Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: I HATE GUNS.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post

    I wonder if anyone can tell me who said this:



    “We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns. I don’t think people should have guns, unless they are police, or in the military or security industry. Ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.”



    It was John Howard, the former Prime Minister. And my guess is he probably spoke for a majority of Australians. Quite likely a fair few people here too.



    There were three assumptions implicit in his comment.



    First, he assumed strict gun laws lead to gun control, which in turn leads to reduced levels of violence.



    Second, he assumed the so-called “American gun culture” is bad and something to be avoided.



    Third, he assumed it was perfectly OK for the government to have all the guns and for ordinary people to have none.



    I’ll focus on the first two – that strict gun laws lead to a safer society, and the American gun culture. The third is a different topic and I can’t deal with it adequately in 10 minutes.



    If I said to you that neither of these two assumptions is true, a lot of you would instinctively disagree. Such is the nature of the gun debate.



    But it is a fact that gun laws do not control guns. And even if they did it wouldn’t reduce crime.



    And the so-called American gun culture is derived from movies and TV, with a bit of media imagination thrown in. The reality is altogether different.



    I recognise some people are reluctant to reconsider their opinion of guns. Even liberal minded people on things like drugs, censorship and prostitution tend to have a blind spot on guns.



    Some people actually fear guns, like some fear heights or spiders. The term for fear of guns is hoplophobia. People who fear guns are not open to rational persuasion, just as some people can never relax when there’s a spider on the wall no matter how much scientific data is offered explaining how spiders can’t jump.



    I believe John Howard is a hoplophobia (amongst other things).



    In 1996 following the Port Arthur massacre, he forced the States to sign up to an agreement to make major changes to their gun laws. More changes followed in 2002 after the murder of two people at Monash University.



    Unless you were a sporting shooter or hunter, or a farmer, you probably wouldn’t be familiar with the detail; you’ll have simply heard about “tough gun laws”. You quite likely assumed tough gun laws sounded good and never thought further about it.



    Prohibition can be a bit like that. Unless you are directly affected, you tend not to notice when others lose a bit of their liberty.



    So let me tell you a little bit about the Howard gun laws.



    They banned civilians from owning self-loading (ie semi-automatic) rifles and shotguns, plus pump action shotguns.



    They restricted magazine capacity on everything else, introduced individual registration of rifles and shotguns, and imposed a range of other restrictions on firearm acquisition.



    In 2002/03 pistols with short barrels were prohibited, plus calibres greater than .38 or magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Additional licensing obligations were imposed too.



    A special tax was introduced via the Medicare levy to fund a confiscation with compensation scheme, euphemistically called a “buy-back” (you can’t buy back something that was never yours to start with, but no matter.) The cost was at least $700 million plus State costs, with more than 700,000 firearms surrendered.



    For those with an interest in firearms, like me, the new laws were profoundly coercive.



    First, you could be liable for 15 years in prison simply by doing nothing.



    That’s what an Australian Rip van Winkle would face if he fell asleep in 1996 with a totally legal semi-automatic rifle, and awoke in 1998 owning an unregistered prohibited weapon.



    The shooting sports had to abandon or restructure popular disciplines. Rifle matches were forced to make do with rifles introduced more than 50 years ago, because everything since then is semi-automatic.



    In some disciplines pistol shooters became internationally uncompetitive because of the restrictions on calibres or magazine capacity. As far as I know, none of the restrictions would have made any difference to the Monash murderer.



    Clay target shooters who can prove a double barrel shotgun is too big or heavy are permitted to own a self-loading shotgun, but they can’t have a spare in case the first one breaks. It’s like forcing a tennis player to make do with a single tennis racket.



    Farmers can own a single semi-automatic rifle for destroying vermin such as rabbits, foxes and pigs, or injured livestock, but can’t own a spare one. And their employees, family members or contractors can’t have even one such rifle.



    A mass of petty legal traps were created relating to things such as having your licence with you, storage and transport of firearms and ammunition, and licence conditions including minimum attendance at club meetings.



    Even firearms collectors must belong to an approved collectors club and attend at least two meetings a year.



    Any police officer can look up the police computer and see who legally owns guns.



    When the police come to my house, they are always in pairs and one stands back with a hand near their pistol, just in case I burst out the door and spray them with bullets. Of course they don’t do that when they visit one of my friends. He also has a gun but he hasn’t bothered with a licence, so they assume he can’t spray them with bullets.



    The safe in which I store my guns in my home is subject to inspection at virtually any time. And if I am found with so much as a single 22 bullet not locked up, I’m likely to lose my licence.



    In fact, it is very easy to break the law if you are a firearm owner. In some cases regulations were written to make compliance difficult in the hope it would discourage licence applications.



    Prosecution, even without conviction, usually results in suspension of your firearms licence and seizure of your guns.



    Apprehended violence orders, often taken out frivolously by angry wives or husbands in divorce or custody disputes, always result in the loss of licence and guns.



    The sheer bastardry of the gun laws is one reason why gun owners never “get over” or even “get used to” the gun laws.



    But that only affects you if you are a gun owner.



    More relevant to everyone is the fact that all remaining rights to own a gun for self-defence were eliminated. For all practical purposes, and there are no exceptions in NSW, it is now impossible to own any kind of gun for protection anywhere, including in the home.



    Most people never felt the need to arm themselves for self-defence. But you used to be able to make that choice yourself. It was once OK for people faced with a realistic threat of violence to get a permit to carry a pistol. The police would often recommend it.



    Wives pursued by violent ex-husbands, celebrities hounded by crazed fans, and of course jewellers and owners of gun shops, were among them. You didn’t hear about it much, but I knew several people who had permits.



    These days, politicians are protected by armed guards at taxpayers expense and the well-heeled hire armed security guards. Everyone else takes his or her chances.



    In fact, you can’t carry a weapon of any kind. Even non-lethal alternatives like pepper sprays, mace and Tasers are banned. You are not allowed to carry a pocket-knife. Bullet-proof body armour is banned too.



    In theory, the right of self-defence hasn’t been lost. Self-defence is still available as a defence and juries consistently refuse to convict those charged with serious offences whenever self-defence is established.



    But it is no longer a practical option for a lot of people. Realistically, only the young, the strong and the agile have options. I often hear young fit men scoff at the idea that they need a weapon for self-defence. But they seem to forget about their grandmother, mother or sister.



    If your ex-husband has bashed you half a dozen times, breached numerous restraining orders, made threats to come and finish you off and knows where you live, you still cannot legally arm yourself. If you do, you’ll be the one that gets arrested.



    Your vulnerability is no less in your own home except for the fact that you are still allowed to use whatever is at hand, and kitchen knives and screwdrivers are so far still legal.



    And don’t believe that old story about criminals being more likely to use your own weapon against you. It’s another myth. Especially if the weapon is a gun and you have practised using it.



    Even if you own a gun for sport, as I do, anyone coming to do me in would have to give me 10 minutes notice for it to be any use. That’s how long it would take to unlock my compulsory safe, unlock my compulsory ammunition box, load one of the guns and get it ready to use.



    A Warning to the Rest of the Free World
    In May 1996 35 people were killed by a lone gunman at Port Arthur, Tasmania. John Howard, Australia's recently elected Prime Minister, wasted no time in travelling to the scene of the tragedy to make all the right political noises, vowing on national television to ensure this could never happen again. The nation's shooting fraternity has been reeling ever since as it fights to save its sport.

    In the two months following Port Arthur there has been a carefully calculated and well orchestrated media campaign to change the way the people of Australia think about gun laws. George Orwell would have been proud, as with their 1984 style tactics they have convinced themselves, and possibly the non-shooting public, that the majority of Australians support the Federal government in their anti-gun stance.

    From the outset Howard seized the initiative. He promised to ban all military-style semi automatic weapons from civilian ownership. He also promised to have a close look at recent trends to release mental patients into the community to save money. The first was no surprise, as even the gun fraternity has been long expecting the loss of centrefire semi autos, and the second was a welcome sign that for once the blame was not to be placed wholly and solely on an inanimate object.

    But no mention has since been made about mental health. Within days a draft agreement was made up for State Police Ministers to tighten all states' gun laws with the following major points:

    1. A ban on all automatic and semi automatic firearms. This includes rimfires and shotguns. As a matter of interest, full autos have been illegal in mainland Australia for more than seventy years, but their reasons for including this will become obvious later.

    2. A ban of all pump action shotguns.

    3. National registration of all firearms.

    4. Tough new criteria for granting a shooters licence (to include existing licence holders). Licences only granted to competitive target shooters who regularly attend ranges or regular hunters of feral pests who can produce letters from landowners. Personal protection is not a reason to own a gun.

    5. A 28-day "cooling off" period for the purchase of any firearm (airguns included), regardless of how many firearms you already own.

    A couple of states made noises that they would not follow Howard's guidelines. These soon faded to a whimper after Howard threatened to reduce their funding.

    The ban on semi autos was modified to exclude pistols after a few days as it became obvious that our Olympic Team could be badly affected in Rapid Fire and Sport Pistol, and that could be too unpopular if we hope to hold the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Besides, pistols are so well regulated they will be no problem to confiscate at a later date when the political climate is ripe.

    In order to appease the growing howls of protest from shooters, the government decided to offer a buy-back scheme of all banned firearms. Of course, they would not fund this themselves, so they increased the Medicare Levy (medical benefit levy on all taxpayers) by 0.2% to cover the projected costs.

    None of the events so far have been remarkable. What followed, and what continues, should be a warning to all free people of the world. The issues here are truth and freedom, and while the media is free to say what it likes, they are not held accountable should they bend the truth a little.

    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Caf, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post

    I don't think there's any reason on Earth why people should have access to automatic and semiautomatic weapons unless they're in the military or in the police.
    Quotation of John Howard
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Caf, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post

    John Howard, former prim minister of Australia whomanaged to banguns in Australia may hate guns but he does carry one purely for self defence. here he is seen doing hisArnie impression.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Caf, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    I don't know if you cited PM Howard saying this (your post was long and I didn't get through it), but IIRC he was the one who said:

    "At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said, "Self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm." (Sidney Morning Herald, October 28, 1998. Source: the Australian Institute of Criminology.)"

    And his legacy, amongst other things,is that in Australia today self-defense is not an acceptable reason for getting a gun permit. Disgraceful.

    -- John D.

    Source: http://www.iwf.org/news/show/18350.html
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783

    Post imported post

    Just another Lib,progressive telling people what they can or cant do. The "we know better than you" attitude. Arrogence at its best!I cant say what I think about this guy or any other progressive for that matter.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    I can only hope the worst for the Ignorant Australian government and it's laws.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SLC, Utah, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    ...I know this is kind of off topic, but since when was there scientific proof that spiders can't jump? I've seen plenty of spiders jump...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    wethepeople wrote:
    Just another Lib,progressive telling people what they can or cant do. The "we know better than you" attitude. Arrogence at its best!I cant say what I think about this guy or any other progressive for that matter.
    Do you realize when you categorize people such as you just did, you polarize them. I am a very liberal minded person, who hates unions, and supports 2a.

    Liberal is not a swear word but a badge of honor in many instances throughout the political history of this country. Ending Slavery, Democratic Government etc. Doing things the old way is not always the right way, but polarizing people like me who find common ground is not helpful.

    People cannot be put into the made up categories which do not represent us each as free thinking individuals. So stop drinking the kool-aid from loud mouth pundits and try to use the old noodle before you put down some supporters of 2a as that is why this forum exists.

    V/R

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    According to reports from the US BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics) and the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), a woman in AU is 3 times more likely to be raped during her lifetime than a woman in the USA. And Sexual Assault in AU has gone UP 29.9% since the gun ban took effect...

    Homicides with firearms have dropped a little in AU, but ALL other categories of violent crime (assault, rape, robbery, car theft, suicide) went up SIGNIFICANTLY in the years immediately following the 1996 ban.

    Apparently, an unarmed society is not a very polite society after all...

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d8-Australia-experiencing-more-violent-crime-despite-gun-ban

    http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html


    But what is mot intersting, statistically, is that overall, and in each individual category, there has been almost NO statistically significant rise OR reduction in crime in AU in the last 20 years. Almost ALL categories of crime (excluding rape) have been pretty much flatlined since 1993, with the exception of a minor spike in all violent crimes from '96-98.

    http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

    And we also need to remember that prior to the '96 ban, AU was NOT at all like the US with regards to handgun ownership. Before the ban, it was still VERY difficult and expensive for AU citizens to own handguns. The only thing that REALLY changed with the ban was that the rich, well-connected people who already had handguns in AU now have to pay even HIGHER fees to keep them. Who the '96 ban REALLY effected was hunters, ranchers, and women living in rural areas, who were forced to turn in their semiauto rifles and shotguns, and their pump shotguns.

    So once again, we see a program where only "the right kinds of people" are allowe to own guns, and the result is that women suffer a HUGE increase in sexual assault crimes, and the overall crime rate is not effected at all. What the AU government has succeeded in doing is making tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen, and creating a black market for foreign gun smugglers that didn't exist before these restrictive laws were created.

    In AU, much like in the UK, and many Eastern European nations, the laws that are supposed to keep us safer are in fact CREATING entirely new classes of crime that never existed before, and are DIRECTLY responsible for rises in crimes against women, children, the elderly, and minorities.

    Gee thanks, Mr. Howard and Mr. Rudd...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    PointofView wrote:
    wethepeople wrote:
    Just another Lib,progressive telling people what they can or cant do. The "we know better than you" attitude. Arrogence at its best!I cant say what I think about this guy or any other progressive for that matter.
    Do you realize when you categorize people such as you just did, you polarize them. I am a very liberal minded person, who hates unions, and supports 2a.

    Liberal is not a swear word but a badge of honor in many instances throughout the political history of this country. Ending Slavery, Democratic Government etc. Doing things the old way is not always the right way, but polarizing people like me who find common ground is not helpful.

    People cannot be put into the made up categories which do not represent us each as free thinking individuals. So stop drinking the kool-aid from loud mouth pundits and try to use the old noodle before you put down some supporters of 2a as that is why this forum exists.

    V/R
    Hmmmm... The problem is throwing around "liberal" without defining it. In my opinion Classic Liberal = good. There are other types out there of course..:?

    POV sounds like a classic Liberal or Libertarian; the later group I fall into, as well as quite a few other members of the forum.


    Some of the other types of liberals also go along with the 2A but they usually don't hate unions so, that's what I based my opinion of POV's politics on.


    Then again, I agree it shouldn't matter as far as this forum is concerned. Although the discussion will usually lead into politics at some point we all have to agree to disagree on non 2A related issues. Here, anyway.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    PointofView wrote:
    wethepeople wrote:
    Just another Lib,progressive telling people what they can or cant do. The "we know better than you" attitude. Arrogence at its best!I cant say what I think about this guy or any other progressive for that matter.
    Do you realize when you categorize people such as you just did, you polarize them. I am a very liberal minded person, who hates unions, and supports 2a.

    Liberal is not a swear word but a badge of honor in many instances throughout the political history of this country. Ending Slavery, Democratic Government etc. Doing things the old way is not always the right way, but polarizing people like me who find common ground is not helpful.

    People cannot be put into the made up categories which do not represent us each as free thinking individuals. So stop drinking the kool-aid from loud mouth pundits and try to use the old noodle before you put down some supporters of 2a as that is why this forum exists.

    V/R
    "Liberal" before the 20th century and "liberal" now, are almost polar opposites!
    I won't paint with a broad brush and say all modern libs hate guns and the 2A,
    but a safe bet would be that 99% do.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    PointofView wrote:
    wethepeople wrote:
    Just another Lib,progressive telling people what they can or cant do. The "we know better than you" attitude. Arrogence at its best!I cant say what I think about this guy or any other progressive for that matter.
    Do you realize when you categorize people such as you just did, you polarize them.* I am a very liberal minded person, who hates unions, and supports 2a.*

    Liberal is not a swear word but a badge of honor in many instances throughout the political history of this country.* Ending Slavery, Democratic Government etc.* Doing things the old way is not always the right way, but polarizing people like me who find common ground is not helpful.

    People cannot be put into the made up categories which do not represent us each as free thinking individuals.* So stop drinking the kool-aid from loud mouth pundits and try to use the old noodle before you put down some supporters of 2a as that is why this forum exists.

    V/R
    "Liberal" before the 20th century and "liberal" now, are almost polar opposites!
    I won't paint with a broad brush and say all modern libs hate guns and the 2A,
    but a safe bet would be that 99% do.
    Much like many Republicans are just that due to abortion (which is crazy since when the republicans had both houses and the presidency no Roe V. Wade was not overturned) people on the other side of the isle often have a reason not associated with 2a that they personally find more important and hence the reason they vote left. To say that 99% of people on the left are against guns implies that 100% even find it to be a relevant issue. This is clearly not true. Perhaps people on the left are for women's rights or are pro union. It would be quite an assumption to think that 2a is the biggest part of so many peoples lives.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Nikki_Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    PointofView wrote:
    wethepeople wrote:
    Just another Lib,progressive telling people what they can or cant do. The "we know better than you" attitude. Arrogence at its best!I cant say what I think about this guy or any other progressive for that matter.
    Do you realize when you categorize people such as you just did, you polarize them.* I am a very liberal minded person, who hates unions, and supports 2a.*

    Liberal is not a swear word but a badge of honor in many instances throughout the political history of this country.* Ending Slavery, Democratic Government etc.* Doing things the old way is not always the right way, but polarizing people like me who find common ground is not helpful.

    People cannot be put into the made up categories which do not represent us each as free thinking individuals.* So stop drinking the kool-aid from loud mouth pundits and try to use the old noodle before you put down some supporters of 2a as that is why this forum exists.

    V/R
    "Liberal" before the 20th century and "liberal" now, are almost polar opposites!
    I won't paint with a broad brush and say all modern libs hate guns and the 2A,
    but a safe bet would be that 99% do.
    My grandma is in the 1% of liberals who are pro 2a.
    She's a to the core liberal democrat, but she loves guns and the right to have and carry them.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    My sweetie is somewhere to the left of Woodie Guthrie, but she's going to be getting her Utah CC permit next month...

    It took two years of constant work from me to bring her into the light, but she's finally come to her senses with regards to the 2A...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Nikki,

    Your grandma maybe a dem. but doubt she is a lib as they are very very few in the south, especially in small town like you and I live. Even the blacks here, even though
    they vote dem. by default, most when questioned issue by issue, are fairly
    conservative.

    I don't know your grandma and you do, she may well be one of the very very few.
    If she is, work on her, even old dogs can learn new tricks.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    PointofView wrote:
    Much like many Republicans are just that due to abortion (which is crazy since when the republicans had both houses and the presidency no Roe V. Wade was not overturned) people on the other side of the isle often have a reason not associated with 2a that they personally find more important and hence the reason they vote left. To say that 99% of people on the left are against guns implies that 100% even find it to be a relevant issue. This is clearly not true. Perhaps people on the left are for women's rights or are pro union. It would be quite an assumption to think that 2a is the biggest part of so many peoples lives.


    100% of the legislation to restrict 2A comes from the left.All of the leftist regimes
    there has ever been, first disarmed the citizenry and then murder any dissenters.

    Why do you think the left in this country wants to deny 2A?
    History tells us why. To snatch liberty away and enslave
    the populace!

    I and many untold millions will not let that happen.2a is the final tool in
    preservation of liberty. And liberty is more important than any union or
    a woman's right to murder her baby.

    What was the topic here? I forgot.:?

  17. #17
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    100% of the legislation to restrict 2A comes from the left.All of the leftist regimes
    there has ever been, first disarmed the citizenry and then murder any dissenters.
    Yeah, like the Patriot Act (Bush)...

    and FOPA (Reagan) which prohibited the private sale of all full-auto firearms manufactured after 1986?

    The Left/Right paradigm is a smokescreen. Get over it. This slice of baloney we call "the two party system is rotten on BOTH sides--rotten to the core...

    There is no Left.

    There is No Right.

    There are only "Those who believe in Liberty" and "those who desire the enslavement of the populace".

    Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    You are confusing left - right with Rep - Dem.
    You are right about the 2 party system, but
    left and right are absolutes!
    left= socialist, communist =enslavement
    right= democracy,republics=Liberty
    It's leftist infusion that has given us liberty lite!

  19. #19
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post

    Just follow the sign.

    Haz
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Caf, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    You are confusing left - right with Rep - Dem.
    You are right about the 2 party system, but
    left and right are absolutes!
    left= socialist, communist =enslavement
    right= democracy,republics=Liberty
    It's leftist infusion that has given us liberty lite!
    This is merely perpetuating the false paradigm of partisan political thought, I'm afraid. Ultimately, this false paradigm serves only to benefit the extant parties, which as has been agreed are two sides of the same fraudulent coin of tyranny.

    You would have an incredibly hard time characterizing my thought on a left-right spectrum. Trust me. I can assert this confidently based on your assertion of the absolutes of left and right, neither of which makes of a satisfactory characterization of my political thought.

    Minus the fact that, of course, I oppose enslavement and tyranny absolutely, and I advocate liberty to an extent far greater than the vast majority of this forum.

    For example, I am a rigorous advocate of private property and free markets, to the extent that I have reached the socialist-acceptable solution of completely deconstructing the artificial construct of right-abrogating limited liability corporations, and, in light of the fact that many of these have subsisted on stolen money for a very long time, would redistribute the assets of such corporations to the employees.

    In general I am a huge advocate of employee-owned entities, which I consider to be compatible with many of the legitimate gripes of socialists, as well as the demands of respecting the free exchange of goods and services absolutely.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    You are confusing left - right with Rep - Dem.
    You are right about the 2 party system, but
    left and right are absolutes!
    left= socialist, communist =enslavement
    right= democracy,republics=Liberty
    It's leftist infusion that has given us liberty lite!
    This, despite what others might say, is a useful paradigm. (Paradigms, by definition cannot be true or false.) On the left, I see Liberty being restricted for the common good (i.e. health care). On the right, I see Liberty being used to allow folks to create the common good. I would put democracy towards the left. In a democratic society (we were never intended to be a democracy), the majority can impose its will on the minority, regardless of rights. We are a republic, a government of law, federally constructed, with limited enumerated powers, and with the protections of rights built into the founding documents.

    That's as far-right as any government has been in the history of the world.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    There is only Tyranny and Liberty. Comparing left and right to tyranny and liberty is like comparing apples and oranges. Too far down eitherpath (left or right)and you have tyranny.



    Tyranny is still tyranny no matter how far it tips the scale; No matter if it's left or right.

    Of, or relating to tyranny or a tyrant; Despotic, oppressive or authoritarian, arbitrary exercise of authority.

    Liberty is still liberty no matter how far it tips the scale; No matter if it's left or right.

    Autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence

    Anything going in one direction is getting further away from the other.


    These Liberal V. Conservative, Left V. Right threads crop up from time to time. I dug this one up. Just ignore the banned users and the ones with obvious bias and it's a good read on the same subject matter.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...y+brass+magnet
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Actually, a large percentage of the members of this site would be classified as liberals; Classic Liberals. The definition of a Classic Liberal is best made by reviewing the stance of most of the Founding Fathers. They were Classic Liberals. The Classic Liberal is a far cry from what has come to stand in current vernacular as a "liberal". Classic Liberals may best be defined by what today we would call Constitutionalists. Present day liberal ideology stems from the progressive movement of the early 20th century which was more in line with socialist beliefs.
    This.

    Unfortunately, as neither "side" of the paradigm of partisan political thought reflects these views, I have been forced to reject this paradigm.

    I refuse to associate myself with the modern "left" or the modern "right".

    What really pisses me off is when people equate classically liberal with "conservative". Modern day mainstream conservatism isn't remotely classically liberal, and I refuse to identify with it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    I don't know about anyone else but I refuse to be put into any "box". I think for myself and I don't give two farts in the wind about any labels... political or otherwise.

    I am me...
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    All political thought and issues fall on a plane , either center, left of center or right of center. You may not be able to pinpoint where you fall as a whole on that plane,
    but each position you hold falls on that plane.

    Classic liberal falls right of center, without a doubt. Our Founders started this country pretty far right of center.They struck a delicate balance of "law and liberty".
    As progressive ( left of center) ideas crept in, liberty lessened.

    I am a Constitutionalist, really a Declarationalist.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •