• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Liberals that OC

Xulld

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
159
Location
Florida
I'm what some may call a Liberal, but I'm not one of those Liberals. I'm also, Conservative, Libertarian, Progressive, Moderate, etc..

I don't want to reduce, or take rights away from anybody, I want to see the ones we have already, respected, by all.

I'm not a party-line dogma purveyor, because I can (and do) change my mind on issues, when the facts change.

I OC and CC.

I don't like extremist politics, or policies. Moderation, and common sense, should be the norm. Sadly though, common sense has been replaced with Agendas and Dogma from both extremes.
This represents me to a T.
 

TruxLupus

New member
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
9
Location
USA
I *am* an open-carrying liberal Democrat (sometimes I CC, depends on what is most convenient - i.e.; in the winter, I tend to CC more). Or at least, those are the political standpoints I most often tend to agree with. I'm hardly a "party-line" man.

I would also avoid falling into the trap of painting all LEO's as being right-wing as far as their political views are concerned. They are made up of citizens and just as varied as the general populace. It is probably safe to assume, however, that there are more on the political right than the political left.
 
Last edited:

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
I think the Governor had more to do with that than Bush. Who was the Gov. at that time? Who is always in bed with the united nations? Hillary?

Howdy!
The goons who went around disarming citizens of New Orleans, after the majority of cops split town, were from Blackwater. They were on a federal contract.... way above the paygrade of the governor of Louisianna, let alone the mayor of the city.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
I *am* an open-carrying liberal Democrat

Howdy Pard!
I am very much like you. I am a gun toting, open carrying, liberal democrat who does not believe women should be deprived of rights, told to keep an asprin between their knees, forced to submit to an invasive transvaginal probe by government demand and a whole host of other views I find alarming in the extreme. The worst being the decision to allow the rich to buy, cash on the barrelhead, politicians they can use as puppets to further their own agenda rather than that of the American people.

Back in the day, probably before many on the forums were even born, there was much fear of Communism. The fear was so extensive that congress formed the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. They dragged many folks in front of their commission for an investigation that seemed more befitting of the Grand Inquisition than an inquiry of fact. Even folks the likes of John Wayne and Randolph Scott were subjected to their patriotism being called into question. Many got blackballed and deprived of their livelihood, like Ertha Kitt, who couldn't get a gig for 20 years.

The actual Communists were working on a program called "Divide and Conquer". Their aim was to overthrow democracy and pave the way for America to become another Communist nation. Divide the people into smaller, more managable groups that could be picked off individually, because the innate power of a cohesive whole is far tougher to overcome than a people divided into smaller splinter factions.

We like to believe that Communism fell when the USSR collapsed (more from the failure of their economy than any policies of the United States. They simply couldn't keep up with the American spending spree! They tried and ruined themselves in the attempt.) Any belief that Communism went away is incorrect. Not even in Russia has the Communist ideology been entirely replaced with a more democractic one just ain't true. Many within the former USSR are actively trying to reconstitute a viable Communist party.

Meanwhile, many of the same factors that led to the collapse of the USSR are at work here in the USofA. During the last year of Bush2, our economy was teetering on the verge of outright collapse; catastrophic and devastating. While things appear superficially stabilized, the moves to hold the economy together have been like putting a bandaid on a slashed artery. Just this past week, we've seen another bank lose 3 billion dollars playing around with exotic financial instruments just as happened in that last year of Bush2. Without substantial correction to the activities in the banking industry that led to the nearly total collapse of our economy, the repeat performance is hardly surprising; and the ultimate outcome may well be that the collapse has been forestalled... not stopped.

Into this atmosphere come those busily working on Divide and Conquer. Splinter the American people to facilitate conquest. Set American against American to undermine the power of a united people. Set race against race, religion against religion, conservative against liberal, and break down cohesion among the people so they can be managed as individual groups. Let them beat up on one another so they no longer have strength in numbers to confront a challenge.

We, in the gun owning community, seem all too happy to divide and make easy pickings for those who might seek to conquer us. Instead of being of "One Accord" on the primary focus of standing for our belief in our right to keep and bear arms, we quarrel among ourselves. Conservative vs. Liberal, citizen vs. government, and most astounding of all, concealed carry advocates vs. open carriers. We splinter our own numbers (into subset minority groups) rather than standing together to uphold our rights under the Constitution. We may not agree on all things, that ain't the point here. But for us to splinter those who share our ideals regarding RKBA is to make easier the conquest of those who wish to usurp those rights. We need to understand that we need cohesion to maintain and champion our rights. We splinter ourselves at our own peril, and seem to do so with a perverse glee that must, in my opinion, bring a huge degree of satisfaction to our adversaries.

The rights we enjoy as gun owners were won by groups of gun owners who joined up, shoulder to shoulder, to fight for those rights and gain them for us all. The Brady bunch has lost steam because they lack cohesion, but that doesn't mean they can't whip up a frenzy to eliminate those rights. That whole shooting incident in Florida is one example of how they've tried to use an incident to regain some cohesion. They just ain't got enough cohesion to pull it off, but don't fall prey to the notion we need not be vigilant. They watch us, and look for ways that we may be set against one another. Their hope is that sooner or later, an incident comes along they can regain sufficient cohesion at a point where ours is weak, and they can shove through legislation that will turn things around.

We cannot afford to alienate our friends, we need all the friends we can get. We need to stop splitting ourselves into splinter groups based on ideology or any other factor. We need to stand together for our rights as Americans. When Americans stand united, no threat to our rights can succeed. But only when we join together to support one another in our shared goal. Even the Enemy of my Enemy can be a friend to back me up in a fight with a determined enemy. We divide ourselves at our peril, and those who seek to divide and conquer gain power. The sad part of that notion is.... they don't need to divide us, we're all too willing to do it to ourselves.

Our continued success and enjoyment of our Constitutional rights hinges on our ability to uphold them in the face of those that advocate the elimination of those rights. I count any American qualified to stand together with us to uphold them from those who would usurp them.

That's the bottom line folks. My opinion, 2 cents worth, and sticking to it.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
We cannot afford to alienate our friends, we need all the friends we can get. We need to stop splitting ourselves into splinter groups based on ideology or any other factor. We need to stand together for our rights as Americans. When Americans stand united, no threat to our rights can succeed. But only when we join together to support one another in our shared goal. Even the Enemy of my Enemy can be a friend to back me up in a fight with a determined enemy. We divide ourselves at our peril, and those who seek to divide and conquer gain power. The sad part of that notion is.... they don't need to divide us, we're all too willing to do it to ourselves.

Our continued success and enjoyment of our Constitutional rights hinges on our ability to uphold them in the face of those that advocate the elimination of those rights. I count any American qualified to stand together with us to uphold them from those who would usurp them.

That's the bottom line folks. My opinion, 2 cents worth, and sticking to it.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

See, the problem with you liberals is that you only want to stand up for some rights. When it comes to things like my right to my property, and to not have my property confiscated to pay for liberal social-engineering entitlement programs, I find folks of your political persuasion to be notably absent. I find that liberals are also generally OK with government compulsion, so long as it's for this mythic principle known as "the greater good." They keep telling me that I'm somehow party to a "social contract," though I have neither seen nor signed such a document.

I'm not going to shake your hand on defending the 2A when you are using the other to pick my pocket or put a chain around my neck.
 
Last edited:

Ballistic Otters

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
23
Man in Black,

I'm not going to open up the can of worms that is the welfare argument. Not all liberals support welfare, though. Liberal =/= Democrat or Socialist. But I'll remind you that America was, in some of the founders' opinions at least, built under Social Contract Theory. It's just a philosophical way of explaining how we removed the *natural* human right to kill everyone or take anything that people see. It only applies if you believe there is no natural, objective set of ethics. I'm not going to argue with you, but it's an idea that does exist at all levels of the population and government, and at least understanding how it works could be very important to any form of social activism/debate.

Liberals and Libertarians are more and more becoming the same thing. I'm a liberal who wants Ron Paul in the White House, and I think Obama has screwed up pretty much everything he has done. Not all liberals stick to the Democratic party line. Some of us want the government to stay very far away from your rights, property, and freedom.
 

Mark 1911

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
94
Location
Munster, IN
Don't get caught up in the label trap. who cares as long as we are free. I don't consider myself a liberal, and although I am conservative in my views, I don't like the term right. We are free men, period.

The current administration doesn't understand what freedom is. But we can't blame the government, they came from the same pool the rest of us swim in. We have to change things, one fish at a time. And that is the calling of every citizen.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Man in Black,

I'm not going to open up the can of worms that is the welfare argument. Not all liberals support welfare, though. Liberal =/= Democrat or Socialist. But I'll remind you that America was, in some of the founders' opinions at least, built under Social Contract Theory. It's just a philosophical way of explaining how we removed the *natural* human right to kill everyone or take anything that people see. It only applies if you believe there is no natural, objective set of ethics. I'm not going to argue with you, but it's an idea that does exist at all levels of the population and government, and at least understanding how it works could be very important to any form of social activism/debate.

Liberals and Libertarians are more and more becoming the same thing. I'm a liberal who wants Ron Paul in the White House, and I think Obama has screwed up pretty much everything he has done. Not all liberals stick to the Democratic party line. Some of us want the government to stay very far away from your rights, property, and freedom.

I think you need to better define what you mean by liberal. You seem to be implying a definition inconsistent with contemporary meaning of liberal. The contemporary meaning of liberal does == left wing progressive, which is a socialist.
 
Last edited:

Ballistic Otters

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
23
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.

That's the Wikipedia article. I'll never argue that this definition is a complete summation of Liberalism, Daylen, or the most/only correct one, but I think it shows that your definition of the term is not the only valid definition. Hell, even "left-wing progressivism" doesn't have to mean socialist. Progressivism can just be used to depict a political orientation that seeks to change with the times. A lot of people think changing should mean socialist ideas, but that's not all progressives.
 

Animus

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Cookeville, TN
Personally I'm a fan of a mixed economy, particularly the Scandinavian examples. The state controlling the economy isn't a big deal when the people control the state. They lead the world in education and standard of living. Hell, if their gun laws weren't so retarded, I'd probably move there after college.

But anyway, the left is just as diverse as the right. The traditional political spectrum honestly means nothing nowadays, something like the political compass is much more accurate and meaningful. It also better shows what we have in common--the government would just love for us to stay divided. That's how things like the NDAA come about without most people even batting an eyelash.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Personally I'm a fan of a mixed economy, particularly the Scandinavian examples. The state controlling the economy isn't a big deal when the people control the state. They lead the world in education and standard of living. Hell, if their gun laws weren't so retarded, I'd probably move there after college.

But anyway, the left is just as diverse as the right. The traditional political spectrum honestly means nothing nowadays, something like the political compass is much more accurate and meaningful. It also better shows what we have in common--the government would just love for us to stay divided. That's how things like the NDAA come about without most people even batting an eyelash.

Then you should move there! Or perhaps Switzerland!
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Neither side really wants us carry weapons. Regardless of what they say during elections.

Truly enlightened comment [NOT sarcasm!]

The only REAL problem in this country is that the perpetual government machine tries inherently to grow bigger and bigger.

Some time do a search on "federal budget vs GPD"

Our FEDERAL BUDGET has slowly grown over the last 100 years until is now equals MORE THAN 40% of our entire GPD!!!

Think about that and let it sink in. The greatest victory is splitting the entire country neatly down the middle so we fight each other while the government slowly grows and grown into the monster it is becoming.

My views are currently split about 60/40 conservative. But I would gladly hold hands with any liberal on most any issue if we were both fighting the disgusting bloated federal monster.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Is it not counter productive to be of any political bias, carry, and support 2A, yet then turn around and vote for anti-gun politicians?
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I guess Romeny is the answer to our prayers. Take a little time to do a little research about Romney and guns. He is by NO MEANS a proponent.

The truth is both sides work toward controlling the people, for our own good. The libs are are certainly more anti gun than conservs but the conservs are more anti 4th IMHO.

Two sides of the same coin. Two wings of the same vulture called control.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
I'm a bit late jumping into this discussion - I guess because the title of the topic seemed a bit ridiculous at first glance.

Today I took the time to read the posts.

Here's my take. The present Democratic Party is not "liberal" - it is "progressive".

The Progressive Movement has been a re-packaging of Marxism-Leninism for U.S. consumption.

True Democrats abandoned the Democratic Party in 1980, and voted for Reagan.

The vacuum was filled by Marxist oriented utopians, residual communists, and those prone to blame some body else for their lack of success.

I think the Libertarian movement label has replaced the true "liberal" label.

"Liberal", or "conservative" we all need to respect, and work within the parameters of our Constitutional Republic to address our problems - not resort to anarchy, or fiat government.
 

Animus

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Cookeville, TN
I guess Romeny is the answer to our prayers. Take a little time to do a little research about Romney and guns. He is by NO MEANS a proponent.

The truth is both sides work toward controlling the people, for our own good. The libs are are certainly more anti gun than conservs but the conservs are more anti 4th IMHO.

Two sides of the same coin. Two wings of the same vulture called control.

Gary Johnson.
 
Top