• 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 and Gun Control

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Bookman wrote:
I see it on here every day; people blaming Progressive Liberals for every gun law and anti-gun sentiment in existence. I just want to remind everyone that the Brady Campaign was founded by REPUBLICANS. That's right. Sarah Brady, the wife of Jim Brady, who was shot in the head during the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by John Hinkley in order to impress Jodie Foster was a Republican.

And please don't accuse me of being a Liberal because I'm not. I'm a little to the right of center and I'm tired of people making themselves look like idiots by spouting the party line.

Rant over
Ever hear of a RINO? Just checking... because you seem to use the name Republican like it is somehow synonymous with conservative... its not.

The Brady's are progressive liberals. Progressivism has infected both the Republican and Democrat parties, but while the Democrat cancer is over and the Democrat party is dead to reason... the Republican party is still hanging on with members like Ron Paul and others who no one currently pays attention to.

So back to the main point... Liberals and Progressives ARE 100% to blame for gun laws and restrictions... they just infest both parties so they can obfuscate and confuse the argument by pointing out JUST what you pointed out and say SEE SEE Republicans also are for gun control.

The way you've posed the argument is in fact a logical fallacy called a Strawman.

So I used the wrong word. Big deal. It is still a fact that there are CONSERVATIVES who support gun control.

Straw man my :cuss:
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

Sure there are conservatives who support gun control. There are also straight guys who pick up drag queens. If truly conservative or truly straight, they soon realie their embarassing error. :cool:
 

CommonMan101

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
123
Location
Dallas, Texas, USA
imported post

NYC Mayor Bloomberg is a Republican and is as progressive/"modern" liberal as you can get.

He be scumwhen it comes toreal freedom.

That's why fakers like him are getting thrown out of office as we speak.

`nuff said.

Got it now?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Now seems as good a time as any to reiterate that gun control is, inherently and by definition, "illiberal", and freedoms of every sort are, inherently and by definition, "liberal".

I maintain that the abuse of language (specifically the co-opting of the term "liberal") is a very specific strategic choice, one which is having the result of destroying genuine liberalism in America.

Whether you like it or not, gun freedoms are liberal, and, no matter how much you call them "conservative", an illiberal society will never accomplish the liberalization necessary to achieve strong respect for the right of self-defense and to bear weapons useful to that end. Thanks to our having allowed the co-opting of the term "liberal", there is no longer a liberal party in the US (only two illiberal parties), which severely affects the potential for genuine liberalization of anything, including gun laws.


What strategic goal is this redefinition of the term "liberal" designed to accomplish? Read for yourself, right out of the horse's mouth:

Normal Thomas wrote:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
So, whenever we perpetuate the re-definition of the term "liberal", understand that we are furthering the socialist agenda, by carrying out a socialist strategy, completely of our own volition!

This favor I will NOT do them.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

But modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson era liberals. So the word has changed meaning somewhat in the minds of Americans. Did the Fllinstone's song saying lets have a "gay old time" mean the same thing asit might today?

Most of us here understand that the self proclaimed "liberals" are not really liberal any more, well except with other peoples money.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:
But modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson era liberals. So the word has changed meaning somewhat in the minds of Americans. Did the Fllinstone's song saying lets have a "gay old time" mean the same thing as it might today?

Most of us here understand that the self proclaimed "liberals" are not really liberal any more, well except with other peoples money.
Exactly why I argue we should not do them the favor of describing them as "liberal".

This is a complete perversion of the language, and serves to lend justifiability to the unjustifiable.

The term "liberal" has a very real and concrete meaning which is rooted or anchored to many words in common use and in the popular vernacular, such as "liberty", "libertarian", "liberation", etc etc etc.

The implication is that the modern left is genuinely, meaningfully liberal, which they are not. They are as illiberal as is the GOP.

And I will not call it any other way. A rose is a rose is a rose, and in the case the language is too specific and meaningful to allow its co-option, abuse, and perversion.

There are plenty of things that thieving, illiberal statists ought to be called. But we should never do them the favor of allowing them to wear a label which, to some, has positive connotations. The simple fact is that by calling them "liberal" we lend credence to the idea that they are genuinely liberal, which they are not.

I'll point out the dictionary still says (under the number one definition):

lib•er•al |ˈlib(ə)rəl|

1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state.
By accepting their co-option of the term "liberal", we are lending credence to the implication that the modern left is "respectful towards individual rights and freedoms", and "favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform".

Do you believe that to be true -- those implications to be accurate? Do you believe those characteristics to apply to the modern left? Do you believe they deserve to wield that implication to their benefit?

I don't believe any of those things.
 

CommonMan101

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
123
Location
Dallas, Texas, USA
imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:
But modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson era liberals. So the word has changed meaning somewhat in the minds of Americans. Did the Fllinstone's song saying lets have a "gay old time" mean the same thing asit might today?

Most of us here understand that the self proclaimed "liberals" are not really liberal any more, well except with other peoples money.

Exactly why I put "modern" in there.

Thank you for expounding on it.

:cool:
 

crisisweasel

Newbie
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Pima County, Arizona, USA
imported post

Rather than posting the same tired responses to threads like this - like I normally do, I just want to ask, and I hope people don't freak out that it's off-topic, because I really don't think it is:

Those of you who identify yourselves as conservatives: why are you not libertarians? What is it about conservatism that attracts you so much? With all the damage done in conservatism's name, with all of the interference into peoples lives advocated by the Christian Right, thankfully in decline now with the neoconservatives...

What is it about conservatism that makes it different, for you, than libertarianism?

I think we could avoid having this kind of discussion over and over if we libertarians understood you conservatives better.

I'm not talking about the capital-L Libertarian Party either, just the philosophy of libertarianism and the non-aggression principle: that no individual, mob, or institution, should initiate force against any other individual, mob or institution?
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
imported post

Progressivism has INFECTED both traditional political parties, Yes, Both the Republicans and Democrats. This is why we see such a similarity in our Federal Government no matter which party is in control of the Presidency or Congress.

We MUST forget the labels of Republican or Democrat. We must read, understand, and vote for ourselves based upon what the Founding Fathers created for us in this GREAT EXPERIMENT of SELF-GOVERNMENT, that of a SMALL Federal government with limited power.

Read the US CONSTITUTION and focus upon the VERY LIMITED POWERS that the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government and then compare that to what we now have.

I don't care what party they claim to be from, IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN A SMALL AND LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT IS BASED UPON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THEY WILL NOT GET MY VOTE, AND I MAY / PROBABLY WILL ACTIVELY CAMPAIGN AGAINST THEM!

Please read the above not as shouting/yelling but rather emphasis!

And to make this even tangentially related to firearms/open carry ----REPEAL ANY AND EVERY LAW THAT LIMITS THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!!!!!!!!

Edited for 3 small corrections but not to change the content!
 

CommonMan101

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
123
Location
Dallas, Texas, USA
imported post

crisisweasel wrote:
Rather than posting the same tired responses to threads like this - like I normally do, I just want to ask, and I hope people don't freak out that it's off-topic, because I really don't think it is:

Those of you who identify yourselves as conservatives: why are you not libertarians? What is it about conservatism that attracts you so much? With all the damage done in conservatism's name, with all of the interference into peoples lives advocated by the Christian Right, thankfully in decline now with the neoconservatives...

What is it about conservatism that makes it different, for you, than libertarianism?

I think we could avoid having this kind of discussion over and over if we libertarians understood you conservatives better.

I'm not talking about the capital-L Libertarian Party either, just the philosophy of libertarianism and the non-aggression principle: that no individual, mob, or institution, should initiate force against any other individual, mob or institution

I find it odd you want toput people in such rigid boxes. You may be completely, technically correct in your definitions but I see myself as conservative/libertarian. Yet everyone seems to have their own pre-judged ideas of what the "other" guy is. It's called bigotry when that happens. I asked my GF's daughter if she really thought her mother was what she was describing as a conservative. She blinked a lot and said no. I just looked at her with raised eyebrows which silently asked her to make sense of her beliefs as applied to the people she knows and loves. She stopped with the hateful bigotry - around us at least.

I'm getting tired of people trying to put me in a box when they don't even listen to the subjects being discussed - they use these boxes as a way to NOT engage in solving problems. Please know I'm not accusing you particularly, crisisweasel!

I was in AZ in Jan. and stayed at my GF's aunt's home who is very progressive. I didn't let the conversations go to "what do you call yourself- what are you?" because then it degrades into trying to change somone's pre-concieved perspective about YOU instead of discussing the problems and exploring things. I insisted we talked about problems and solutions only and we did. A very productive and friendly evening of talks ensued without a lot of bigotted rancor to overcome. Mutual respect can be had if done in such a way. Depends on the both of you being reasonable/rational though!

A lot of common ground is there but people want to put you in a box so they can be "right" or "superior"and not actually listen to other people's ideas/solutions.

I wish all classifications/boxes would disappear. They really hurt more than help.

I can't help but think this "boxing" is the modern equivilency of the story of The Tower of Babel. No one really understands each other or listens at that point and only sees others as "different".

Just my opinion. That and a dollar will buy you a local paper here in Dallas - but I stopped my front-yard delivery of propaganda about 10 years ago.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Well, I understand your point about the "boxes", and I agree.

However, it occurs to me that this isn't a problem with much-maligned "labels" themselves, but is merely a function of human brain's tendency to perform pattern-matching on everything, often simplifying more than is accurate, in the process.

No matter what, we will use language to describe things. Today's descriptor is tomorrow's "label".

And words do mean things. Without "labels" we couldn't have any discussions of any sort.

I find the problem is the tendency of people to oversimplify, stereotype, make assumptions, lump others into groups, etc.

I'm not sure there's much to be done either way, but that's the problem at it's source, the way I see it.
 

CommonMan101

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
123
Location
Dallas, Texas, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Well, I understand your point about the "boxes", and I agree.

However, it occurs to me that this isn't a problem with much-maligned "labels" themselves, but is merely a function of human brain's tendency to perform pattern-matching on everything, often simplifying more than is accurate, in the process.

No matter what, we will use language to describe things. Today's descriptor is tomorrow's "label".

And words do mean things. Without "labels" we couldn't have any discussions of any sort.

I find the problem is the tendency of people to oversimplify, stereotype, make assumptions, lump others into groups, etc.

I'm not sure there's much to be done either way, but that's the problem at it's source, the way I see it.


Much agreement here. That's why I wouldn't let the aunt dwell on these labels and kept the convo to the subjects at hand. Wish all discussions could be like that.


I think you described my "Tower of Babel" analogy on your own words. The problem with labels is the defintions are subject toeach individual's perception/understanding and two people could possibly agree on pinciple yet are stuck in what they interpret a label/box means to them so they are arguing for no real reason.No unviversal understanding is at hand, presently. IMO.

Have 100 people describe/define each label and I bet that none of them line up perfectly with another even if they claim the same political persuasion.

Like I said... they are mostly used to NOT listen to other ideas.
 

crisisweasel

Newbie
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Pima County, Arizona, USA
imported post

I'm not talking about the terms, I am talking about the concepts - I get your point, and that's not what I'm getting at.

If people want to call themselves conservatives but they think and vote like libertarians, that's fine.

The issue is that when politicians identify as conservatives, most of the time they mean they mean they stand against government intrusion into the lives of citizens...except for things they like (like the drug war, or abortion, or what have you). When people identify themselves as conservatives, I assume they use that word, rather than libertarian, for a reason.

And whether someone pigeonholes me as a liberal or conservative depends entirely on what forum I'm in. On any board with social conservatives, I am most certainly derided as a liberal, and my liberal friends insist my position on firearms, taxation, and social programs are very right wing.

All words, of course, are a matter of consensus. It's why "gay" doesn't mean "happy" anymore when people use the term. There is no committee to define words, and so all words are moving targets as language evolves.

But I'm not interested in the semantics, really, because to me the terms are uninteresting - it is how people package and relate and combine points of view into coherent philosophies that interests me.

But the same is true of the word "liberal" is my point, and firearms forums are basically 50% people seething about liberals, and I know a fair amount of liberals who are pro Second Amendment, so either they are not aware of the broken-down "consensus" on this issue on the "left," or else there's something else they don't like.
 

CommonMan101

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
123
Location
Dallas, Texas, USA
imported post

crisisweasel wrote:
I'm not talking about the terms, I am talking about the concepts - I get your point, and that's not what I'm getting at.

If people want to call themselves conservatives but they think and vote like libertarians, that's fine.

The issue is that when politicians identify as conservatives, most of the time they mean they mean they stand against government intrusion into the lives of citizens...except for things they like (like the drug war, or abortion, or what have you). When people identify themselves as conservatives, I assume they use that word, rather than libertarian, for a reason.

And whether someone pigeonholes me as a liberal or conservative depends entirely on what forum I'm in. On any board with social conservatives, I am most certainly derided as a liberal, and my liberal friends insist my position on firearms, taxation, and social programs are very right wing.

All words, of course, are a matter of consensus. It's why "gay" doesn't mean "happy" anymore when people use the term. There is no committee to define words, and so all words are moving targets as language evolves.

But I'm not interested in the semantics, really, because to me the terms are uninteresting - it is how people package and relate and combine points of view into coherent philosophies that interests me.

But the same is true of the word "liberal" is my point, and firearms forums are basically 50% people seething about liberals, and I know a fair amount of liberals who are pro Second Amendment, so either they are not aware of the broken-down "consensus" on this issue on the "left," or else there's something else they don't like.


Hence the "Tower of Babel" description.

Too much lost in everyone's "own" defintions.
 

steveman01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
111
Location
guntersville, Alabama, USA
imported post

I'm just sick of all the imaginary "left/right" scale BS... There are freedom loving patriots and there are tyrants period. Call'em forwhat they are...There are no "on the fencers" or "middle ground".

When you sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security, guess what you get. That's right Tyranny. Grow up and stop accepting the tyrants, put an end to the grotesque beast.

Most of you probably think your vote counts but that's ok just answer me this:

What will be the straw that breaks the camels back for you?

What will it take for you to say "enough is enough" and exercise your rights to the full extent?

Really I do want to know what it will be for yall.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

In some respects, the camel's back is already broken, we are just waiting to see if there is any hope for recovery.
 
Top