TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I tend to think everyone posting here understands that when applying labels to any group, there are exceptions to the general rule, so there are also anti-2A conservatives.

My Dad was an anti-2A conservative.

He was a staunch republican. He voted. He followed politics daily. He listened to Rush. He was Canadian by birth, Texan by the grace of God. He obtained his US citizenship by an act of Congress.

He loathed the NRA.

He had no use for the 2A because, by golly he had his shotguns and deer rifles. He scoffed at my hunting pistols and my life membership. He rolled in his grave the day I assembled my first AR.

He supported small government, low taxes, and all other freedoms.

I never understood......

Anygunanywhere

I've been lucky when it comes to anti-gun family members. If I have any I don't know about it. My father bought me an AR15 when I was 16. My mother had her own guns. I've got a pro-gun spouse. My in-laws are pro-gun. My sons are pro-gun. My brother is pro-gun and has a CHL. I'm lucky at work too: my company has given employees a free CHL class, most of the people I work with are pro-gun (I don't actually know anyone at work who is anti-gun), and many of them have CHLs. All my neighbors have guns and I hear them shooting regularly. So I guess I'm in sort of a pro-gun "bubble": I haven't had an in-person discussion with an anti in over 12 years.

RiverCity.45 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

RiverCity.45 wrote:

cheezit wrote:leaning nither left or right and being from cali. i can assure you there are plenty of libs that are pro 2a.

It's very comforting to lump all "liberals" into the anti-gun group, but that is just a convenient shorthand fantasy that has no basis in fact. There are anti-gun liberals and there are pro-2A liberals. There is an entire forum devoted to those 2A supporting progressives. I know, I know. Some people's heads will explode just trying to grasp that reality. LOL!

Seriously, though. Just as all conservatives are not the same (e.g., recent Support by some Republicans for gun control), there are some liberals who staunchly support the 2nd A.

There are always exceptions. The point is that the vast majority of liberals are anti gun and anti self-defense, and a minority of "conservatives" are anti-gun and anti self-defense. It matters very little to me if 10 out of every 100 liberals are pro-gun, because they are beholden to a party that is anti-gun, and their pro gun beliefs are largely irrelevant. I also don't care that 10 out of very 100 "conservatives" are anti-gun, because they also are largely irrelevant. It's like saying some dogs can walk on two legs.The minorities in both parties have no power to influence the politics of the 2nd Amendment as long as they continue to support their respective parties in spite of their behavior on gun control.

I agree with you about the limited political power of groups in minority positions. That has nothing to do with my post, though, since my sole point was to debunk the myth that all liberals are anti 2A. Nothing more.

In this thread what constitutes a liberal, and a pro-gun liberal, is merely a product of each person's individual conceptions and imagination --so we're probably not talking about the same people. What defines a modern liberal? To me, the fundamental defining feature of a modern liberal is that he is a collectivist (as opposed to classical liberals, who were not). What defines a liberal as "pro-gun?" or pro RKBA? It's not defined by ownership, as someone can be pro RKBA and not own guns, and someone else can own guns and not be pro RKBA. Biden has a shotgun, but he's not pro RKBA. My definition of pro RKBA is supporting the right of individuals to possess (keep), carry, and use outside the home (bear) weapons suitable for military duty. Do the pro 2A liberals you're talking about fit that definition?

Now, let's assume we agree on what being a pro 2A liberal means.....why does it matter? I think most people on this forum are speaking in generalities when they refer to liberals as a group. And in general, liberals are anti-2A. I tend to think everyone posting here understands that when applying labels to any group, there are exceptions to the general rule, so there are also anti-2A conservatives. In either group the members either vote or don't vote. The ones that vote are going to vote primarily for politicians they believe best represent their ideology. Since voting pro-2A liberals are in a minority they must either vote for a liberal or someone else. If they vote for liberal politicians, then they are empowering the very class of people who seek to infringe upon their 2A rights. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, it seems to me that a pro-2A liberal, especially one who votes for liberals, is like a dog walking on it's hind legs: it's not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.

G26ster wrote:New York was used only as an example. My point is that I know vociferous pro 2A liberals right here in Texas that voted for known anti 2A liberals, and are now surprised and upset that they are coming after their guns because they were sure they would not. During the last campaign, they said over and over that the POTUS had done nothing to infringe on their 2A rights, regardless of his statements to the contrary during his political career. They pointed that out over and over. But, when the right time came, and the public was shocked, and the winds were blowing his way, he came after them. If you don't know anyone like this in your area, fine, but I don't think that's the norm. Just MHO.

Many of them also took it further and claimed that based on the fact he hadn't come after guns in the past four years, he wouldn't do so in the next four years --a rather naive extrapolation.

RiverCity.45 wrote:

cheezit wrote:leaning nither left or right and being from cali. i can assure you there are plenty of libs that are pro 2a.

It's very comforting to lump all "liberals" into the anti-gun group, but that is just a convenient shorthand fantasy that has no basis in fact. There are anti-gun liberals and there are pro-2A liberals. There is an entire forum devoted to those 2A supporting progressives. I know, I know. Some people's heads will explode just trying to grasp that reality. LOL!

Seriously, though. Just as all conservatives are not the same (e.g., recent Support by some Republicans for gun control), there are some liberals who staunchly support the 2nd A.

There are always exceptions. The point is that the vast majority of liberals are anti gun and anti self-defense, and a minority of "conservatives" are anti-gun and anti self-defense. It matters very little to me if 10 out of every 100 liberals are pro-gun, because they are beholden to a party that is anti-gun, and their pro gun beliefs are largely irrelevant. I also don't care that 10 out of very 100 "conservatives" are anti-gun, because they also are largely irrelevant. It's like saying some dogs can walk on two legs.The minorities in both parties have no power to influence the politics of the 2nd Amendment as long as they continue to support their respective parties in spite of their behavior on gun control.

mentalarson wrote:

VMI77 wrote:While I like it as an objective, I don't think a libertarian society is possible for a number of reasons, one of which is that it requires a distribution of intelligence among the populace that doesn't exist. However, in such a society, since people would be responsible for their actions, those without criminal designs would want some kind of "insurance" for protection against financial ruin when something bad or unintended happens while using a gun. In that context, insurance companies would require some kind of training before issuing a policy to a gun owner. No one would be required to get such training, but there would be an incentive to do so, since appearing in court without it would contribute to a presumption of negligence.

How is a libertarian society going to contribute to a de facto requirement for gun-owner liability insurance? Insurance doesn't protect against people being negligent and/or stupid. i.e. does insurance or liability or consequences prevent drunk driving (some...but it still happens a LOT). The basic idea is that people must be responsible for their own actions and not expect others to take care of them. Many of us will help through many ways, but the sense of entitlement must go.

I do agree that a Libertarian society is not likely because we've spent at least two generations conditioning people to not take responsibility for their actions and that they are entitled to everything. That should not keep us from fighting for freedom and pushing back. If the world doesn't blow apart, we could still push the ball back down the field in sight of the goal line.

Since men are imperfect, every society is by nature imperfect. People will still drive drunk in every society where people can own cars and drive, no matter how it is governed. Remember, I'm talking not about our current society, but a libertarian society, so you have to consider the different context. Without writing a long essay, the short answer to your question is that a libertarian society would be a strict liability society. There would be a financial incentive to buy insurance to mitigate liability risk. Of course, those with little or nothing to lose would be less likely to be concerned about mitigating liability risk, but they would also have other incentives for getting such insurance, because it would be required by other parties. For example, in such a society, the range you shoot at might require proof of insurance to mitigate their liability. So, without insurance, where would people shoot? If you say their own property, then they have an incentive to buy the insurance, as they have something to lose. Also, people might not be able to get home owner's or renter's insurance if they kept or shot guns on their property without "gun" liability insurance. If you can't get home owner's insurance, you can't get a mortgage.

In many ways, a truly libertarian society would be far more strict than what we see now because the keystone of libertarianism is individual responsibility.

mentalarson wrote:Every law abiding citizen should own a gun (or 5) AND they should (but not be required to) learn the 4 firearms safety rules and seek training and practice that is equal to the task for which they plan to use the weapon. i.e. daily carry, hunting, etc.
A drunk ignorant dumb-ass shooting at things with no regard for what is on the other side of the trees a couple hundred yards away doesn't do any of us any favors. If said dumb-ass does harm to another or is acting in a negligent way that could easily do harm to others, they should get a nasty spankin'

While I like it as an objective, I don't think a libertarian society is possible for a number of reasons, one of which is that it requires a distribution of intelligence among the populace that doesn't exist. However, in such a society, since people would be responsible for their actions, those without criminal designs would want some kind of "insurance" for protection against financial ruin when something bad or unintended happens while using a gun. In that context, insurance companies would require some kind of training before issuing a policy to a gun owner. No one would be required to get such training, but there would be an incentive to do so, since appearing in court without it would contribute to a presumption of negligence.

Mentalarson, have you read The Servile State, by Hillaire Belloc?

anygunanywhere wrote:

cheezit wrote:leaning nither left or right and being from cali. i can assure you there are plenty of libs that are pro 2a.

Sorry. The only time this makes sense is if the word liberal is used in the original definition.

The current liberal is defined as a progressive. The progressive mentality is that of collectivismn and socialism/marxism.

A person cannot call themselves a liberal and at the same time be pro 2A. They are not mutually inclusive.

Also, if an individual claims to be both, at what point along the progressive agenda continuum will they either:

1. Give up their 2A RKBA so they can remain in the good graces of the progressive socialist crowd.

or

2. Realize the error of their ways and hold true to the 2A and the rest of the constitution and BOR and abandon the progressive agenda?

I grow weary of these current crop of liberals trying to project a false facade of being pro 2A while at the the same time voting and supporting those who are intent on disarming me.

Anygunanywhere

Exactly. A liberal who supports the RKBA is like a Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus. People seem to be confused over the liberal label these days. I find that many people who lean towards libertarian social values and have little else in common with progressives often call themselves "liberals." Very few of these "liberals" satisfy the litmus test of modern liberalism: being a collectivist. You can be all over the place politically if you're not a collectivist, but if you're a collectivist you're an ideologue committed to a single course of action.