out gun at the time of crimes, etc.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

AWB II will be introduced within a week of her taking office and it will be a million times worse than AWB I.

Antsi: dude...a MILLION times worse? Wow...that would be an awfully lot worse! A whole lotta worse!

Seriously, tho. Hillary won't get nominated. She REALLY doesn't have the support, at least outside of NYC, and she is sooo vulnerable it would be insane. The netroots doesnt' like her, and I can't find anyone I know that thinks she would be a great prez.

Actually, the straw poll I saw on KOS last week had Hillarywas 4th choice, behind wes clark, kerry and bill richardson (in no particular order--and I can't seem to find that poll). She has a HUGE warchest, but no legs and not a lot of soldiers on the ground.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

One real difference is visible support for gun rights in the Republican party and an unmistakable lack thereof in the Democrat party. If the Democrats want their party to be seen as anathema to gun ownership, they can suffer the consequences.

and the wheel goes round and round and round and...

RealGun: you aren't listening, my friend. That is changing. Slowly. From the bottom up, not from the top down (which is how we got here in the first place).

Clinton bloody well pounced on anti legislation after Columbine and Springfield in order to get folks voting for his pet projects...and look where it got us. Over time,t he party bought it. Now, that tide is shifting...not cuz either Clinton suggested the turn. Not cuz Kerry went out and tagged a duck. Its turning cuz the party BASE is demanding that change in exchange for votes and money.

Cynically: I will not vote for any candidate (outside of President) that is not *pro-2a*. Which means that I occasionally have to either write in candidates, or vote for the Republican. In one of the local races, I will be voting for a *GREEN* who is pro-2A, anti-awb.

Dateline Eastern Oregon. Bend Democrats hold out for pro 2a statement in Demo Party Platform. They "get" it, to the chagrin of the chief Anti in the state, who doesn't "get" it at all--she shares office space with HCI :banghead:

Montana, New Mexico, Idaho as well have made HUGE strides to can the anti-crap and get real on the 2a.

The only thing the state party of Oregon *hasn't* done--despite requests-- is to actually yank party support for antis in office. But they aren't pushing them either, and a good number of them have noticed the lack of support and are either moving on to the private sector or are moving to other positions in an attempt to solidify their name/brand and secure long-term funding. They are having some trouble at that.

 

[cookekdjr]

Pro-gun liberal? Probably means that your core values include:

1. Care & concern for the elderly, children, and veterans.

2. Protection of the environment and natural resources

3. Affordable health care for everyone

4. Equal rights for all people (*note* that includes women)

5. A general concern for working families (as opposed to big business).

6. You recognize that unless the little people can arm themselves, they will be helpless to defend themselves.

7. You don't think that government exists to make it easier for big companies to screw their employees and consumers.

-David

 

[scottgun]

Pro-gun liberal? Probably means that your core values include:

1. Care & concern for the elderly, children, and veterans.

2. Protection of the environment and natural resources

3. Affordable health care for everyone

4. Equal rights for all people (*note* that includes women)

5. A general concern for working families (as opposed to big business).

6. You recognize that unless the little people can arm themselves, they will be helpless to defend themselves.

7. You don't think that government exists to make it easier for big companies to screw their employees and consumers.

-David

or more accuraltely described

1. redistribution of wealth from those who earn to those who dont
2. shutting off wilderness to the public
3. more wealth redistribution
4. special rights for some people who are more equal
5. anti coporation
6. pro gun
7. more anti corporation

so based on your principles you are against corporations and for redistrubution of wealth, thats not a good formula for a free and thriving society.

 

[CoachVince]

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.

I've mentioned gov't involvement in marriage as a violation of the separation of church and state in the past to friends; if the gov't extended NO benefits to any union, or FULL benefits to all unions, they would be unbiased. But, by recognizing SOME unions, they are confusing ethics with morality.

I don't want to get tied up in religious posturing; I'm just saying there are those of who respect gay marriages; despite my faith saying homosexuality is wrong, I still recognize the commitment of two people to each other.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, I just think its a more honest way of dealing with the issue (to have gov't not involved in marriages).

 

[dmallind]

Everything in context

This redistribution of wealth thing is almost always looked at in one direction only, assuming "they" are taking wealth from "us".

Is it not redistribution of wealth to:

Use taxes disproprotionately raised in cities and densely populated suburbs to build and maintain roads in the boonies?

Give tax incentives to corporations to provide jobs near you rather than near other people?

Provide taxpayer-financed services to your tax-free church?

Give large tax breaks for people who overextend themselves on mortgages?

Offer no-bid contracts that overpay for basic commodities to defense contractors, who are after all paid for by taxpayer money?

Keep open inefficient, redundant or ineffective military bases and weapns programs even in your state?

Specifically disallow government purchases from negotiating the lowest possible price for prescription drugs (sure it's debatable whether they should buy them at all, but given that they do wouldn't it be less |"redistribution" if they bought more cheaply)?

If you are an absolutely pure fiscal Libertarian then you would oppose ALL redistribution. That viewpoint is IMO wrong but is at least intellectually consistent. More typical Republican style opposition to redistribution (and I want to stress this is a general point - I have no idea what your personal basis for this opinion is) is really nothing more than "let me keep the subsidies I want but nobody else can have any".

 

[scottgun]

"let me keep the subsidies I want but nobody else can have any".

That should be reworded as "let me keep the income that I earn and don't want stolen from me". My income is not a subsidy, when the government redistributes it then it becomes a subsidy. The person who receives a subsidy did not earn it yet they feel entitled to it. A healthy econony and society can not survive with a majority of people who feel they are entitled to something they did not earn.

And for redistribution of wealth, some is necessary and too much is tyranny, kinda like government itself.

 

[dmallind]

That should be reworded as "let me keep the income that I earn and don't want stolen from me". My income is not a subsidy, when the government redistributes it then it becomes a subsidy. The person who receives a subsidy did not earn it yet they feel entitled to it. A healthy econony and society can not survive with a majority of people who feel they are entitled to something they did not earn.

And for redistribution of wealth, some is necessary and too much is tyranny, kinda like government itself.

So I assume then that you DO consider it redistribution to have your roads, church, possibly your employer, subsidized from general funds, and would be willing to forego these subsidies?

BTW on a state level has anybody here seen which states are net payers and net welfare queens from overall Federal tax dollars? Might surprise some of you in those "rugged individualists here - gub'mint's just evil" places.......


AHH what the hey I'll just provide the link

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

 

[scottgun]

Tax breaks or tax free status is not a subsidy. Not having to pay taxes is not the same as receiving money from the government.

Corporations don't pay taxes, well they do directly, but that is a cost of doing business and it just gets passed along to the consumer. So anyone who says that corporations need to pay their fair share of taxes are saying that the price of goods and services needs to be raised so that the government can redistribute it.

Churches don't operate for profit (in theory), so having tax free status allows them to operate without a economic impact. This isn't a benefit, just as not getting mugged one day being a windfall.

Yes, I would forgo services in exchange for keeping my own income. I drive a jeep and don't need paved roads, in fact I would prefer it.

 

[dmallind]

Tax breaks or tax free status is not a subsidy. Not having to pay taxes is not the same as receiving money from the government.

Corporations don't pay taxes, well they do directly, but that is a cost of doing business and it just gets passed along to the consumer. So anyone who says that corporations need to pay their fair share of taxes are saying that the price of goods and services needs to be raised so that the government can redistribute it.

Churches don't operate for profit (in theory), so having tax free status allows them to operate without a economic impact. This isn't a benefit, just as not getting mugged one day being a windfall.

Yes, I would forgo services in exchange for keeping my own income. I drive a jeep and don't need paved roads, in fact I would prefer it.

I disagree - it's EXACTLY the same as receiving money from the government. The government is saying "you should have to pay X in taxes but we'll cut that back to X-Y because we want to subsidize your activity". Anything that reduces expenditure increases net income - the effect and the intent is exactly the same as if the goevrnment said "Pay X in taxes but I'll write you a check back for Y because I want to subsidize your activity"

Like most people here I work for a corporation. Like many people here I am in a policy-setting role in that corporation. Not ONCE I assure you, in many meetings and committees I have sat on regarding pricing, has the idea of reducing prices because of a tax break been raised. In fact all marketing and operational decisions are based on gross margin first and EBIT second. Taxes are part of neither of course. Certainly net income is part of our financial results, but it is quite significantly removed from individual price setting. It is possible that given absolutely huge tax breaks, my employer and its competitors would be slowly forced to reduce prices based on previously non-viable competitors being willing to sell at a lower gross margin because of the increase in net income vs EBIT with a lwoer tax rate, but something other than taxes was making them non-viable before that, so the natural conclusion is we would remain equally at a competitive advantage given equal tax treatment, and still be able to retain much of that tax break as net income to shareholders. Trust me we would not reduce consumer prices out of the goodness of our hearts, so I feel the pricing effect of corporate tax breaks is significantly less than you imagine.

I am far from a "soak the corporations" guy. I'm an investor and corporate manager so it would be rather silly of me to be one. However I believe an equal and reasonable tax position is far preferable taking in a macro view compared to the "expansion by auction" situation we see with local, state and even federal tax breaks today.

 

[Barbara]

Again, you're confusing liberals with leftists. One can believe problems exist without believing government is the solution to those problems.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Yes, I would forgo services in exchange for keeping my own income. I drive a jeep and don't need paved roads, in fact I would prefer it.

Yes, I would forgo services in exchange for keeping my own income. I drive a jeep and don't need paved roads, in fact I would prefer it.

My, how RUGGED of you!

Seriously, you need the roads, even if you don’t think you do.

I assume that you buy:
Food…tomatoes don’t grow in Denver in December. Ok…you don’t buy food at the grocery store! Cool!
Gas for your Jeep: That doesn’t get pumped and made in Denver…ok..you use biodiesel made from French fry oil!
Fries: came from Idaho, by truck. Ok you Farm, then!
Tractor: didn’t get delivered by donkey. Roads got it there. Signs regulated the truckers, and the state police made sure that said trucker stayed inside the speed limit, so they wouldn’t tip over you topheavy-french fry smellin’ vehicle ;-)
So now, without the roads we are down to subsistence farming, right? How did you get your seeds…all heirloomed, right? Nope? Shipped, then. Truck. Roads (and possibly some plane).

Enough about food, tho…can you tell it’s time for my lunch?

Roads make the electricity you use viable. Without them, how would cable get to your electrical company? Much less the computer you use to post with 
Roads made the dams used to generate your electricity possible (unless you generate your own electricity…in which case you used the shippers/etc extensively to get the supplies to build the system, and those use roads.)

Then there is clothing so you can be warm while substence farming, or warm driving that french fry smellin’ jeep in the CO winters ;-)

No matter HOW we cut it, we are tooo big to go back to zero taxes, zero interoperability, and zero dependence on another. Waaaaaaaay too big. I would say that we passed that point around the time the civil war ended, and I don’t think that anything short of a massive depopulation would be getting’ us back to that place any time soon.

Are we giving too much to an overbloated beauracracy that needs to have some of it’s limbs amputated? Heck yeah! Can we eliminate the income tax? No. Sorry.

Now, lets see if we can cut down some of this pork…These here piggies are getting’ fat an’ noisy. Hand me that knife ;-)

 

[scottgun]

dmallind - if I was getting mugged every day and then one day I didn't get mugged, the mugger wouldn't be giving me any money.

And for corporations, of course they won't reduce prices if they receive a tax incentive, but they might hire more employees, purchase capital and expand overall. Taxes are a part of doing business and get absorbed, but continually increased taxes will have an effect on a business. Its not a level playing field in a global economy where American companies are hindered by regulations and other foreign companies are not.

But I'll have to agree to disagree as to not completely side track this thread.

 

[RealGun]

RealGun: you aren't listening, my friend.

I am listening to the sounds of silence. What you may be doing in Oregon is wonderful, but until there are more than 13 people (Democrats) in all of Congress with decent gun rights ratings (GOA) and until there is news from blue states other than about new gun restrictions, Democrats will be fairly characterized as anti-gun. The few exceptions are noteworthy, but I will assume they are Democrats only because of the districts or States which they represent. One has to be careful who their friends are.

On another note, could I ask you to help keep this thread on topic. The issue is the meaning of labels, specifically "liberal" and by natural contrast, perhaps "conservative". Your other issues may be interesting but serve to hijack the thread.

 

[RealGun]

Again, you're confusing liberals with leftists. One can believe problems exist without believing government is the solution to those problems.

I don't recall seeing use of the term "rightist". If there is a leftist, is there a rightist? If leftist is a pejorative, would rightist also be considered dishonorable. I am assuming one would not apply the label "leftist" to himself.

 

[dmallind]

However since much of the concept of liberal vs conservative comes down to economic policy, it's a valid discussion I think.

Your mugging example isn't. Rates of muggings are not written into statute like tax rates are, so a reduction in mugging is very different indeed from a reduction in taxation, colorful analogies that link the two notwithstanding.

That said to get back to the real question - it's so simple it escapes many people. A pro-gun liberal (or leftist or pinko commie fag subversive or socialist or Democrat or whatever the epithet du jor is for those not on the far right) is quite simply someone who has those political views but also espouses at least some level of civilian gun ownership and/or who enjoys guns themselves.

It's not that difficult a concept once people get past the idea that a disagreement on one policy position implies a black and white disagreement on all others. People who do that or who make that assumption - on the left OR right - are simply blind partisans. Most people in the general population are not like that. I despise labor unions. I want welfare recipients to work for their subsistence. I am pro-death penalty and believe in free trade for profit. I am, obviously I hope, a gunowner and believe that civilians should have the ability to own firearms. That however does not stop me from supporting positions on other issues that are more traditionally Democratic ideas - not worth listing here as it's just an invitation for flamefests.

One other concept hard for many THR posters to accept it seems (and intuitively enough given the whole damn point of the site!) is that pro-gun does not necessarily mean the gun issue overrides every other issue. I am not a single issue voter on ANYTHING. I can understand, with some effort, people who are, but I'm not one and neither are a goodly portion of the electorate. It is possible, trust me, to be pro-gun and not have guns be the be all and end all of your life and politics.

 

[Barbara]

My friends who are leftists usually admit to being such. Sometimes they call themselves progressives or socialists? They tend to think the government is the solution to every problem. My rightwing buddies tend to call themselves that. They tend to think there are no problems except the government.

Myself? I think they're all full of it.

I support gay rights, I support the rights of people with whom I disagree, I think George Bush is a fascist, and so on. I think racism exists (on both sides) and needs to be faced. I think women put up with too much crap because they're socialized to do that. I think we beat the hell out of the environment and its going to come back and bite us in the ass someday.

On the other hand, I'd probably be termed fiscally conservative. The Federal government should be building roads and defending our borders. I've seen few problems that were improved through bureaucratic intervention (although I'm more ok with government involvement on a state and local level..you can still vote with your feet if you don't like it.)

The thing is, folks are ok with my beliefs as long as I call myself a libertarian, or conservative, and hold the exact same views, but they get all knotted up if I call myself a liberal. Which is ok with me.

 

[Silver Bullet]

BTW on a state level has anybody here seen which states are net payers and net welfare queens from overall Federal tax dollars? Might surprise some of you in those "rugged individualists here - gub'mint's just evil" places.......


AHH what the hey I'll just provide the link

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

That chart shows that states with large areas relative to population get more money back per capita (for example, highways) than states with high population or high density. What point did you think you were making ?