Divide and Conquer!

Howdy Folks!
I am going to make a confession here, and I expect to be immediately denounced for my particular persuasion, but I'm a liberal. Yeppers. A gun totin', arms bearin', 2nd amendment bleeding heart liberal. That being said, I just wanted to confront some of the language I've seen all over the OCDO forum denouncing with a broad brush all liberals. Doing so only serves the purposes of the anti folks who would divide us in order to conquer us. But we make it easy by simply doing it ourselves.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. You'd think that everyone who supports 2a rights would be viewed as (sorry if this is pun-nish) a brother in arms. When we have different political approaches to the same problem, we accomplish more by working together for reasonable solutions than by demonizing the other side. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Yet, I've seen liberals demonized here when our aims are the same as pertains to constitutional freedoms.

I just watched a great video that contained that same tired denunciation of liberals. Had it not contained a false statistic I'd be 100% behind it. In one particular photo are the words "100% of liberals consider gun owners to be criminals". That statistic is utterly false. I know, because I am a liberal, and also a gun owner. I also open carry. The best possible statistic, given that I am not one who believes gun owners are criminals would be 99.99%, assuming I am the only liberal in the United States who holds the view that I do. I know that isn't the case, because I know plenty of other liberals who also own firearms. So the statistic is hokum, and tends to diminish the credibility of the video itself. If one statistic is patently false, then all the rest are suspect in the mind of the person watching the video.

There is so much emphasis placed on demeaning liberals that it gets lost in the shuffle that we are gun owners too. According to a Gallop poll (back in 2005), 32% of democrats are gun owners. Yes, there are more Republicans, according to the same poll, their number is closer to 55%. So the notion every liberal is anti-gun is invalid at face value.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/Gun-Ownership-Higher-Among-Republicans-Than-Democrats.aspx

The point being that the anti gun folks beat us through the simple expedient of "Divide and conquer". Only they ain't the folks pushing the divide... we do it to ourselves.

We may not agree on all things, but in the realm of 2nd amendment rights, we are joined at the hip. Getting a holster to accomodate that is problematic, but that's the way things are. Like it or not, a lot of us liberals are on the same side as anybody else concerned with constitutional liberties.

Such claims as all liberals are anti-gun rights is every bit as fallacious as claiming every conservative is pro-life. A gun toting conservative is likely to reconsider a pro-life position when his life depends on the use of deadly force against an assailant who threatens his own.

So to set the record straight, I'm a liberal. I'm a gun owner. I believe in the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. My wife is a liberal, and she carries a Walther for her own protection. Those who may assail us do so at their peril, and they won't be interested in our political affiliation or philosophy when the guns are drawn in our own defense. The criminal who poses a threat to our lives isn't going to ask what ideological profile we affirm. And I won't stop to ask his either.

Say what you may about the anti-gun crowd. They are the ones who want to control our rights to guns. There are anti-gun liberals, to be sure; but there are also anti-gun conservatives too. Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Tea Party types, all have folks on both sides of the spectrum. The only thing that matters is what the Constitution of the United States 2nd Amendment has to say on the matter.

We divide ourselves at our peril. Only 25% of American homes have firearms in them. We are not the majority when all combined together united in purpose. Why on earth would we, as a minority in America, choose to alienate nearly 1/3 of those who feel as we do? Divide and conquer is an insiduous device when used to undermine a movement. And it is far more destructive when we do it to ourselves.

A united front to the purpose before us is necessary to push back against those who would constrain liberty. There are far more of them than us.

Thomas Paine said, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence:
“If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.”

Such divide is lethal to our own objectives, and we owe it to ourselves to conquer our own bias to those who dream the same dreams of liberty.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

I like turtles.

What your dealing with is the habit of modern Americans to take an "us vs. them" attitude. We do it in most things. I have seen articles touting how our two party system is the best in the world. This ignores the fact that during the first part of out history, we often had multiple parties to choose from.

In politics we have become lazy. It's easier to only have two parties. It allows people to believe there are only two sides to an issue or problem. If there are only two sides to anything then if I pick the one I like, I am obviously right and the other side is obviously wrong. Easy Peasy. I don't have to actually look at intricacies of the problem I can make my decision quickly and get back to watching American Idol.

This often leads to stereotyping. If I consider myself a conservative and I believe in guns rights then a liberal, who must be my polar opposite on all things, has to be against them. Of course, both sides are guilty of this. There are many liberals who automatically assume that I am a homophobic, racist, culturally backwards, fool if I describe myself as a conservative.

I could point out, for example, when the DNC chairwoman said Republicans were "anti-women" for voting to defund Planned Parenthood, she was asked if that included Pro-Life Democrats who voted for it as well. She said it didn't.

Just as there are those who will judge you with a broad brush for being liberal there are as many liberals who will use the same brush against conservatives. I am not trying to show one side as better than the other, I am trying to show it happens on both. The only solution I can see is opening our eyes to more sides.

SavageOne said:

trying to show one side as better than the other, I am trying to show it happens on both. The only solution I can see is opening our eyes to more sides.

Click to expand...

Howdy SavageOne!
When I saw there were replies to my post, I opened the thread with a bit of trepadation. "Oh my stars, I'm in for such a pounding!" I figured.

It is most delightful to see that instead, I got a very thoughtful and lucid response from you on my post. I surely do appreciate that, and am delighted to received your response.

The "both sides do this" thing is something I understand and agree. It is nor more appropriate for a liberal to bash a conservative than the other way around. You won't likely see that behavior in any postings I put out, and I hope that I'll enjoy discussing things with others as diligent as you have shown yourself to be. Somewhere in the shuffle, the notion that we are all Americans gets lost. We spend far too much time bickering with one another than working through solutions together. It is far easier to pick off individual targets than to deal with a broad front. We do disservice to our aims in so doing.

Anyhow, I digress yet again. No, it isn't any better when liberals undermine conservatives than the other way around. I most heartily agree there. However, so far as I am concerned, the 2nd amendment (and all the Bill of Rights and the sanctity of the Constitution) is a matter that should concern every American. We're all in this thing together. And we have problems. War, economy, jobs, the deficit and a hundred other Pandora boxes litter our political landscape. We have some real problems to contend with. We must, perforce, confront them head on together. I could care less whether solutions come from Democrats or Republicans, Libertarians or Independents, or Tea Party folks for that matter; so long as we deal with those problems effectively.

It does nothing for Americans when political parties are more concerned with their own power than the common good of the people. I think money shouldn't be a factor in the political arena, particularly when politicians can be bought and sold to the highest bidder. I'd like to see money not be a determing factor in elections, and anybody who thinks they can do the job should run for public office. I'd like to see the legislatures around the nation peopled by men and women from every walk of life rather than lawyers and corporate types.

But again I digress. Sorry about that.
I just wanted to say that I truly do appreciate your response to my post and the manner in which you presented your perspective. Thank you for sharing your insights.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

impulse418 said:

I like turtles.

Click to expand...

Howdy Pard!
Thanks for the chuckle. I even got a good guffaw out of it.
Much obliged!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Hey, I'm a right wing extremist (DHS Certified) and I'm dating a "Left wing liberal". Of course she's a little confused about just what a "Liberal" is as her beliefs are more along the lines of "Libertarian".

But I have to agree, we're too caught up in applying labels to people and to be honest, "liberal" and "conservative" can't properly be applied to anyone simply because of the political party they tend to support, any single issue, etc.

I've also come across a lot of liberals that think being a liberal is supporting the idea of being "liberal and letting people do what they want to do"...as well as conservatives who believe the same thing. Yet the national parties most certainly (neither of them) support individual freedoms. Think about it, all they do is legislate and when they legislate....we lose freedoms....so how can either truly support freedom?

this has been something that i have debated for a while. i would like to go back to the original use of the words liberal and conservatives. liberal means to freely apply, and conservative to try to keep things static.
i think what happened was during the progressive movement. this is about the start of the 20 century. the powers to be, decided they just knew better than the rabble. this was mostly the , ivy league elitist humanist . they thought they could create an Utopian world,
social engineering. history shows they were wrong, and as people started to mistrust the progressives they started calling themselves liberals.
i have noticed in recent days, since the word liberal has become bad. certain people have been calling themselves progressives again. hoping these generations have forgotten what it stood for. personally i would like to be called a constitutional fundamentalist and really like the word our founding fathers used. liberty

I think you've got the gist of the evolution down. I'm in college now and the buzz word they try to push is "progressive" even though the progressives are the ones who brought u communist and socialist ideas and started us down the path to financial ruin.

In two quarters of economics I routine bashed heads with the Keynesian instructor who tried to push the solution as being more government pending, more government programs, etc. In fact, he was teaching, and the democratic party uses this all the time, that a "cut in taxes" was "government spending but on the wrong side of the GDP equation". You see, they're teaching our college students that if the governmenent spends tax dollars that it' wrenched from the pockets of the "rich people" then that's good. But to "spend tax dollars" by not collecting them....that's bad.

And that's the state of college instruction in a sleepy southern Oregon town.

Of course he also tried to teach that we don't have a progressive income tax system. I set him straight on that one with documentation from both teh IRS and the Treasury Dept. BUT....how many classes did he teach where they were taught that the FACTS are we don't have progressive taxes?

LIBERAL: Liberal (more than conservatives) application of government control and regulation.
CONSERVATIVE: Conservative (less than liberals) application of government control and regulation
LIBERTARIAN: Bare minimum application of societal control that impede any citizen from doing whatever he or she desires to do.

Now, which one is closest to our Constitution?

Modern-day liberalism is about big government, a strong central government, government solving problems, money moving from the individuals to that big, central, problem-solving government to make it bigger, to make it stronger, to centralize it, and to help it "solve" problems. Such necessitates that government be intrusive and restrictive so that it may "enforce" its "solutions." (Can you say "individual mandate"?)

These intrusions are justified by the need to "solve" the perceived "problems." The mandates are not seen as intrusions on rights. They are seen as necessary restrictions on non-rights in order to protect that which is seen as a right. (Can you say "the right to health care"?) This kind of thinking requires the disposal of the idea of natural rights, rights that preexist the collective and creates new "rights," "rights" that can only exist in the collective.

Once the modern-day liberal philosophy has moved from advocacy of natural rights to the enforcement of invented "rights," those invented "rights" will become at odds with the natural rights, and the modern-day liberal will be willing to sacrifice the natural right in order to be granted the "invented right" by the problem-solving state.

The list of natural rights is easy to compile because it represents things you can do that do not infringe on the natural rights of others. The list of invented "rights" is fungible. It depends solely on vastly varying opinions of what we "should" be able to do, such as see a doctor at little or no cost. Therefore, the list of invented "rights" keeps changing, and keeps changing the natural rights which must be sacrificed to allow enforcement of the invented "rights."

This fungibility allows modern-day liberals to be inconsistent in which invented "rights" they support and, as a consequence, which natural rights they believe need to be sacrificed and which they will closely guard.

We who would defend natural rights, all natural rights, ally ourselves with those who would only support a particular right, do so at our own peril--and at the peril of all of our natural rights.

Much like not saying anything the Nazis when they came for _________ because we were not _________, not stopping the government from taking this natural right because modern-day liberals think this right is less important than that invented "right," will lead to all rights being taken (including some modern-day liberal's pet right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms) because there will be no other rights left to defend it.

So, no, I won't ally myself with modern-day liberals who advocate for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms because his willingness to give up on other natural rights still puts our Second Amendment rights at risk. I reject your "help," emphatically, completely, and without reservation. I see your "help" as an insidious effort to make palatable the idea of taking some rights while leaving others in place, much like taking the Jews and leaving all others in place.

The inconsistency of modern-day liberalism as to which rights must be sacrificed on the altar of problem-solving to be only temporary. The ultimate goal is the ability of the government to "solve" any "problem," using any means it deems necessary, real rights be damned. That means all rights would eventually become privileges, granted only by the government when it feels that we can exercise them without interfering with its "solutions."

I am here to advocate for our natural rights and the structure created by our Founders and Framers, instituting the government that has protected the freest and most productive society in the history of mankind--not just for a single right because it is a pet right of mine. I reject any philosophy that would protect a single right but would sacrifice other rights for the sake of government solutions. Therefore, I reject modern-day liberals who support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms because I see them as advocating the protection of their pet privilege at the expense of other rights--which is no real protection of any right.

I'm very liberal on social issues. I couldn't care less if two guys want to get married, and smoke dope at the wedding party (as long as they don't drive afterward).

Unlike a lot of so-called "liberals", I don't consider it liberal to tell a woman that it's better that she be kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered rather than defend herself with a gun. Misogynist, maybe even Islamist, but hardly LIBERAL.

A lot of people who would be more honest to call themselves nihilists are running around calling themselves "liberal" or "progressive". In my experience, a "progressive" is somebody who doesn't think we should overlook the "good" accomplished by the Soviet Union, and who considers the Japanese the "VICTIMS" of WWI. They're almost always the ones who want to protect the aggressor from his victim.

WOW Eye..... EXCELLENT POST


As for the one following yours.....Deanimator

Deanimator said:

I'm very liberal on social issues. I couldn't care less if two guys want to get married, and smoke dope at the wedding party (as long as they don't drive afterward).

Click to expand...

That's actually a "conservative" or Libertarian view....bear with me and I'll eplain.

There is a large amount of, shall we say "confusion" as to whether particular issues are "liberal" or "conservative" when one looks at the two major national parties and the issues within their platforms.

The democratic and republican parties are, believe it or not, BOTH liberal. Both parties go about passing restrictions upon the populace in the form of legislation. Neither party truly subscribes to a conservative viewpoint, merely different methodologies of and ideals as to what the proper controls on the people are. This is NOT truely conservative in the proper manner of the words use.

An excellent example of the national party "confusion" would be the issues of abortion. The truly conservative, as opposed to the "conservative" party (i.e. republicans) view would properly be "none of our business" it is between the woman and her doctor while the truly liberal, as opposed to the "liberal" party (i.e. democrats) view would properly be to apply government controls to this issue.

The same comes about with other issues such as gay rights which you mentioned.

Too often our national parties attempt to control individual choice with legislation when the proper response under a truly free society is to let the issue alone.

Let's take a fairly simple issue....co-habitating partners, and to keep out the emotions of gay rights opponents and proponents, let's assume that they are a male and a female. Now let's say that I own a home that I rent out and I am an extremely religious person.

In a truly free society, I have the right to do with my property as I desire. Yet in this society, I might well be forced into renting to that co-habitating couple even though their living together without "benefit" of marriage is totally against my personal beliefs.

The liberal view in such a situation is that I must rent to them for if I don't I am infringing upon their right to happiness. The conservative view, that I have the right to do with my property as I see fit and that exercising my right to do so does not infringe upon the couples rights because they have no right to occupy my property in a manner which offends me.

So what do we have in this country? My rights as the property owner are usurped by the force of government which says that I must sacrifice my property rights and my beliefs, no matter how offensive to me, so that the imagined rights of the couple to inhabit MY property are not infringed.

Now, in reality, as the property owner, I will find some "legal" mean by which to disqualify the co-habitating couple for it i well established that it will cost me dearly if I say "you're not married, can't live here", but there is still that attempt by the government to usurp my rights and in fact, make me a criminal, though probably not caught because I shall use another "excuse", for denying the use of my property to someone who' lifestyle I abhorr.

NOW, change the issue to Open Carry... My RIGHT to carry is clearly established in the Constitution of the United States and has now been incorporated against the states by the SCOTUS.

My RIGHT to carry, mandated within the second amendment, can not be usurped because some other person is uncomfortable with my exercising of my rights. You see, we do NOT have a right in this country to never be offended, no right to never be uneasy about a person or their activities, no right to demand that a law abiding citizen leave our presense. We do however have a right to leave the room if someone concerns us, or if we diagree with their lawful activities.

The truly liberal approach would be to encroach upon my rights with regulations so that those who diagreed could enforce their beliefs upon my rights.
The truly conservative approach would be to leave my rights, and others, intact and basically say "it's his right, don't want to be around it, you have the right to leave".

Personally, I believe the entire problem is the result of the shift of our population from a rural existence to an urban/suburban one. No longer is the self sufficient, take care of your own needs, lifestyle of the rural existence the majority. It has been supplanted by the urban/suburban lifestyle of the cities and the use of government to attempt to force the beliefs of some upon all. Just look at any national election and you can see the this in dramatic detail. California is almost completely red (republican) with the exception of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and a few other enclaves. Oregon likewise, is blue only in it's large cities.

While the population of those cities outstrip the populations of the rural areas and so the majority wins, it is a simple way to see the difference in how the people view the role of government.

And never forget...majority rules, democracy...is nothing more than organized mob rule. For when two wolves and a sheep are determining what's for dinner, unless that sheep is well armed, it's going to be mutton!

Welcome to OCDO, M-Taliesin. I am glad to see that you support the 2A, and exercise that right yourself. I hope that you will find on this forum that we are more than a bunch of propaganda-spewing party-line parroting drones. Many members here are thoughtful, intelligent, and well-researched. Hopefully, you can eventually shake off the shackles of the "Right/Left" paradigm, and can approach these issues with the open mind of a Citizen of the US rather than the slave mentality of a party label.

The "Right/Left" paradigm is a "weapon of Mass Distraction...

Either a Citizen is FOR freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and the universal application of human rights, or he is not. It REALLY is that simple.

It has been my experience that the majority of people who say "I am a (insert party affiliation here) have not actually taken the time to delve into what that statement REALLY means, and are just hanging their hats in a camp that feed them a line of propaganda that makes them feel good.

Most Americans have NO CLUE when it comes to economics, diplomacy, history, geopolitics, or even local politics. They just align with whatever line of crap makes them feel good about themselves.

You say you are a "liberal". Today, that is about as intellectually meaningful as saying that you are "white". WTF does that mean? Are you a hard-core party-line Democrat or are you a "liberal" in the Jeffersonian sense? Because those two things are, in fact, polar opposites...

Don't buy the "Left/Right" paradigm. It is a smokescreen. It is nothing more than an ideological wedge to be driven in between the wonderfully diverse groups of People who call themselves US Citizens. We need to band together--those of us who believe in the Constitution, in the Universal Application of Fundamental Human Rights, and in the idea that the Government ONLY governs at the will and discretion of the People.

Any "label" that we put on ourselves just serves to divide us, and divided, we are much easier to defeat, discount, and enslave.

People get all hung up on the internal minutia of the Constitution--arguing the meaning of various clauses, articles, and amendments, but they seem to forget the MOST important words--the first three--the words that lay out the foundation for this Nation, and are it's most important and most powerful element:

WE THE PEOPLE...

Welcome and good luck...

Yes, alot of problems are rural vs urban. I have become really libertarian after living in a rural area ( full of conservatives, libertarians, and even a few rugged liberals- some of whom are gay). My neighbors are amazing. Though they are not the old style friendly chat at the fence every day type, they do seem to "live and let live". I've had people over target shooting for hours and have a bunch of houses that with the way the land lays, it must seem pretty loud to these neighbors- yet not a single one has ever complained or even said anything. One further away neighbor did complain- he said there wasn't enough target shooting and he wanted to hear more! People get relaxed out here, and sometimes even I forget it, like when I was walking on a neighbor's property and hadn't asked permission in many years. Then I came across him, and guess what? He asked how I was and commented on the weather, and that was that, and he left. I was worried he wouldn't remember me by sight and get all nasty.

Go live in a city or suburb, it seems neighbors have "problems" with each other quite often, and instead of being level headed and trying to work the problems out, they call the cops, try to use seldom used obscure county code enforcement rules, or just escalate the situation by being even more rude. They complain over the stupidest things too. Instead of talking to a neighbor if they see a rat in the neighbors yard, they call some gov't agency to complain ( of course their neighbor might be a drug dealer or the neighborhood nut...). They could set traps or put rat poison in a tube to exclude cats/dogs, but rats can get inside, and take care of the problem themselves, but these people seem to be unable to even grasp such an idea. Other problems are noise complaints, and if someone does try to talk to the offender, the offender is a rude person and won't stop or tone down the activity, and things often end up as escalating feuds. There is less and less "class" to be found. People who are educated and know better end up acting like low class trash. You get a crazy type that causes trouble for everyone and nobody does anything. Crime going up in the neighborhood? Hardly anyone thinks of armed citizens walking around, it is always " where are the cops?". The longer it goes on, the more gov't dependant everyone gets. All of central MD seems to have devolved into this. We also have some of the worst drivers in the whole USA. This is what "liberal civility" leads to. Ok, it's really "progressive lovey dovey hippy dippy civility" LOL. Oh yeah, and the blacks in Baltimore are more racist than all of the white people combined. I guess this is what you get with "gov't in everything" and "tough gun laws" and "lets sing kumbya". And "humanistic studies" classes at a well known Baltimore art college...

Dreamer said:

Welcome to OCDO, M-Taliesin. I am glad to see that you support the 2A, and exercise that right yourself. I hope that you will find on this forum that we are more than a bunch of propaganda-spewing party-line parroting drones. Many members here are thoughtful, intelligent, and well-researched. Hopefully, you can eventually shake off the shackles of the "Right/Left" paradigm, and can approach these issues with the open mind of a Citizen of the US rather than the slave mentality of a party label.

Click to expand...

Howdy Pardner!
Thank you for your welcome to the forum. I really do appreciate that. But at the outset, I don't believe I have expressed any sentiment to indicate that I view anybody as a "Bunch of propaganda spewing party-line parroting drones." What my meaning was is that I see some who bash liberal values without considering that their remarks also target folks who value the same rights and liberties as they do. And such attitudes where some will belittle others who hold those same values dear are only making it easier for those who see things differently to combat our communal purpose. If we are busily driving wedges between ourselves, their job is pretty nicely accomplished without much of a fight.

We believe in our 2nd amendment rights. Some of us are liberals, while others are conservative. We would gain more ground on the issue of gun rights if we fused together in a cohesive front rather than putting down those who hold different views in specific areas. As an example, conservatives tend to be "pro life". I personally don't believe that the government should be involved in a private decision. Do I espouse my view on the forum for gun rights? Do I denounce those who hold that view? I hope not. Yet the stance on other issues apart from gun rights, a position we all share on this forum, is sometimes set aside to take pot-shots at "liberals". The mechanism is nearly irrelevant. So long as we splinter ourselves, those opposed to our desire to preserve our 2nd amendment rights can take solace that we happily alienate those among us with a different perspective on other issues. Divide and conquer.

This forum is about our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. I have seen fairly regular comments that folks on my side of the spectrum are out to take everybody's guns away. What I do not see is any reality behind such remarks. As for examples, I will simply offer some examples for consideration. Mitt Romney just signed into a law a permanent ban on "assault rifles". Romney is not liberal. I don't know about his legislature. Just yesterday I saw where somebody claimed the Brady bunch was liberal "bed wetters". Brady (a Republican) was shot during an attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan (a Republican President) and pushed through a Republican dominated legislature to land on Bill Clinton's desk. The President signed the bill into law. But the Brady group isn't primarly liberal. Yet, we got tarred with that brush. In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, citizens of New Orleans were disarmed and their weapons confiscated. This while George W. Bush was President. He isn't liberal, but the gun confiscation took place on his watch. In fact, the people disarming citizens (as I recall reports at the time) were Blackwater mercenaries (not a liberal group at all) working on government contract. Meanwhile, Obama just broadened gun rights by signing a bill that permits carrying in National Parks and Wetland areas. The point being, I've seen liberals working to broaden gun rights in some places, while working against them in others. I can say precisely the same thing of conservatives.

It ain't about labels. It is about focus. We are pro 2nd Amendment rights. We do our cause no good whatsoever by dividing our numbers when we only represent 25% of the American citizenry. Everybody who wants their rights under the Constitution upheld need to work together. If we do not, we are already beaten.

Your post was lucid and thoughtful, and I like that sort of discussion. We can differ on many things but on this issue, we haven't room to devour our own. We need to be a cohesive front because, rest assured, our foes are motivated and determined.

That said, I am liberal from the standpoint that I believe our government (required under the Constitution) is tasked with certain responsibilities. Among those is to "Promote the general welfare". We need clean air and uncontaminated drinking water. We need rules of interstate commerce. (quick examples). We need some services from government. What I don't believe we need is a government that crawls into bed with the highest bidder to secure their seat in the next election. We don't need corporations shipping our jobs overseas while paying almost nothing in taxes. I don't believe Exxon Mobile should pay less in taxes than an executive assistant in Des Moines. I believe bankers that robbed our nation blind should be prosecuted by the federal justice department because they plundered your IRA, 401K, and ripped off America while paying out mind blowing bonuses to their execs. But these things have nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms. That's what I'm here for.

In reality, I don't think of myself so much as a Democrat. I have a photo of myself standing beside George H.W. Bush in Wyoming. I liked him and voted for him. His kid was a far cry (in my humble opinion) from the man his father was! I don't think of myself so much as a Liberal either. After all, I hold the Constitution sacred. I view myself as an American. And I believe the whole conservative vs. liberal thing has a proven track record of weakening America.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

When conservatives stop supporting the War on Drugs (which indirectly may well lead to terrible forms of gun control re: the drug cartels and arms on the southern border) and a vast military and prison complex, they'll have a leg to stand on with me when it comes to complaining about "big government." But frankly, in terms of their endless lust for forcing people to do stuff at gunpoint, the only difference between conservatives and liberals is who it is they believe should be forced. When conservatives get rid of the Draft entirely, maybe then I'll start listening to how pro "freedom" they are.

It's great and all that there are pro-gun liberals. Really, makes me happy, but I can only give so much room while they're picking my pocket for all of the other coercive, forcible crap they support.

Ditto for conservatives.

You know why I became a libertarian? It wasn't some kind of sudden epiphany when I was reading Ayn Rand or something. It was listening to what were at the time my fellow conservatives rhapsodizing endlessly about all of the forms of government coercion they did support, and their continued apology for treachery among their own that they never would tolerate on the Left, like the Iran-Contra Affair. It was guys like Patrick Buchanan writing ludicrous essays about how we should support (or at least not condemn) Apartheid in South Africa, on account of there being a lot of "commies" in the ANC. It was Reagan's bloated budgets and apparent lust for a growing police state, in his caustic, unconstitutional, and anti-liberty War on Drugs. It was Ed Meese's First-Amendment shredding Commission on Pornography and the way the GOP completely prostrated itself before the Religious Right.

When they all got behind "Desert Storm" (how very comic book. How very GI Joe. How very "I am 12 years old and watch a lot of movies!") and started waving their flags around - (flags which, at that time, they were proposing to pass a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the burning of - ah, the commitment of conservatives to liberty is boundless).

I welcome anyone to the Second Amendment cause, and you will rarely find me complaining about liberals, but I can't pretend that the Second Amendment is, for me, a floating abstraction, unconnected to other basic values. All I can say about a pro-gun liberal or conservative who in every other respect wants to tax and shackle me, is that they are better than liberals or conservatives who want to tax and shackle me...and take my guns too.

Pro-gun liberals would do well to weigh the apparent contradictions between liberalism and the right of individuals to defend themselves, and really give a good hard think as to whether or not other liberal positions have the same deficiencies.

Liberals and Conservatives both get it all twisted up. There are two questions, and they are completely separate:

(a) What kind of society do I want to live in and,

(b) What role does government have - or should it have - in bringing that about?

Each professes a hollow belief in freedom while engaging in anti-freedom, anti-liberty, collectivist advocacy.

It was only after I left conservatism out of disgust for the gutless hypocrisy of conservatives in the early 90s that the elegance of the non-initiation-of-force principle became clear to me.

But I distrust conservatives and liberals equally as much, and I own the means of self-defense with equal expectation that such arms may have to be used against a regime comprised principally of either side of the political spectrum. Marauding communists, marauding conservatives -- all the same to me, if their point is to ram their social aspirations down my throat, dirty little social engineers that so many of them are.

So welcome aboard, and I'm glad you're here. You might also like /r/guns on reddit.com, as there are quite a few pro-gun liberals there. But until and unless people really understand the rights of individuals to opt out of their grand schemes, my effusiveness in embracing those of other ideologies will necessarily be minimal.