PDA

View Full Version : So explain the logic to me...


JakiChan
01-18-2010, 12:28 PM
I'm one of those people who refuses to be categories. I'm a homo who likes fast loud cars, movies with explosions, and other stuff that I'm not supposed to like. And I'm developing a fondness for firearms. But even if I didn't personally like guns I just don't get this logic:

How does keeping law abiding citizens from owning and carrying firearms make us safer? The gun control folks trot out all these stories about "My little Billy was killed by gun violence!" and the like. But it turns out that little Billy was in a gang, he was killed by another gang, and none of those gangs firearms were operated illegally. I found plenty of those stories in cases regarding McDonald and Heller.

The idea that somehow legally banning guns is going to keep them from criminals seems just silly and I'm looking for some logic here. Where's the data on legally owned firearms being used for crimes? The numbers I'm seeing are less than 5%? Where's the f-ing logic? ARGH!

P.S. can I still be a liberal if I believe in gun rights?

compulsivegunbuyer
01-18-2010, 12:38 PM
P.S. can I still be a liberal if I believe in gun rights?

This is America, you can be whatever you want.

MrClamperSir
01-18-2010, 12:43 PM
P.S. can I still be a liberal if I believe in gun rights?

You can but your friends (on either side) might not like it. It's best to be independent if your not into categorization.

rero360
01-18-2010, 12:44 PM
I think its not really about the firearms, its about control and the .gov just use them as a focus point. There truely is no logic, other than the desire to control the masses.

Liberal is just a label, just like any label and I think most people really don't really fall into a label. I mean I'm a straight white male, athiest, I enjoy guns, art, most kinds of music, motorcycles. I generally am conservative in many views but believe in abortion, the death penalty and am engaged to a wiccan. I'm all over the map lol.

TurboS600
01-18-2010, 12:46 PM
P.S. can I still be a liberal if I believe in gun rights?

It's called a "Law & Order Liberal." Come out of the closet brother and admit it, you are a Republican who is socially liberal. Repeat after me: If you stay out of my bedroom, I will not usurp your natural God given rights. :D

383green
01-18-2010, 12:59 PM
You will not find logic in it, because there is none. The anti-gunner's argument is an emotional appeal, not a logical one. Whether the motivation of any given anti-gun activist is an honest but illogical belief that their efforts will reduce violent crime, or a calculated attempt to disarm any who may oppose their power, is irrelevant. Either case, when taken to its conclusion, results in a populace able to resist neither oppression by their government nor victimization by criminals.

The only difference between a legislator enforcing their will upon the populace and a criminal preying upon the populace is that the former has a government-sanctioned expectation to maintain a monopoly upon the use of force to get their way. The criminal enjoys that same monopoly in a disarmed society, just without explicit governmental sanction.

JakiChan
01-18-2010, 1:09 PM
It's called a "Law & Order Liberal." Come out of the closet brother and admit it, you are a Republican who is socially liberal. Repeat after me: If you stay out of my bedroom, I will not usurp your natural God given rights. :D

Sorry, the religious f-nuts have hijacked that party. Which is sad, I believed in them so long ago. But this isn't the forum to talk about why I hate the Republican Party.

I guess my beef is more self-directed...why can't "my people" (progressives) be more sane? A lot of the things I believe in have a strong logical basis. In fact if we took the illogical emotional non-rational crap out of both sides I bet they'd be closer than they think.

Vtec44
01-18-2010, 1:11 PM
Ever heard of Pink Pistols, http://www.pinkpinstols.org?

Bug Splat
01-18-2010, 1:11 PM
You will not find logic in it, because there is none. The anti-gunner's argument is an emotional appeal, not a logical one. Whether the motivation of any given anti-gun activist is an honest but illogical belief that their efforts will reduce violent crime, or a calculated attempt to disarm any who may oppose their power, is irrelevant. Either case, when taken to its conclusion, results in a populace able to resist neither oppression by their government nor victimization by criminals.

The only difference between a legislator enforcing their will upon the populace and a criminal preying upon the populace is that the former has a government-sanctioned expectation to maintain a monopoly upon the use of force to get their way. The criminal enjoys that same monopoly in a disarmed society, just without explicit governmental sanction.


Very well put. You read my mind.

I hate labels myself mainly because they do not speak for the majority but the wacko screaming side. There are good, fair and honest people in all political, religious, and sexual groups but unfortunately they get lumped in with the rest of the crazies. I know just as many gun toting liberal Democrats as I do conservative Republicans. We may not agree on everything but IMO its hard to dispute the simple right to protect one's self and family. No law should ever hinder this.

IrishPirate
01-18-2010, 1:15 PM
welcome to Calguns....don't try to apply logic to gun control, it's like trying to mix oil and water. Sure the lines can be blurry when you shake things up, but once it all settles down, it's clear that the two don't go together. We need more people to realize (as you've pointed out) that most gun related violence is precipitated by other violence and that 9/10 times the victim is not innocent. The only way to truely control guns is to allow Law Abiding Citizens the right to carry them 24/7/365 (366 on leap years) and inact rediculously harsh penalties for commiting crimes with firearms. Then reform the prison system to what it should be.....a hell hole no one ever wants to go to....and the problem will solve itself.

You can be liberal and love guns, you can be conservative and hate them. It doesn't matter. You're free to do what you want, but if you go against the mainstream...don't be surprised if you find you don't have alot of likeminded people in your corner. (it's ok though, that's half the fun of being different :D)

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/cookie5_12/gun%20stuff/government.jpg

bulgron
01-18-2010, 1:22 PM
I guess my beef is more self-directed...why can't "my people" (progressives) be more sane? A lot of the things I believe in have a strong logical basis. In fact if we took the illogical emotional non-rational crap out of both sides I bet they'd be closer than they think.

The truth of the matter is, there's people on both sides of the debate who are all about rights, so long as it's their rights that are protected and someone else's rights that are denied. It's rare to find people who believe that the best way to protect each individual's rights is to protect EVERYONE's rights.

Case in point: there's a lot of "pro-gun" conservatives right now who are having a fit over the possibility that Privileges or Immunities might be restored in McDonald. They scream "State's Rights", but what they're really saying is they want the right to have guns AND have the right to disarm the people they don't like within their own state.

Another Case In Point: There's a lot of "liberals" ("progressives") who think that freedom of speech is great only so long as what you say is what they believe, and brother you'd better not speak out in a non-approved way. Any speech that defends gun rights violates the basic tenets of what progressive politics teaches, and so that particular brand of free speech must be suppressed.

"Rights for me and not for thee." Get it?

As for me, I thought I might be a progressive. That lasted for about thirty seconds. Then I thought I might be a conservative. That lasted for another thirty seconds. Then I thought I might be a libertarian, but that only went on for about twenty seconds. Finally, I just shrugged and decided I was an American. That way, everyone can be mad at me. I'm okay with that. I own guns. :D

PM9 Girl
01-18-2010, 1:24 PM
I don't get it too. I have college professors who blame everything on guns. In my class today, somebody pointed out that in Haiti, people are fighting in the streets with machete's for food. I could imagine if I were in that situation, with a family to protect and what little food I had. I wouldn't be out doing any gun crimes, but I sure would feel better if I had a gun to protect myself.

I know a lot of people are scared of guns and feel it would be a safer world if there were no guns in it. I guess that might be true, if all the weapons were taken away, but you would always have the strong preying on the weak. And in the real world, you would have the non-law-abiders just breaking another law and owning guns, while the law abiding citizens would then be disarmed.

Grakken
01-18-2010, 1:30 PM
And in the real world, you would have the non-law-abiders just breaking another law and owning guns, while the law abiding citizens would then be disarmed.

You mean like in Britain and Australia? :o

sfpcservice
01-18-2010, 1:30 PM
P.S. can I still be a liberal if I believe in gun rights?

I'd be willing to bet that the "right to keep and bear arms" was a "liberal idea" when it was first identified. Funny how times change.

JakiChan
01-18-2010, 2:18 PM
Another Case In Point: There's a lot of "liberals" ("progressives") who think that freedom of speech is great only so long as what you say is what they believe, and brother you'd better not speak out in a non-approved way.

That has always blown my mind. I'm someone who believes in the 1A more than any other. I'm extremely allergic to any restrictions on speech. I'm fine with hate speech at me, because I know I can be meaner than they can. I like making people cry. :)

I just find it amazing the picking and choosing that sides do from the Constitution. But I guess it sadly means when they scream about rights they don't truly "have the religion". You only truly believe in the 1A if you defend the rights of those who say you should die and go to hell. And yeah I'd defend their rights to say that. (As long as I get to say things about them too...)

inbox485
01-18-2010, 2:23 PM
P.S. can I still be a liberal if I believe in gun rights?

I'm pretty conservative, but I'll never understand why guns are a political issue, and I try to keep the two separate. I hope someday your question will be like asking if you can be a black homeowner.

gvbsat
01-18-2010, 2:36 PM
It is ironic you asking for logic in a country that was liberated with firearms from tyranny because of a dictatorship run on control/power and after earning our freedom put into our constitution to stop such control find ourselves right back to square one, just about.

The current political climate is just a big bunch of mush. Republicans in the last dictatorship... uh, I mean presidency still claim to call themselves republicans. And how ironic is that?? The crap W passed with presidential signings and the blanket of fear propaganda with the only evidence being fear.... well dont get me started.

And you ask if you can still be called a liberal? I'll tell you what you call yourself. You call yourself an American, and you stand up for American values. One of those being the "Right to keep and bear arms".

My personal preference for myself if I was to put myself into a "category", would be an American Libertarian. Take a look at the Libertarian party, you may just find yourself changing the D to an L in the voter registration. But if you are asking the forum of Calgunners to "explain the logic of gun control", you sir, already know the logic of wool being blanketed over the publics eyes, and maybe the question you should be asking is, "How can I change the minds of people in my demographics to the truth of control".

But look at the bright side, you do have a legitimate reason, or so called "good clause" to get a CCW. hahaha

dfletcher
01-18-2010, 3:04 PM
If driving drunk were handled in the same way as gun control, you'd have to turn over your car keys everytime your neighbor got pinched on a DUI. :rolleyes:

nick
01-18-2010, 4:23 PM
welcome to Calguns....don't try to apply logic to gun control, it's like trying to mix oil and water. Sure the lines can be blurry when you shake things up, but once it all settles down, it's clear that the two don't go together. We need more people to realize (as you've pointed out) that most gun related violence is precipitated by other violence and that 9/10 times the victim is not innocent. The only way to truely control guns is to allow Law Abiding Citizens the right to carry them 24/7/365 (366 on leap years) and inact rediculously harsh penalties for commiting crimes with firearms. Then reform the prison system to what it should be.....a hell hole no one ever wants to go to....and the problem will solve itself.

I disagree with the part in bold. A murder is a murder is a murder, whether it involves a firearm or not. The whole idea of classifying crimes based on the tool used to commit them is ridiculous, not to mention ripe for abuse (as we see with the current gun laws). Not to mention that it gives fodder to the idea that there's soemthing inherently wrong with guns, or any other weapons/tools.

nick
01-18-2010, 4:27 PM
I don't get it too. I have college professors who blame everything on guns. In my class today, somebody pointed out that in Haiti, people are fighting in the streets with machete's for food. I could imagine if I were in that situation, with a family to protect and what little food I had. I wouldn't be out doing any gun crimes, but I sure would feel better if I had a gun to protect myself.

I know a lot of people are scared of guns and feel it would be a safer world if there were no guns in it. I guess that might be true, if all the weapons were taken away, but you would always have the strong preying on the weak. And in the real world, you would have the non-law-abiders just breaking another law and owning guns, while the law abiding citizens would then be disarmed.

The difference is that with a machete, the stronger is likely to win. The thing with firearms is that you don't have to be stronger to win. Which the the point often lost on, say, the feminist movement. You'd think they would be the first ones to support gun rights.

nick
01-18-2010, 4:31 PM
But look at the bright side, you do have a legitimate reason, or so called "good clause" to get a CCW. hahaha

I didn't see him mention that he was close friends with the local sheriff, has donated heavily to the said sheriff's campaign, or has the connections in the high places.

MrClamperSir
01-18-2010, 4:38 PM
I didn't see him mention that he was close friends with the local sheriff, has donated heavily to the said sheriff's campaign, or has the connections in the high places.

I'm sure he meant good cause and was probably referring to that fact that the OP could be seen as more of a target than the "average" citizen.

G17GUY
01-18-2010, 4:46 PM
I'm a homo

:1eye:

nick
01-18-2010, 5:00 PM
I'm sure he meant good cause and was probably referring to that fact that the OP could be seen as more of a target than the "average" citizen.

I know. I was merely referring to the state of affairs around here.

gvbsat
01-18-2010, 5:00 PM
I didn't see him mention that he was close friends with the local sheriff, has donated heavily to the said sheriff's campaign, or has the connections in the high places.

What the other guy said

CaliforniaLiberal
01-18-2010, 5:06 PM
I'm one of those people who refuses to be categories. I'm a homo who likes fast loud cars, movies with explosions, and other stuff that I'm not supposed to like. And I'm developing a fondness for firearms. But even if I didn't personally like guns I just don't get this logic:

How does keeping law abiding citizens from owning and carrying firearms make us safer? The gun control folks trot out all these stories about "My little Billy was killed by gun violence!" and the like. But it turns out that little Billy was in a gang, he was killed by another gang, and none of those gangs firearms were operated illegally. I found plenty of those stories in cases regarding McDonald and Heller.

The idea that somehow legally banning guns is going to keep them from criminals seems just silly and I'm looking for some logic here. Where's the data on legally owned firearms being used for crimes? The numbers I'm seeing are less than 5%? Where's the f-ing logic? ARGH!

P.S. can I still be a liberal if I believe in gun rights?


Yes my son, you may still be a liberal even if you believe in gun rights.

SJgunguy24
01-18-2010, 5:27 PM
What I can't understand is how a group of people is willing to fight for freedoms and hold the constitution in such high regard, while pissing on the second amendment and villinizing gun owners.

MrClamperSir
01-18-2010, 5:37 PM
What I can't understand is how a group of people is willing to fight for freedoms and hold the constitution in such high regard, while pissing on the second amendment and villinizing gun owners.

Liberals do this?

MrClamperSir
01-18-2010, 5:39 PM
I know. I was merely referring to the state of affairs around here.

Well in that case you forgot this :rolleyes:

SJgunguy24
01-18-2010, 5:43 PM
Liberals do this?

Yep, when they're tying up traffic protesting the war, or throwing paint on people wearing furs.

How about abusing religious symbols by painting them or even dropping a crucifix in urine and calling it art. It's all protected by the first amendmet
and they'll tell you so.

Thrasher416
01-18-2010, 6:04 PM
I second what gvbsat said about looking into the libertarian party.

I consider myself a social libertarian in the sense that as long as I am a responsible citizen and don't harm harass or abuse other people the government and other people shouldn't tell me what I can or can not do, whether it be owning "Evil Black Rifles", or smoking (insert substance of choice here), or in the OP's case, what my sexual orientation is and who I want to marry.

That said, I personally don't like Marijuana, crack cocaine, whatever, and I will admit I have some reservations about gay marriage. But I strongly believe that I would be a selfish hypocrite to denounce someone else's lifestyle because I don't like it, especially when I know that the others could do the same to me.

I still register myself as an independent voter though;)

Codelphious
01-18-2010, 6:22 PM
I'd be willing to bet that the "right to keep and bear arms" was a "liberal idea" when it was first identified. Funny how times change.

It was a liberal idea, and it still is. The only thing that has changed is the connotation of the word "liberal."

Casual_Shooter
01-18-2010, 6:35 PM
Emotion > Logic

Codelphious
01-18-2010, 6:38 PM
I second what gvbsat said about looking into the libertarian party.

I consider myself a social libertarian in the sense that as long as I am a responsible citizen and don't harm harass or abuse other people the government and other people shouldn't tell me what I can or can not do, whether it be owning "Evil Black Rifles", or smoking (insert substance of choice here), or in the OP's case, what my sexual orientation is and who I want to marry.

That said, I personally don't like Marijuana, crack cocaine, whatever, and I will admit I have some reservations about gay marriage. But I strongly believe that I would be a selfish hypocrite to denounce someone else's lifestyle because I don't like it, especially when I know that the others could do the same to me.


I think most Americans would identify themselves as libertarian (of some degree) if they really thought about it, and if they educated themselves on the true history of this country.

Maybe I'm too "down" with philosophies of Roger Sherman, John Adams, and George Washington, to see the fallacy of my assertions, but I can't see how any one could argue against freedom, liberty, and property rights and still come out on top.


I still register myself as an independent voter though;)

I hope you're not referring to the "independent" party. I, myself, am registered to the "decline to state/no political affiliation" party. We are a diverse group, and always welcoming of new recruits. :D

Lone_Gunman
01-18-2010, 6:43 PM
Jacki,
You sound pretty Libertarian to me. That's a good thing. Have you checked them out at all?

GrizzlyGuy
01-18-2010, 6:47 PM
You could be a classical liberal vs. a modern liberal/progressive. Classical liberals and libertarians are largely the same thing. They basically believe that you own your body and life, and ought to be able to do with those as you choose, without the government or someone else forcing you to conform, comply, etc.

See if there is anything you disagree with in this video:

muHg86Mys7I

If that all looks good to you, I think I've got you pegged. :)

RandyD
01-18-2010, 6:47 PM
You will not find logic in it, because there is none. The anti-gunner's argument is an emotional appeal, not a logical one. Whether the motivation of any given anti-gun activist is an honest but illogical belief that their efforts will reduce violent crime, or a calculated attempt to disarm any who may oppose their power, is irrelevant. Either case, when taken to its conclusion, results in a populace able to resist neither oppression by their government nor victimization by criminals.

The only difference between a legislator enforcing their will upon the populace and a criminal preying upon the populace is that the former has a government-sanctioned expectation to maintain a monopoly upon the use of force to get their way. The criminal enjoys that same monopoly in a disarmed society, just without explicit governmental sanction.

Well said, I would also add that gun control laws are also enacted to allow the government to assume what used to be a personal responsibility and the intended effect is to make the citizens more dependent upon government.

cbn620
01-18-2010, 6:55 PM
There is nothing necessarily about progressivism, liberalism, even socialism that denies a right to bear arms. Even if the majority of progressives, liberals and socialists in the public sphere espouse viewpoints contrary to gun rights.

Personally I don't think there is anything more liberal than owning a gun. I don't think there's anything more progressive than minorities being turned on to gun ownership. And I don't think there's anything more socialist than free, non-corporate trade unions and syndicates being armed and telling big business and big government to go pound stone.

It's called a fundamental right for a reason. It's not supposed to be a partisan issue.

gvbsat
01-18-2010, 7:33 PM
Yep, when they're tying up traffic protesting the war, or throwing paint on people wearing furs.

How about abusing religious symbols by painting them or even dropping a crucifix in urine and calling it art. It's all protected by the first amendmet
and they'll tell you so.

Just because you are in the streets and protesting, using our 1st ad right, doesnt mean "they" are liberals. They, are just exercising what makes us a free country. People damaging property, they are extremest, and you find them EVERYWHERE. In every "party" and in every corner.

And the religious symbols, separation between church and state, and yes, they are still exercising that darn 1st ad right, and they have the RIGHT to do so. Why should you care? You have your belief and they or I have our own.... correct?

gvbsat
01-18-2010, 7:36 PM
You could be a classical liberal vs. a modern liberal/progressive. Classical liberals and libertarians are largely the same thing. They basically believe that you own your body and life, and ought to be able to do with those as you choose, without the government or someone else forcing you to conform, comply, etc.

See if there is anything you disagree with in this video:

muHg86Mys7I

If that all looks good to you, I think I've got you pegged. :)

What I a have highlighted, you are absolutely wrong. Whats it called, fubar or something like that? Not too familiar with the internet terms, but no sir, liberals and libertarians do not share the same, or even close belief.

socal2310
01-18-2010, 8:23 PM
What I a have highlighted, you are absolutely wrong. Whats it called, fubar or something like that? Not too familiar with the internet terms, but no sir, liberals and libertarians do not share the same, or even close belief.

I think you missed the part about "Classical Liberals" who bear little or no resemblance to modern self-styled "liberals". Think John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison...

Ryan

SJgunguy24
01-18-2010, 9:29 PM
Just because you are in the streets and protesting, using our 1st ad right, doesnt mean "they" are liberals. They, are just exercising what makes us a free country. People damaging property, they are extremest, and you find them EVERYWHERE. In every "party" and in every corner.

And the religious symbols, separation between church and state, and yes, they are still exercising that darn 1st ad right, and they have the RIGHT to do so. Why should you care? You have your belief and they or I have our own.... correct?

I care because they like to drag everybody else into it. I care because it effects me and my families well being. These are the exact same people who want to take my right to self protection away from me, while threatening my family.

You cannot have it both ways, you support the constitution and everything in it or you don't. Just because I might be offended by a crucifix in a jar of piss doesn't mean I have to like it.

In the same light, if i'm standing on a street corner raising money for care packages to send to our guys over seas doesn't give somebody the right to drive by and spit on me or throw things at my family.

JakiChan
01-18-2010, 9:52 PM
How about abusing religious symbols by painting them or even dropping a crucifix in urine and calling it art. It's all protected by the first amendmet
and they'll tell you so.

Yep it is. Just like Fred Phelps standing outside of the funeral of an American soldier and hero chanting "God Hates ***s" and wearing signs saying that soldier is in hell.

JakiChan
01-18-2010, 9:56 PM
The only issue I've have with the Libertarians is the rugged individualism, the sort of "I've got mine, so F you". (It's not really like that, just kinda.) For example I don't have a problem with the government setting up systems to help people get healthcare and that sort of thing. I mean the whole current reform effort is FUBAR but I do feel that there is a lot of historical injustice that needs some correcting. That is part of what makes me an evil liberal I guess.

MrClamperSir
01-18-2010, 11:45 PM
Yep, when they're tying up traffic protesting the war, or throwing paint on people wearing furs.

How about abusing religious symbols by painting them or even dropping a crucifix in urine and calling it art. It's all protected by the first amendmet
and they'll tell you so.

I guess I missed that part in the BOR.

Thrasher416
01-19-2010, 12:41 AM
I hope you're not referring to the "independent" party. I, myself, am registered to the "decline to state/no political affiliation" party. We are a diverse group, and always welcoming of new recruits. :D

No I wasn't refering to the "American Independent party." I have no political affiliation to any political party or organization, sans Calguns and the NRA of course.;)

510dat
01-19-2010, 12:51 AM
The only issue I've have with the Libertarians is the rugged individualism, the sort of "I've got mine, so F you". (It's not really like that, just kinda.) For example I don't have a problem with the government setting up systems to help people get healthcare and that sort of thing. I mean the whole current reform effort is FUBAR but I do feel that there is a lot of historical injustice that needs some correcting. That is part of what makes me an evil liberal I guess.

If you really believe that the state should be paying for healthcare, then you're a modern, moderate, liberal with some libertarian leanings.

Libertarians largely believe that we have the right to freedom of action to do whatever we feel is best for ourselves. If we work hard and prosper, then we get to enjoy the fruit of our labors. If we work hard and don't prosper, that sucks, but there's no way to guarantee success no matter how much the government does.

Being a libertarian does not automatically make someone "I've got mine, so F you"; everyone is free to donate to any charity that they feel like. And Americans donate more dollars, and a higher % of their paycheck, to charity than any other nation in the world.

There's a lot of evidence that government action is frequently counterproductive; minimum wage is an easy example. The higher you raise the minimum wage, the fewer people will be employed. Who gets hurt? Those who have the lowest skillset at the bottom of the wage scale.

real world example:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/05/the_minimum_wage_and_its_emplo.html

dixieD
01-19-2010, 4:34 AM
It was a liberal idea, and it still is. The only thing that has changed is the connotation of the word "liberal."

Exactly.

There is nothing liberal about policies and practices that try to advance one at the expense and liberty of another. There is nothing liberal about acquiescence of individual responsibility and freedom to the state.

RideIcon
01-19-2010, 5:13 AM
sounds like your new here.

this is what this forum is about...

GrizzlyGuy
01-19-2010, 6:13 AM
What I a have highlighted, you are absolutely wrong. Whats it called, fubar or something like that? Not too familiar with the internet terms, but no sir, liberals and libertarians do not share the same, or even close belief.

You missed the distinction between "classical liberal" and modern liberal in what I said:

You could be a classical liberal vs. a modern liberal/progressive. Classical liberals and libertarians are largely the same thing.

See here (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism):

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

And here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism):

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets.[1] Notable classical liberals include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, and Montesquieu[2]. Classical liberalism was revived in the 20th century by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, Loren Lomasky, and Jan Narveson.[3] [4][5]

The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century. And, after 1970, the phrase began to be used by libertarians to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.

Suvorov
01-19-2010, 6:50 AM
Yes, you can be a Progressive (because that is what the modern "liberal" really is, they just stole the "liberal" title in order to make it more palatable) and enjoy guns - Castro, Breshnev, and many other great socialist progressives had wonderful gun collections. You could even be a progressive and recognize the 2nd Amendment for what it is - say maybe like many Swiss. The problem I see when I speak to "Gun owning liberals" is that they try to be "reasonable gun owners" and that there are other "issues" more "important" to them. Thus they always end up supporting and putting in power politicians that are either Statists with a mandate to disarm the population, or Hoplophobes that will vote for any attempts to disarm the population out of a misguided fear of weapons. Thus, while they may personally believe in gun rights, they willingly feed the very wolf that will devour those rights in exchange for other "issues" that are important to them (gay marriage, health care, powerful unions, social programs, etc.).

I won't say that it is impossible and that there are no liberal politicians who are solidly in our camp. I also won't say that all "Conservatives" are in our camp and should be trusted - I am most likely going to be a Brown supporter. But I am saying that unless you vote Guns First, then most gun loving Liberals effectively cancel themselves out in the voting booth and do little to stem the tide of gun control.

Suvorov
01-19-2010, 6:59 AM
Yep it is. Just like Fred Phelps standing outside of the funeral of an American soldier and hero chanting "God Hates ***s" and wearing signs saying that soldier is in hell.

The difference here is that Phelps represents a tiny (almost infinitesimal) percentage of American Christians while a huge percentage of modern "liberals" (especially in Kalifornia) have become ardent pushers of political correctness.

To equate all Christians to Phelps is like me equating all Homosexuals to Jeffery Dahmer.

PatriotnMore
01-19-2010, 7:12 AM
The only issue I've have with the Libertarians is the rugged individualism, the sort of "I've got mine, so F you".

Could you please expand on this statement? Were are you drawing this distinction from?

andalusi
01-19-2010, 7:46 AM
P.S. can I still be a liberal if I believe in gun rights?

Contrary to what quite a few gun owners seem to think, yes, we definitely can be!

gvbsat
01-19-2010, 8:38 AM
You missed the distinction between "classical liberal" and modern liberal in what I said:



See here (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism):



And here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism):

Yes, I did miss that, sorry about that.

liketoshoot
01-19-2010, 8:42 AM
I'm one of those people who refuses to be categories. I'm a homo who likes fast loud cars, movies with explosions, and other stuff that I'm not supposed to like. And I'm developing a fondness for firearms. But even if I didn't personally like guns I just don't get this logic:

How does keeping law abiding citizens from owning and carrying firearms make us safer? The gun control folks trot out all these stories about "My little Billy was killed by gun violence!" and the like. But it turns out that little Billy was in a gang, he was killed by another gang, and none of those gangs firearms were operated illegally. I found plenty of those stories in cases regarding McDonald and Heller.

The idea that somehow legally banning guns is going to keep them from criminals seems just silly and I'm looking for some logic here. Where's the data on legally owned firearms being used for crimes? The numbers I'm seeing are less than 5%? Where's the f-ing logic? ARGH!

P.S. can I still be a liberal if I believe in gun rights?


If you figure it out let us know! They don't know either.

gvbsat
01-19-2010, 9:04 AM
I care because they like to drag everybody else into it. I care because it effects me and my families well being. These are the exact same people who want to take my right to self protection away from me, while threatening my family.

You cannot have it both ways, you support the constitution and everything in it or you don't. Just because I might be offended by a crucifix in a jar of piss doesn't mean I have to like it.

In the same light, if i'm standing on a street corner raising money for care packages to send to our guys over seas doesn't give somebody the right to drive by and spit on me or throw things at my family.


It is good that you do care. As debate is necessary for a free and stable democracy. Something along those lines some guy said two hundred and some-odd years ago.

It goes back to the "extremists" though. The people who spit on you and through stuff at your family when trying to do good because they disagree, I would call them extreme. Those kind of people will only see it their way and thats it. I feel sorry for people like that, its gotta suck something awful to go through life with an attitude like that.

vantec08
01-19-2010, 9:35 AM
welcome to calguns jackie. The present democratic party doesnt resemble ANYTHING like the Jeffersonian party or what it was founded on - - work and thrift, home and hearth. It has mutated into something unrecognizeable. I saw an interesting interview of a social scientist (cant recall name) who isnt one of those out-there-in-space types .. .. . he made an interesting point: a society can survive one generation that forgets its values and traditions, but two or more means permanent change. In other words, they cant have the old back. The present dem. party is going on its THIRD generation so according to him, the odds of centering itself are long at best. I'm no dyed-in-the-wool GOPer or anything, but envy and jealousy have been institutionalized in a political party - - - and as long as it feeds on those human frailties it doesnt bode well.

JakiChan
01-19-2010, 11:45 AM
To equate all Christians to Phelps is like me equating all Homosexuals to Jeffery Dahmer.

I wasn't doing so. I was offering him as a counter point to speech that the right wing finds offensive, art they find offensive, etc. I.e. there are extremes on both ends and I defend their rights equally.

Kestryll
01-19-2010, 11:51 AM
Sorry, the religious f-nuts have hijacked that party. Which is sad, I believed in them so long ago. But this isn't the forum to talk about why I hate the Republican Party.

Yep it is. Just like Fred Phelps standing outside of the funeral of an American soldier and hero chanting "God Hates ***s" and wearing signs saying that soldier is in hell.

I wasn't doing so.

You're a troll and a sock puppet and gone.