Are Liberals Coming Here To Change Minds?

[pbwalker]

Whatever.

Anygunanywhere

How progressive of you...

[pbwalker]

I know plenty of Liberal folks who are vehemently pro-2A. They don't agree with what Chairman Maobama is doing now, and are doing what they can to fight it. Not all libs and conservatives fit in to a nice, cookie-cutter form...

Classical Liberals, yes, but none of them would have voted for Obama. Probably not for Romney either.

great point

[Abraham]

pbwalker,

"I know plenty of Liberal folks who are vehemently pro-2A."

I've heard of such folks, but never met one. Surely, by liberal you don't mean today's so-called progressive?

All the self identified liberals (actually progressives) I've met in person were the "give me stuff and plenty of it" crowd and btw guns are bad.

One is a friend. His wife and he are artists. They're not wildly successful, but make enough. They own two homes, two cars, clothes, put food on the table, and live a comfortable life style, but he and she think health care and a lot of other stuff should be given to them. Hey, they deserve it. They work hard. We all need to share... we're all Americans, well except for some immigrants, but they deserve it too...

As for politically divergent folks, whether they lean a bit more conservative than liberal or vice versa, wouldn't they be more accurately described as Independents? No cookie cutter mold with those views.

As far I know, no person falls into any cookie cutter mold. If they do, I fear they're more Fascist than anything else.

I have some politically/socially divergent opinions too. For one, I think all drugs should be legal. Drug associated crime wouldn't completely disappear, but would quickly drop in scope. Let nature take care of the self destructive and regulate the users. Is this a liberal view? Beats me. I think it radically independent. And no, I'm not a fan of this idea because I'm a drug user, except for Prevacid for heartburn and a prescription for older guys who can't stray far from a restroom, but I'm sure that's t.m.i...

Am I mostly conservative? Sure. Rhetorically speaking: Do I want you to pay for my stuff? No. Do I want to tell you how to live? No - If you want to marry that big old oak tree in the front yard, please, I hope you'll both be happy. Can I buy the tools necessary to defend myself if ever necessary - progressives don't think so.

I want to be alert when some stealth progressive (now that's a better descriptor than that pesky L word) comes here and pretends to be vehemently pro-2A, when they really mean to get me to unwittingly give up my rights, cuz, you know, it's inevitable anyway.

[mentalarson]

Whatever is occurring, and hopefully we do have a variety of opinions so we can explain our views, we need to be on our best behavior. The world is watching

I live in WA and rapidly cutting strings and paying off debt so we can move to NE Texas. WA has lots of good folks, but it's ruled by a cluster of brain dead big-government folks around Seattle...think Austin vs rest of the state.
REF: viewtopic.php?f=83&t=61664" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is so much anti-gun misinformation it's tough to take it without throwing fits.
There are rare fits of journalism that can take the edge off...
http://www.fox19.com/story/20538164/pie ... cide-rates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One key of historically great generals is they pick the field of battle. As much as possible they fight the enemy on their "home field". We are fighting the battle on the media's terms calling black rifles "assault weapons" and distancing this discussion from normal people by mainly referencing the 2nd Amendment. (I do it too, but we're losing ground.)

For example, Peter Schiff and Ted Nugent had a discussion (See YouTube) in which Schiff mentioned that this should be a Women's issue.
Specifically a 3hr self defense class does not prepare a woman to defend herself against a determined rapist. However, a Glock in her purse and some decent training will enable her to survive the confrontation or prevent the attack.

I think we need to use phrases like, "I believe in my right to protect myself and my family" or "I believe in the right to self-defense" or other things that make the discussion more personal.

What made our government different is that all over the world governments trample on rights. The "exception" is that our government committed to respecting basic individual rights.

[mentalarson]

With regard to the second; every man's house is deemed, by the law, to be his castle; and the law, while it invests him with the power, enjoins on him the duty, of the commanding officer. "Every man's house is his castle," says my Lord Coke, in one of his reports, "and he ought to keep and defend it at his peril; and if any one be robbed in it, it shall be esteemed his own default and negligence." For this reason, one may assemble people together in order to protect and defend his house.
--Founder/Signer: James Wilson

Not only is it our right, but it's our duty to defend our own homes.

[pbwalker]

pbwalker,

"I know plenty of Liberal folks who are vehemently pro-2A."

I've heard of such folks, but never met one. Surely, by liberal you don't mean today's so-called progressive?

All the self identified liberals (actually progressives) I've met in person were the "give me stuff and plenty of it" crowd and btw guns are bad.

One is a friend. His wife and he are artists. They're not wildly successful, but make enough. They own two homes, two cars, clothes, put food on the table, and live a comfortable life style, but he and she think health care and a lot of other stuff should be given to them. Hey, they deserve it. They work hard. We all need to share... we're all Americans, well except for some immigrants, but they deserve it too...

As for politically divergent folks, whether they lean a bit more conservative than liberal or vice versa, wouldn't they be more accurately described as Independents? No cookie cutter mold with those views.

As far I know, no person falls into any cookie cutter mold. If they do, I fear they're more Fascist than anything else.

I have some politically/socially divergent opinions too. For one, I think all drugs should be legal. Drug associated crime wouldn't completely disappear, but would quickly drop in scope. Let nature take care of the self destructive and regulate the users. Is this a liberal view? Beats me. I think it radically independent. And no, I'm not a fan of this idea because I'm a drug user, except for Prevacid for heartburn and a prescription for older guys who can't stray far from a restroom, but I'm sure that's t.m.i...

Am I mostly conservative? Sure. Rhetorically speaking: Do I want you to pay for my stuff? No. Do I want to tell you how to live? No - If you want to marry that big old oak tree in the front yard, please, I hope you'll both be happy. Can I buy the tools necessary to defend myself if ever necessary - progressives don't think so.

I want to be alert when some stealth progressive (now that's a better descriptor than that pesky L word) comes here and pretends to be vehemently pro-2A, when they really mean to get me to unwittingly give up my rights, cuz, you know, it's inevitable anyway.

Abraham,

Yes, I wouldn't classify today's Progressives as real Liberals. Today's progressives are, in my mind, no different from terrorists. Not completely in the violent sense, but in the sense that they want to fundamentally change America in to something bad. Many of the Libs I know are very pro-2A, but tend to be more liberal when it comes to social issues (and many fiscally too). I'm militantly conservative when it comes to fiscal concerns, 2A, and an assortment of other issues. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to drugs (too), abortion, and I have some viewpoints about the military that most conservatives would find liberal.

I guess you could call the Libs I know "Blue Dogs". I'm not one to fall in to the "Rush is God, Glen Beck speaks the truth, etc." crowd. I actually can't stand Fox News. I do consider myself a Conservative, but one whose view are growing more and more libertarian-ish.

Don't get me wrong...Obama is ruining this country at a rate and scale never seen before. I want nothing more than for him to not be the POTUS. I voted for Romney, but it made me want to puke.

I will NEVER give up my Constitutional rights, regardless of the trash Washington tries to pull. Call me an extremist, but all I can say is "Come and get it!" (or come and find it )

[gigag04]

Here's my opinion - whether Liberal or Republican, if you choose a Glock over a 1911 you're a Serious minded individual prepared to engage multiple threats in austere environments without the drawback of frequent reloads, FTF malfunctions, gun cleaning, or looking pretty [ Image ]

FYP in red

[anygunanywhere]

hmmm. i didnt know gay rights cost you money my bad.
single issue, one tract people on both sides of the fence.
i have not now nor will i ever sale my sole down political river as so many do.
as far as christians not beliving in jesues well there are those that dont belive.. just as there are jews that proclaim him to be a savyor. i dont fall in to either of those groups either

yes it is possble to vote what you think is right. still be pro 2a, pro womens choice, pro gay rights and be against giving away the peoples money on ill got goods.

You made my point. So you are vehemently pro 2a and hold all of the BOR close to your heart.

But you will deny the most innocent and defenseless of all, the unborn, their right to life. You have indeed sold your soul down the river.

As I stated before if any part of a statement is a lie it is all a lie. You want all of your rights but not everyone can have theirs.

How very progressive of you.

Anygunanywhere

[mentalarson]

While a baseline of manners and morality was shared by the founders, they tended to line up with Libertarian views.
For example, "If it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg, what matter is it to me." --Ben Franklin (pretty sure).

OR "My freedom to wave my fists ends where your nose begins."
...feel free to bitch about things, but leave me and my stuff alone.

I am a Conservative Christian, but I think I would be completely satisfied with a Libertarian country and leadership.

We're going to spend a LOT of time yelling at each other if we talk about morality and it's place in government or society so maybe we should drill into the Constitution and understand the wisdom is has to offer. Since a lot of it has it's roots in a Judeo-Christian world view it works for Conservatives, but it's also a very Libertarian document, and it was our founder's intent to have just enough structure to keep the wheels on....but not create a power magnet that attracts rats.

"The Road to Surfdom" completely lays bare the folly of central planning and emphasizes the power of individual liberty so we can all pretty much agree that big government is bad and local government are more likely to be held accountable for their actions.

Where I part company with Libertarians is the false concept that "you cannot legislate morality" then lumping a whole bunch of things into the morality bucket. Most of the laws the govern civilized society are rooted in basic morality, but the debate heats up when people try to discern where the line is.

Abortion is a more intense example. Most folks that are anti-abortion truly believe that an unborn baby is a person in an early stage of life. "The right to life" is not just a slogan but a deeply held belief that those small people are also endowed with inalienable rights that should not be infringed. Though this is debated in the morality arena, a Libertarian can also be in favor of protecting the rights of an unborn person. Ben Franklin's quote could be extended to, "A woman's right to choose ends where a baby's life begins." While I do not expect abortion to be outlawed in the U.S. I would really like to stop tax payer funding of it. That is also a libertarian view...that people should be responsible for themselves. If people want to contribute to Planned Parenthood, have at it, but don't compel me to pay to kill little people....that disgusts me.

I'm not a fan of the nanny state, and I fear a world ruled by the "Participation Trophy" generation where excellence is discouraged and mediocrity is celebrated.

There is a case to be made for legalizing drugs as part of a sweeping shift of increased rights AND responsibilities.
As a society we must embrace the idea that "You can take whatever drugs you want, but if you fry your brain, it's your problem."

However, most folks talking about it these days focus on the first part only and will still expect you and I to pay for them to sit and stare at the walls in a drug-induced haze or pay fir their treatment so they can hold down a job.

I won't support the freedom without requiring people taking responsibility for their actions.
I think we've got to sell it as a package deal.

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'

[VMI77]

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

[VMI77]

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.

[DocRhino]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I end up at the tippy-top of the resulting diamond....

[mentalarson]

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

Nope. Just added to my wish list in Amazon. Care to disclose a few key concepts that triggered your question?