Why against liberals?

[ThreadKiller]

I cannot help but remember that the Patriot Act passed the Senate by a 98-1 vote. Doesn't that mean that some Democrats (self proclaimed heroes of the oppressed and eternal champions of the poor) voted for it?

Historically Conservatives have been much better at observing the Constitutional bounds of the Federal government than their Liberal counterparts.

Unfortunately both major political parties continue to drift ever leftwards in an attempt to acquire and maintain political power in the US.

Let's buy them votes!

Liberalism corrupts and besides that, it really sucks!

Tim

 

[Silver Bullet]

Quote:
Liberals don't want to take away your guns.
Until you get that straight, we have nothing to say to each other

This is the answer to the originator’s question, “Why are liberals disparaged on this board ?†It’s because the folks who call themselves liberals are the initiators and driving force behind every law that infringes on the Second Amendment. That’s the reason they’re disparaged here.

This is a firearms forum. Liberals are restricting, and ultimately planning to eliminate, firearms. Simple.

A corollary: since you’re lying (or grossly misinformed) about this issue, why should we take you seriously about anything else you say ?

 

[Sean Smith]

This is the answer to the originator’s question, “Why are liberals disparaged on this board ?†It’s because the folks who call themselves liberals are the initiators and driving force behind every law that infringes on the Second Amendment. That’s the reason they’re disparaged here.

Bingo.

Just read the bloody voting records of the various congress-critters, and you see that the self-identified liberals who vote anti-gun outnumber the self-identified conservatives who vote anti-gun by a wide margin. If you are too lazy to get the rudimentary facts straight, don't post with the grown-ups.

People have no sense of proportion. Yes, plenty of Republicans and so-called conservatives aren't pro-2nd Ammendment. But a hell of alot more Democrats and so-called liberals are actively anti-2nd Ammendment. People who say they are the same on that issue are either delusional, or can't count.

 

[ravinraven]

I'm on my way...

...to coffee break with a group of liberal ex-profs. I got ex'ed as a prof sooner than hoped for because I was not "L". I've gone to calling liberals "anti-liberty." that works great! I just drop it in the line of chatter and get an odd look. Somebody will bash Bush and I'll say. "Yeah. He's pro-liberty you know. That's why he does [whatever the idiot has said]."

I even have one poor soul female who speaks of liberal political advances as "the anti-liberty crowd" is winning, etc. She has taken MY term to define her politics. I think that's great....I guess.

I've been in blabs with libs who blast away about the US dominating the world. Then I ask them what nation they would like to see dominating the world. [I got that idea from Boortz]. They melt into pro-UN gibberish which is so damn much fun I'm getting billed for entertainment tax after these sessions. I don't rant and rave anymore. Just peaceful politeness. I'll get some of these anal orifices so wound up they break a main spring once in a while.

Pure fun, but essentially a waste of time.

rr

 

[Boats]

Actually, back in post #21 I asked the thread starter to leave. Conversing intelligently with these types of posters is well-nigh impossible so making them feel unwelcome to spout their emotionally hysterical claptrap is rather proper.

 

[sundog]

I read through [anti]Liberty1's posts and did not find any FACTS such as the one ThreadKiller referenced about the vote on the Patriot Act. That's what libs do, yammer about stuff that might sound true, but nothing to back it up. When they do use 'facts' such as juvenile deaths from firearms being such a high number, they omit the fact that it includes people up to the age of 20. I can only hope that one of these days as she/he becomes more educated ... well that's just hoping.... sundog

 

[BlackCat]

I cannot help but remember that the Patriot Act passed the Senate by a 98-1 vote. Doesn't that mean that some Democrats (self proclaimed heroes of the oppressed and eternal champions of the poor) voted for it?

How many of the politician read it in it's entirety before they signed it? Got an answer for that? If I were to throw a guess out, I'd say none.

A politican's main purpose is to gain more government control, their different mind sets only choose to grab different control. If each side gets half of our rights like they'd like to, well, we won't have any. It all works to their advantage. We're forced to choose sides, because there are only 2 legit parties.

 

[Liberty1]

Oh my, I thought I'd come back and see if people had cooled off, I don't think I'll make that mistake again.

Do you really want to know why you are going to lose your RKBA? It's because you demand absolute submission. You don't see someone as 'agreeing with 98% of your ideas', you see a monster who disagrees with 2%.

In case the posts were too subtle, just in case phrases like 'we all need to fight together to keep all our rights', in case those phrases are too ambiguous, I was proposing that all rights should be kept. Think about it, come on now think, RKBA is included in that.

I went back and re-read every post I made, and I re-re-read them, and there is nothing anywhere suggesting anything other than co-operation and preservation of rights. That this lead to the responses given is exactly what I feared - many of you would rather hate 'liberals' than work with them to save your souls. Either that or you are proponents of a police-state and merely try to derail intelligent discussion.

I fear I will no longer look at this sight the same way, and that is sad because I truly respected it. Before I take the not-so-subtle hints and leave, I ask one last time that individuals try to reach out to opposing view-points, and don't argue what you disagree on, find what you agree on and work towards it. Even the vehement anti-gun people will be open to reason, explain it is written clearly in the constitution and that if it is usurped the rights they hold dear will most likely follow, such as privacy. Explain that individuals need to fight for rights they don't care about, because you need strangers to fight for the rights you care about.

...Or you can go the way of people like 'Cool Hand Luke', he views the following passage as a personal insult. I personally don't see how it could be viewed in any way other than a warning that all people have to stand together in times of crisis.

"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
A pastor in the German Confessing Church
Who spent from 1937 to 1945 in Sachsenhausen
and Dachau concentration camps."

 

[Igloodude]

Even the vehement anti-gun people will be open to reason, explain it is written clearly in the constitution and that if it is usurped the rights they hold dear will most likely follow, such as privacy. Explain that individuals need to fight for rights they don't care about, because you need strangers to fight for the rights you care about.

The anti-gun people I've talked to have held on to their interpretation of the US Constitution, reason has gotten no movement there - a trip to the range has had far more effect.

Personally it seems to me that the Republican and Democratic parties each have parts of the Bill of Rights that they prefer to chip away at - agreements between them seem to allow each to chip, not for both to abstain from chipping.

In any case, I don't understand what your point is - gun owners should not vote single-issue against liberal politicians and in return the liberal politicians will protect our other rights but not RKBA?

 

[Waitone]

Liberty1,
If you came to THR extending a hand for cooperation AND at the same time saying RKBA should be subject to reasonable restrictions, you unfortunately stepped into the one place where there is strong, documentable opposition to the hazards of compromise.

Let me explain myself. Issues of the second amendment is the one place in comtemporary political dialogue where strategy and tactics of the statist left and statist right is on display. It is one place where there is no hiding, no mistaking, no misinterpretation of intentions. We here have seen the lies, misrepresentation, abuse of judiciary, scapegoating, etc in an effort to simply ignore and at worse destroy a right enumerated in the constitution. No appeal to "reasonable gun control" will ever hide the ultimate goals.

We suffered 10 years through the Assault Weapons Ban listening to lies and grandstanding. We witnessed up close and personal the vilification thrown at gunowners simply because they engaged in a hobby not encouraged by the elites. We have seen and can document in minute detail the bald-faced lies put out by VPC, MMM, Brady, et al about the place of guns in our society. We seen and heard from board members who lost jobs because of their positions on the second amendment. We get to watch on the tube famous senators engaging in the sordid grandstanding. We see and read legislation introduced in congress of the most deceptive kind all designed to do one thing and one thing only, victimize advocates of the second amendment. We are not second class citizens and we refuse to be played the sucker.

The AWB draws our ire simply because it was and is emblematic of the problem. AWB was portrayed as a reasonable restriction on military rifles in the hands of civilians. In reality the AWB was based on cosmetics. That's right, the guns banned by the AWB scared Senator Feinstein and one of her aides who wrote the legislation. AWB never banned fully automatic guns. That was done some 40 years earlier. Never mind you could go to a gun shop at anytime in the 10 years it was in force and purchase a gun that functioned just exactly like the one banned. The AWB did nothing but harass law abiding citizens. It outlaws common technology for no reason. . . .all under the sign of "reasonable gun control."

We get to see the asinine debate of concealed carry permits being opposed because of the inevitable wild west shoot outs and blood in the streets. Never mind reality has never match the hype. Never mind the implementation of shall issue concealed carry has resulted in benefits NEVER DISCUSSED IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

We know all about the censorship ( and I use the term in a technically precise manner) over the positive impact of fireams being used in society. We know about the shooting at a law school in SW Virginia. We know the shooter was stopped by two students who went to their cars, grabbed their handguns, and apprehended the shooter after he had murdered 2 or more people. We know the four stories written after the event mentioned the guns used by the students. We also know the the subsequent 200 stores about the event omitted the little gun factoid. Fair reporting? Not hardly.

With respect to the second amendment, we here at the THR have seen and heard it all. We know the games leftist statists play. We've seen it at work with the second amendment and we see it at work elsewhere. We are not confused about the agenda of the statist left or the statist right, for that matter. We are not inclined to extend the hand of cooperation if the price of that extension is another compromise destined to infringe the second amendment.

We are well aware that any time we compromise, we end up paying the cost with with little evidence the other side lost anything. You want our help in defeating the forces of liberty? Work with us to roll back some of the more obnoxious gun laws under which we labor. Work with us to get rid of the DC gun ban. Help the inmate of the states of CA, NY, NJ, MA, MD, and IL get the right to self defense. Help us get national CCW reciprocity. Help us get the right to use a freakin' silencer at the range to protect our hearing. Help us get rid of the threat of civil litigation after to completely clean criminal shoot. You are aware, of course, that quite often a law abiding citizen faces civil litigation after having been found not guilty in criminal shooting. How about helping us get firearms manufacturers liability protection. Help us get rid of the damnable Campaign Finance Control bill that infringes everyone's right to political free speech during an election.

You want to extend the hand of cooperation to protect liberty? Great. We want a few things first.

 

[ThreadKiller]

This is no place for the thin skinned. As for myself, I do not automatically dislike liberals. "Liberalism" on the other hand, rates very little respect in my world. It has caused too much human suffering and amazingly enough, continues to get a free pass from the naive.

I do not wish to compromise on my 2A rights because I'm right and secondly, compromise inevitably leads to more compromise.

If the Liberal Left really is all that upset about death and destruction and honestly feels that regulating material items will postively influence human behavior, why aren't they clamoring for "alcohol control?"

How many of the politician read it in it's entirety before they signed it? Got an answer for that? If I were to throw a guess out, I'd say none.

You're absolutely right, I don't think any of them did. They as much admitted that. Assuming they're telling the truth this time. SHAME ON THEM!!!!!!!! What the hell are they doing soaking up so many tax dollars for if they're not going to do their damn jobs? More evidence that the government is hosed and should immediately be reduced in size and scope.

I can't understand why Libs scream bloody murder about the transgressions and abuses of government then in the next breath, demand another program to fix their latest "booboo."

The government that governs best, governs least. -Thomas Jefferson

Tim

 

[Norton]

WaitOne......

Thank you for one of the most cogent and logically written posts I've seen in a long time.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Do you really want to know why you are going to lose your RKBA? It's because you demand absolute submission. You don't see someone as 'agreeing with 98% of your ideas', you see a monster who disagrees with 2%

Absolute nonsense.

Virtually every gun control law proposed and instituted at the hands of the Liberals in the USA has been designed as a first step in an incrementalist approach to full registration and eventual confiscation of privately held firearms.

The Assault Weapons Ban, recently expired, is a perfect example of this. It banned certain rifles based solely upon the presence of cosmetic features having no relation to the mode of operation or lethality of the rifles. The eventual goal was to extend this inane ban to every semi-automatic rifle and pistol. Witness the Liberal gun control advocate's attempts to twist the nomenclature regarding ordinary semi-auto pistols into labeling them as "assault pistols."

You seem to be ignorant of the history of the Liberals attempts to impose their incremental approach to gun confiscation in the USA:

"..If I had my way I'd say: OK Mr. and Mrs. America, that's it, turn 'em all in...no more guns..." - Sen. Diane Fienstein (D-CA). The words of your own Liberal leadership prove you wrong.

As for losing, no. You're ignorant of the facts in regards to the recent progress made in restoring American's full 2nd Amendment rights.

For example:

-38 States have gone to shall issue concealed carry....
-The assault Weapons Ban has expired...
-A relatively pro-RKBA administration has been reelected with good prospects for several pro-RKBA SCOTUS picks in the next 4 years...
-US District Courts are tossing out suits brought by Liberal city governments and gun control organizations seeking to find gun manufacturers liable for any crime commited with one of their products (Hoffman and Hackman's emoting in "Runaway Jury" notwithstanding).

And all of the typical dishonesty and hysterics of the Liberals concerning gun ownership in the USA has been to no avail.

Did you notice how Maryland and Virginia both declined to institute more gun control laws in response to the Beltway sniper murders? This despite the Liberal gun-control lobby's heroic attempts to capitalize on the killings.

Very telling.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

...Or you can go the way of people like 'Cool Hand Luke', he views the following passage as a personal insult. I personally don't see how it could be viewed in any way other than a warning that all people have to stand together in times of crisis.

"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
A pastor in the German Confessing Church
Who spent from 1937 to 1945 in Sachsenhausen
and Dachau concentration camps."

Personal insult?

No, you misunderstood me.

It appears to me that you are characterizing ALL who express disagreement with your viewpoint as equivalent to Nazi's dragging Jewish shopkeepers into the night.

You're attempting to play the heroic victim in this, and,frankly, you're taking yourself far too seriously. Ever been to the Holocaust Museaum here in D.C.? If you had you wouldn't be so quick to portray any disagreement with your poorly thought out ideas as equivalent to Nazi persecution. By portraying yourself in this way you dishonor the memory of those who actually did suffer at the hands of the Nazis. And in doing this you are merely offering up the usual insults that seem to typify so many Liberal's attempts at debate.

It's ironic that you are arguing that American gun owner's should somehow seek common ground with Liberals who seek to institute the same victim disarmament scheme instituted by the Nazi's prior to the war, and then turn around and accuse those same gun owners of acting like Nazis when they disagree with you.

 

[Keaner]

First, interesting commenting on the subject.

Second, I believe the real problem is that Liberals are the good people. Liberals want Americans to be free, the Feds to have little power, etc. The BAD is that the socialists have declared "liberal" as their name. Its like anytime the word "Democratic" is in a countries name, it is gonna be a socialist nation.

Third, the real problem is the size of the federal government. When Washington left the W.H., he said in a speech: (paraphrasing, forgive me) "Avoid Political parties and entangling alliances"*. I think this shows the basis of the problem. Politicians were meant to be the common man, a guy who takes a few years off of the farm to support his nation, not a multi-millionaire with corperate interests in mind!

IMHO, The one party that has it "right" is the libertarians. They are the current day 1700 Liberals. Freedom comes first, government last. You can search on my name (for one thread in particular) to see my point on this, but The individual is the basis of government, not the other way around. We are never subjects, we are all the ruling class. Its the way our government was meant to be setup.

I will ALWAYS vote libertarian when given the chance (perhaps with a small exception with **Logeanan (sic) in the NJ Gov. race!)

*I know, this didnt last 15 minutes after he left, but interestingly Nastrodomous type!

** The canidate whose MAIN platform is gun rights and small government. This guy is an absolute saint, wearing a red cape riding an elephant.

 

[cracked butt]

“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.†There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups."

http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html

 

[Moondoggie]

First "they" came for the "assault weapons",
but I didn't own any "assualt weapons" so I didn't say anything,
Then "they" came for the .50 cal rifles,
but I didn't own any .50 cal rifles.........

The problem with compromising with the folks who "only want" 2% of our constitutional rights (or who only disagree 2%) is that they "only want" 2% this time .

GET IT??????

 

[Silver Bullet]

Perfect illustration, Moondoggie. And I would make the truth of it even clearer by preceding it with "First they came for the machine guns ..." and then "Next they came for the Saturday Night Specials ...".

The underlying pattern reveals the true intentions.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Thinking about it a bit more, Moondoggie’s reply is the best response I’ve seen on any thread this year. It works on three different levels:

1) It’s a clever reuse of the original “When they came for ...†quotation.

2) It’s a total refutation to Liberty1’s plea for compromise.

I’m reminded of something I read a long time ago by Robert Byrne, describing Fischer Vs. Larsen, Game 1, Candidates Match in 1971 (paraphrasing) : “This terrible shot completely rips [Larsen’s] demonstration to shreds.†Byrne was writing of one of Fischer's moves on the chess board.

3) It works as a standalone allegory, completely independent of this thread, to make a point about gun restrictions. A couple lines could be added to the end like “When they came for the hunting rifles ...†and “When they came for the shotguns ...†and it could be posted on hunting websites to make a point with the hunters who would trade our guns thinking they can keep theirs.

 

[Moondoggie]

Thanks for the kudos, Silver Bullet...

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile.