PDA

View Full Version : Liberal Second Amendment


dominic
03-19-2010, 3:56 PM
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNlib2ndammend.jpg

pTa
03-19-2010, 4:06 PM
oooh I liiiiike!

sfpcservice
03-19-2010, 4:08 PM
Oddly enough I think when the Bill of Rights was framed, the 2nd would have been a "liberal" idea.

Gray Peterson
03-19-2010, 4:13 PM
Nice that "liberal" as an invective insult. You realize that there are liberals who post here who are steadfastly pro-RKBA, right?

dominic
03-19-2010, 4:40 PM
Nice that "liberal" as an invective insult. You realize that there are liberals who post here who are steadfastly pro-RKBA, right?

Just like a liberal to be insulted when someone calls them a "liberal".

DavidRSA
03-19-2010, 4:43 PM
Nice that "liberal" as an invective insult. You realize that there are liberals who post here who are steadfastly pro-RKBA, right?

I'm with you Gray. My approach is to respect those of varying opinions and to ignore when they (often) get too rabid.

Roadrunner
03-19-2010, 4:45 PM
Just like a liberal to be insulted when someone calls them a "liberal".

Yeah, funny thing about that. I don't get bent out of shape when a liberal calls me a conservative, even if they say it with disdain.

D_fens
03-19-2010, 4:45 PM
This should go without saying, but we need to distinguish between "Modern" Liberals and "Classic" Liberals here.

Roadrunner
03-19-2010, 4:52 PM
This may get scratched for whatever reason, but modern liberals lean more toward Marxists and socialists because they are generally for big government, social programs, wealth redistribution, and rights granted by the government.

Let me be very clear that this is not vitriol, it's what I've observed when talking to liberals.

Uriah02
03-19-2010, 4:55 PM
In all fairness going to the root of the definitions...
Liberal–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
Conservative–adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

I would say we are all here in favor of liberal RKBA policies.

IrishPirate
03-19-2010, 4:57 PM
It's all a big scale.....I'm probably more liberal than some here, and I'm sure I'm also more conservative. It's not like being a man or a woman. You're not totally conservative or totally liberal....It's all relative to who you're being compared to. people need to lighten up and learn to take a joke. If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't deserve to laugh at others. You can quote me on that.

Roadrunner
03-19-2010, 5:07 PM
In all fairness going to the root of the definitions...

Originally Posted by dictionary.com
Liberal–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
Conservative–adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

I would say we are all here in favor of liberal RKBA policies.

And gay used to mean to be happy, but not anymore.

POLICESTATE
03-19-2010, 5:12 PM
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNlib2ndammend.jpg

Looks perfect, let's get it ratified!

My name is POLICESTATE and I support this message.

Pvt. Cowboy
03-19-2010, 5:17 PM
You realize that there are liberals who post here who are steadfastly pro-RKBA, right?

... and one or two of them might actually be serious about it too!

natedogg1777
03-19-2010, 5:17 PM
Ha. I posted this to my FB page and one of my (liberal) friends said:

"Yep, in the area of "well-regulated militia", US falls behind. We should learn from Colombia, Sudan, Afghanistan, and other armed militia havens."

Oh boy...

DavidRSA
03-19-2010, 5:20 PM
This may get scratched for whatever reason, but modern liberals lean more toward Marxists and socialists because they are generally for big government, social programs, wealth redistribution, and rights granted by the government.

Let me be very clear that this is not vitriol, it's what I've observed when talking to liberals.

Marxists and Socialists? Really? Thant's like someone saying conservatives lean towards the KKK and the nazi party. Both ridiculous.

Sigh. Can't believe I'm being drawn into Glen Beck land.....

POLICESTATE
03-19-2010, 5:22 PM
I believe most rank and file liberals are not extreme at all, but they're not the ones out there making all the noise, it's the left-wing extremists who are. Maybe the liberals need to clean house a little bit?

Roadrunner
03-19-2010, 5:23 PM
Marxists and Socialists? Really? Thant's like someone saying conservatives lean towards the KKK and the nazi party. Both ridiculous.

Sigh. Can't believe I'm being drawn into Glen Beck land.....

Try again. KKK were made up of southern democrats and Nazis were another flavor of socialist. You should read history.

magsnubs
03-19-2010, 5:31 PM
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have both been distorted well beyond any semblance of their original meanings. When the boot of the government is on your neck, you tend not to care wether it's the right or the left boot. I am odd man out in almost all crowds as a Libertarian. I can only in good conscience belong to ONLY party which has on claim to anyone elses rights!

That being said, I remember when the DEMS were in favor of lower taxes and less government, and the REPs were in favor of liberty. It's long gone now. The DEMs want to dictate every aspect of my life, and the REPs want to dictate "only" 60-70 percent of it. Just what do they want to be "liberal" about? Just what are they trying to "conserve?"

odysseus
03-19-2010, 5:36 PM
Hence people screw this up a lot, in that they refer incorrectly to things "liberal" than "leftist". As leftist in the traditional sense believe in collective control of liberties and personal property by government, and individual rights take a small role to the "common good" of a society controlled punitively by government. Of course that is controlled by oligarchical sway.

Keep in mind leftist can also be fascists, like the German Workers Party became Nazis, and this got really worked weird and corrupt during that time to just simply be a dictatorship less known for collectivist ideology than corruption and singular power.

People seem all too often everywhere put the word "liberal" into what leftist actually should be. However this is because in modern times, leftists have been calling themselves "Liberals" for awhile since we all know what serious damage leftists have done in the world during the 20'th century. They don't like being called that, but true leftists marxists still certainly do.

There are people that can fit into something like a "conservative liberal" in many ways. If that sounds interesting to you, you are probably a small "l" libertarian.

Gray Peterson
03-19-2010, 5:37 PM
Just like a liberal to be insulted when someone calls them a "liberal".

When you use it in a manner of a swear word and smearing the anti-gun label on all of them, you damn right it's insulting. It's like straight high schoolers using the term "that is so gay!" in a derogatory fashion

... and one or two of them might actually be serious about it too!

Or they may not post here and talk about their other political beliefs for fear that people like dominic would run them out of this forum on a rail.

Just sayin.

Doug L
03-19-2010, 5:37 PM
Try again. KKK were made up of southern democrats and Nazis were another flavor of socialist. You should read history.


Zing!!!

quick draw mcgraw
03-19-2010, 5:40 PM
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have both been distorted well beyond any semblance of their original meanings. When the boot of the government is on your neck, you tend not to care wether it's the right or the left boot. I am odd man out in almost all crowds as a Libertarian. I can only in good conscience belong to ONLY party which has on claim to anyone elses rights!

That being said, I remember when the DEMS were in favor of lower taxes and less government, and the REPs were in favor of liberty. It's long gone now. The DEMs want to dictate every aspect of my life, and the REPs want to dictate "only" 60-70 percent of it. Just what do they want to be "liberal" about? Just what are they trying to "conserve?"


+1 Both major parties are pretty much a clusterf:eek::eek:k at this point and it really does just come down to choosing liberty or tyranny regardless of which animal you choose to associate with.

....and yes, most people do need to relax a bit and appreciate good humor whether it is historically accurate or politically correct.

dominic
03-19-2010, 5:43 PM
When you use it in a manner of a swear word and smearing the anti-gun label on all of them, you damn right it's insulting. It's like straight high schoolers using the term "that is so gay!" in a derogatory fashion.

That is so liberal. Nope. Not the same at all.

Gray Peterson
03-19-2010, 5:56 PM
That is so liberal. Nope. Not the same at all.

Let me make it more clear:

You posted in the forum subject: Liberal Second Amendment.

You posted a picture which has this statement with this evil looking (presumably "liberal") turkey in it:

"A well-regulated population being neccessary to the security of a police state, the right of the government to register and ban arms shall not be infringed".

Your implication was that Liberal=universal support for the above position. Someone else may have created the picture, but you posted it here and therefor you own what it says here.

If I had posted in here an invective, subject "Conservative First Amendment", and posted a picture basically rewriting the 1st amendment to put establish a religion or require a license to speak out and it's revocable if you speak out against the actions of governmental officials, I think there's plenty of folks here who would feel insulted.

PEBKAC
03-19-2010, 5:58 PM
Looks more like an authoritarian 2nd Amendment to me...;)

bluerider
03-19-2010, 6:18 PM
John Locke is almost universaly regarded as the father of liberalisim. and I think he would agree very much that the second amendment as it is currently written is a liberal idea. In fact there are seveal lines from his writings that were lifted word for word and inserted into the Declaration of independance. It would be a fair statement that the constitution is founded on liberal ideas.

This may not be what many people think of as liberal, but it does not make them right.

Doug L
03-19-2010, 6:19 PM
Looks more like an authoritarian 2nd Amendment to me...;)

You've sort of swerved into the truth.

The Democrat party is the new big-government, total-control, authoritarian movement in the USA.

Consider, that in California, every new infringement on our right to keep and bear arms comes from the Democrats, who are capital 'L' Liberals (as opposed to the classic, 19th. century laissez-faire liberals--small 'l').

fullrearview
03-19-2010, 6:25 PM
I'm with you Gray. My approach is to respect those of varying opinions and to ignore when they (often) get too rabid.

Im sure he is a respectful person....One thing we need to remember on here, is that we can only type words. We cant see his body language, heck, we don't even know if hes is a he!

How do you know it wasn't a joke?

People need to calm down and not take things so personal.

By the way, this is not me preaching to you, its a general statement.

magsnubs
03-19-2010, 6:30 PM
You've sort of swerved into the truth.

The Democrat party is the new big-government, total-control, authoritarian movement in the USA.

Consider, that in California, every new infringement on our right to keep and bear arms comes from the Democrats, who are capital 'L' Liberals (as opposed to the classic, 19th. century laissez-faire liberals--small 'l').

What he said. Liberal has morphed into a euphemism for totalitarian. The Obama admin want's to tell us what to drive, where and how to live, whether or not we should gamble (Obama care), what we should eat, how much money we are allowed to make, etc. etc.

Ksmash01
03-19-2010, 7:01 PM
Marxists and Socialists? Really? Thant's like someone saying conservatives lean towards the KKK and the nazi party. Both ridiculous.

Sigh. Can't believe I'm being drawn into Glen Beck land.....

Try again. KKK were made up of southern democrats and Nazis were another flavor of socialist. You should read history.


One could argue that the southern democrats that made up the KKK were being conservative when ensuring that the ideas of freedom and equality were only reserved for white people. They weren't very liberal at all. The same can be said for southern republicans today, who make up the majority of today's "Klan".

Nazis wern't socialists, they wanted to take over the world, and it's economy, while exterminating the other populations of the world so that blonde-haired, blue-eyed people would not only benifit from thier conquests, but deprive other people around the world the ability to gain any economic ground in the society the fought to the death to create. That's not so different from what conservatives do to minorities on a daily basis in america today. The nazis were just as capitolistic as America is today.

I bet you "conservatives" didn't like that.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have both been distorted well beyond any semblance of their original meanings. When the boot of the government is on your neck, you tend not to care wether it's the right or the left boot. I am odd man out in almost all crowds as a Libertarian. I can only in good conscience belong to ONLY party which has on claim to anyone elses rights!

That being said, I remember when the DEMS were in favor of lower taxes and less government, and the REPs were in favor of liberty. It's long gone now. The DEMs want to dictate every aspect of my life, and the REPs want to dictate "only" 60-70 percent of it. Just what do they want to be "liberal" about? Just what are they trying to "conserve?"

That post I can agree with. I think both (R)'s and (D)'s all want to control everything. The only difference is what method of control is being used. Conservatives had thier Patriot Act, and thier torture, which wasn't very patriotic at all. Liberals have Healthcare, and Climate control.

Hence people screw this up a lot, in that they refer incorrectly to things "liberal" than "leftist". As leftist in the traditional sense believe in collective control of liberties and personal property by government, and individual rights take a small role to the "common good" of a society controlled punitively by government. Of course that is controlled by oligarchical sway.

Keep in mind leftist can also be fascists, like the German Workers Party became Nazis, and this got really worked weird and corrupt during that time to just simply be a dictatorship less known for collectivist ideology than corruption and singular power.

People seem all too often everywhere put the word "liberal" into what leftist actually should be. However this is because in modern times, leftists have been calling themselves "Liberals" for awhile since we all know what serious damage leftists have done in the world during the 20'th century. They don't like being called that, but true leftists marxists still certainly do.

There are people that can fit into something like a "conservative liberal" in many ways. If that sounds interesting to you, you are probably a small "l" libertarian.
People do this all the time. People that say "F*ck the Police" really mean "F*ck the Pigs" If you don't know the difference between a police officer and a Pig, you probably don't know the difference between a liberal and a leftist.

You've sort of swerved into the truth.

The Democrat party is the new big-government, total-control, authoritarian movement in the USA.

Consider, that in California, every new infringement on our right to keep and bear arms comes from the Democrats, who are capital 'L' Liberals (as opposed to the classic, 19th. century laissez-faire liberals--small 'l').

The Republican party is the same old big-government, total-control, authoritarian movement around the world. Take Iraq for example. BTW, I don't disagree with your statement. Democrats in Ca are responsible for the mess they call gun control. Republicans are responsible for the mess they called the "War on Terror", or the "War on Drugs", etc.

Ksmash01
03-19-2010, 7:06 PM
What he said. Liberal has morphed into a euphemism for totalitarian. The Obama admin want's to tell us what to drive, where and how to live, whether or not we should gamble (Obama care), what we should eat, how much money we are allowed to make, etc. etc.

how do you figure that is the truth? sounds like conservative fear mongering.....

dunndeal
03-19-2010, 7:12 PM
[QUOTE=Ksmash01;3985937]One could argue that the southern democrats that made up the KKK were being conservative when ensuring that the ideas of freedom and equality were only reserved for white people. They weren't very liberal at all. The same can be said for southern republicans today, who make up the majority of today's "Klan".
The Republican party is the same old big-government, total-control, authoritarian movement around the world. Take Iraq for example.[/QUOTE


Did you really say that or am I'm in oblivion?

Ksmash01
03-19-2010, 7:17 PM
[QUOTE=Ksmash01;3985937]One could argue that the southern democrats that made up the KKK were being conservative when ensuring that the ideas of freedom and equality were only reserved for white people. They weren't very liberal at all. The same can be said for southern republicans today, who make up the majority of today's "Klan".
The Republican party is the same old big-government, total-control, authoritarian movement around the world. Take Iraq for example.[/QUOTE


Did you really say that or am I'm in oblivion?

Yes I said it. The truth hurts sometimes. Deal with it.

IrishPirate
03-19-2010, 7:17 PM
I believe most rank and file liberals are not extreme at all, but they're not the ones out there making all the noise, it's the left-wing extremists who are. Maybe the liberals need to clean house a little bit?

conservatives could use a little "Spring Cleaning" too.......

are we really arguing over who is more screwed up? That's like saying "This piece of the pie is the reason why the rest of it tastes bad"......It's the whole pie that's the problem, not any one part of it.

dunndeal
03-19-2010, 7:23 PM
[QUOTE=dunndeal;3985972]

Yes I said it. The truth hurts sometimes. Deal with it.

Thank you Massa.

odysseus
03-19-2010, 7:30 PM
Nazis wern't socialists, they wanted to take over the world, and it's economy, while exterminating the other populations of the world so that blonde-haired, blue-eyed people would not only benifit from thier conquests, but deprive other people around the world the ability to gain any economic ground in the society the fought to the death to create. That's not so different from what conservatives do to minorities on a daily basis in america today. The nazis were just as capitolistic as America is today.

You are off target on this as to the roots and web of what the German Worker's Party, that became the National Socialist Worker's Party under Hitler, came from and what an average German (non jewish) lived in from 1930-1945 Germany. Really, you are despite what you think you see in movies. In fact they started with a leverage of marxists in their leadership before the big purge, but largely were still sympathetic to the state controlled mandate.

The confusion often comes from that essentially the party and its leaders were vile corrupt murderous beasts as people, and as such there was oligarchical profit raping and greed. Their obsession with the aryan power was the glue and hysteria they were able to grasp to in driving a people inside of the insanity of a society they created.

However they were not capitalistic, they hated America publicly for our "culture of money". All things were for the state. All things (your property, your labor, your reading, your speaking, your buying, your saving, your spiritual desire) were controlled by the state, even your right to give birth. Even nazi party members were known to privately to hate the high friction of this their highly socialistic authority. You really don't know what you are saying, but don't take that badly, many aren't read up on the history.

I suggest you start by reading a well regarded book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Very accessible.

That's not so different from what conservatives do to minorities on a daily basis in america today.

What a terribly slanderous and stupidly ignorant thing to say. You just called conservatives and capitalists in America nazi's on a racial basis. You are certainly OUT of your mind.

magsnubs
03-19-2010, 8:02 PM
how do you figure that is the truth? sounds like conservative fear mongering.....

Funny, I am NOT a conservative. Are you disputing that Obama has tried to exert control over us in these ways? That would be foolish, as the evidence is both overwhelming and documented. If you read my other posts you will see that I point out the REPs desire to control us as well. Personally, I think the republicans are just the tiniest bit less evil, because most of what they want to cram down my throat has less chance of succeeding.

cortayack
03-19-2010, 8:07 PM
One could argue that the southern democrats that made up the KKK were being conservative when ensuring that the ideas of freedom and equality were only reserved for white people. They weren't very liberal at all. The same can be said for southern republicans today, who make up the majority of today's "Klan".

Your thinking is a lil out there.... The "Klan" today is not that big like it was back in the 40's. Labeling todays Southern Republicans to Southern Democrats back in the days or to the "Klan" is just Stereotyping..

Nazis wern't socialists, they wanted to take over the world, and it's economy, while exterminating the other populations of the world so that blonde-haired, blue-eyed people would not only benifit from thier conquests, but deprive other people around the world the ability to gain any economic ground in the society the fought to the death to create. That's not so different from what conservatives do to minorities on a daily basis in america today. The nazis were just as capitolistic as America is today.

I bet you "conservatives" didn't like that.

[B]Nazism started out as a socialist system. Many of todays socialist ideas or policies where the same socialist ideas that where law in Nazi Germany or the same ideas Hilter pushed until he had total control. Also Nazism was Nationalism as well. Nazi's favored aryen blood lines or Germanic blood lines which they considered blonde hair and blue eyes to be more pure blooded. Many Germans had dark hair! Nazis where exterminating certain ethic groups which happen to be differnet groups of ethic white people but who knows what they would've done if they won the war. Many Arabs supported the Nazis as well as Japan. Who hated the British and their ecomonic policies. So calling Nazism Capitolism or Conservatism or Republician is laughable.......

That post I can agree with. I think both (R)'s and (D)'s all want to control everything. The only difference is what method of control is being used. Conservatives had thier Patriot Act, and thier torture, which wasn't very patriotic at all. Liberals have Healthcare, and Climate control.

Democrates voted for the Patriot act just like Repubicans did. Obama reinstated it....So much for Conservatives and their Patriot Act! True Conservatives (groups) all went against the Patriot act. I believe you have know ideal what true Conservatism is. Even tho I'm a Libertarian.


People do this all the time. People that say "F*ck the Police" really mean "F*ck the Pigs" If you don't know the difference between a police officer and a Pig, you probably don't know the difference between a liberal and a leftist.

LOL!



The Republican party is the same old big-government, total-control, authoritarian movement around the world. Take Iraq for example. BTW, I don't disagree with your statement. Democrats in Ca are responsible for the mess they call gun control. Republicans are responsible for the mess they called the "War on Terror", or the "War on Drugs", etc.

I'm for one not to happy with Republican party either. I don't agree with any thing you say but once again labeling the Republican party or Conservatives to Nazism, Iraq and to authoritarian movments is laughtable and has no fact in History......

magsnubs
03-19-2010, 8:09 PM
BTW, the DEMs have the patriot act, and torture, AND the war on drugs now too.

Roadrunner
03-19-2010, 8:27 PM
Nazis wern't socialists, they wanted to take over the world, and it's economy, while exterminating the other populations of the world so that blonde-haired, blue-eyed people would not only benifit from thier conquests, but deprive other people around the world the ability to gain any economic ground in the society the fought to the death to create. That's not so different from what conservatives do to minorities on a daily basis in america today. The nazis were just as capitolistic as America is today.

Again read history. Nazi is a short term for Nationalsozialisten or in English National Socialism. In fact, Nazis are socialists.

dominic
03-19-2010, 9:02 PM
but you posted it here and therefor you own what it says here.



Yes I own what it says and I'll own up to the fact I am a conservative and proud of it. Will you own up to the fact that you are a liberal or hold liberal viewpoints, yet are afraid to own up to it.

rojocorsa
03-19-2010, 9:24 PM
"Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

-RAH

adamsreeftank
03-19-2010, 9:50 PM
Which is worse? The "Conservative" who wants to impose totalitarianism or the "Liberal" who supports them.

This whole thread is full of talking points, straw men, and FAIL.

:(

wash
03-19-2010, 9:52 PM
If I had posted in here an invective, subject "Conservative First Amendment", and posted a picture basically rewriting the 1st amendment to put establish a religion or require a license to speak out and it's revocable if you speak out against the actions of governmental officials, I think there's plenty of folks here who would feel insulted.

I tend to side with "conervative Republicans" because they try to fool with the first amendment more than the second.

Neither is acceptable but the first amendment is supported by everyone except religious nuts so it's more resilient.

If a liberal democrat administration decides to mess with the second amendment it a much more difficult mess to clean up and we need a good set of judges in SCOTUS to do it. Since liberal democrat presidents are likely to select justices that believe the living document garbage, they should not be there to choose.

If only we had libertarian politicians that didn't want to take away our rights.

Gray Peterson
03-19-2010, 10:08 PM
Yes I own what it says and I'll own up to the fact I am a conservative and proud of it. Will you own up to the fact that you are a liberal or hold liberal viewpoints, yet are afraid to own up to it.

As usual, dominic, you miss the point of my posting. I know conservatives who do realize what the first amendment truly means, and I know liberals (yes, I am a liberal, deal with it) who truly believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

I stand as part of the group identification of "radical liberals" who made up our founding fathers, who threw off the Conservative Toryism that was the United Kingdom, and I stand as part of the "liberals" the Second Founding Fathers John Bingham and Charles Sumner who passed the 14th Amendment to bring liberty, freedom, and equality against the actions of ANY level of government, including against "conservative" states that would not tolerate the idea of black people having their own homes and owning their own guns. We are only now able to reverse a major part of that wrong, possibly all of it, in less than three months.

I am a proud liberal, and I am proud to be part of that political heritage that flows from the true meaning of the name.

bigstick61
03-19-2010, 11:01 PM
Oddly enough I think when the Bill of Rights was framed, the 2nd would have been a "liberal" idea.

You can blame the classical liberals for the semantic confusion; they essentially became the liberals of today, who are very much illiberal (except when it comes to ethnic and women's rights as well as freedom below the belt); their failings at justifying liberty through material means combined with a fear of being old news, especially during the Red Decade caused this change, but they refused to give up their name.

Meplat
03-19-2010, 11:05 PM
Modern liberals are statests, classical liberals are libertarians, accepting only enough government to avoid anarcy.:chris:

This may get scratched for whatever reason, but modern liberals lean more toward Marxists and socialists because they are generally for big government, social programs, wealth redistribution, and rights granted by the government.

Let me be very clear that this is not vitriol, it's what I've observed when talking to liberals.

a1c
03-19-2010, 11:21 PM
Again read history. Nazi is a short term for Nationalsozialisten or in English National Socialism. In fact, Nazis are socialists.

No, they're not. Sounds like your knowledge and understanding of history and politics is some sort of Cliff Notes version for intellectually challenged children. And yes, I've "read history." I've studied it, even. Only a Glenn Beck drone would equal nazism with socialism (and by the way, no, I'm not trying to defend socialism, nor nazism for that matter). You can make parallels about some aspects of those ideologies (you can do that with just about any other set of ideologies), but they're absolutely not the same thing.

By the way, this thread is a stupid idea. It's not 2A-related, it's just divisive, simplistic, political partisan propaganda. It doesn't help our cause, and it doesn't belong here. Take it somewhere else.

Roadrunner
03-19-2010, 11:47 PM
No, they're not. Sounds like your knowledge and understanding of history and politics is some sort of Cliff Notes version for intellectually challenged children. And yes, I've "read history." I've studied it, even. Only a Glenn Beck drone would equal nazism with socialism (and by the way, no, I'm not trying to defend socialism, nor nazism for that matter). You can make parallels about some aspects of those ideologies (you can do that with just about any other set of ideologies), but they're absolutely not the same thing.

By the way, this thread is a stupid idea. It's not 2A-related, it's just divisive, simplistic, political partisan propaganda. It doesn't help our cause, and it doesn't belong here. Take it somewhere else.

Yeah, they are and you are the one who's challenged.

andalusi
03-20-2010, 12:05 AM
By the way, this thread is a stupid idea. It's not 2A-related, it's just divisive, simplistic, political partisan propaganda. It doesn't help our cause, and it doesn't belong here. Take it somewhere else.

This is probably the best possible summation of this entire thread. We're all pro-Second Amendment here, regardless of our political leanings.

Pyrodyne
03-20-2010, 12:16 AM
What I learned from this thread:

- Political party discussions are still as inflammatory now as in the 1800s.

- Definitions change over time, as well as language.

- There are books to read if you care to learn

:sleeping:

Meplat
03-20-2010, 12:42 AM
Bull ****. Read some objective history.:rolleyes:





One could argue that the southern democrats that made up the KKK were being conservative when ensuring that the ideas of freedom and equality were only reserved for white people. They weren't very liberal at all. The same can be said for southern republicans today, who make up the majority of today's "Klan".

Nazis wern't socialists, they wanted to take over the world, and it's economy, while exterminating the other populations of the world so that blonde-haired, blue-eyed people would not only benifit from thier conquests, but deprive other people around the world the ability to gain any economic ground in the society the fought to the death to create. That's not so different from what conservatives do to minorities on a daily basis in america today. The nazis were just as capitolistic as America is today.

I bet you "conservatives" didn't like that.



That post I can agree with. I think both (R)'s and (D)'s all want to control everything. The only difference is what method of control is being used. Conservatives had thier Patriot Act, and thier torture, which wasn't very patriotic at all. Liberals have Healthcare, and Climate control.


People do this all the time. People that say "F*ck the Police" really mean "F*ck the Pigs" If you don't know the difference between a police officer and a Pig, you probably don't know the difference between a liberal and a leftist.



The Republican party is the same old big-government, total-control, authoritarian movement around the world. Take Iraq for example. BTW, I don't disagree with your statement. Democrats in Ca are responsible for the mess they call gun control. Republicans are responsible for the mess they called the "War on Terror", or the "War on Drugs", etc.

BluNorthern
03-20-2010, 6:29 AM
"By the way, this thread is a stupid idea. It's not 2A-related, it's just divisive, simplistic, political partisan propaganda. It doesn't help our cause, and it doesn't belong here. Take it somewhere else."
Yep, I agree... I remember when two people could sit around with a cup of coffee or a beer and politely talk about their political differences without frothing at the mouth or having the veins popping out of their necks. Cable News, both Fox and MSNBC, have deepened this chasm to keep their ratings up and have found a willing audience in the American viewer. Right vs Left, Conservative vs Liberal, now it's O'Reilly's Secular and Progressives...no middle ground. Get a life, turn off the TV, go out to the range or go for a walk, read a book. None of those talking heads could care less about our Freedoms, they're just interested at collecting their huge checks..they have NOTHING in common with any of us.

dominic
03-20-2010, 9:31 AM
Too many people taking things way too seriously here. Its a politcal CARTOON for goodness sakes. Take it easy. Its meant to be funny and everyone who was offended by it needs to find a real topic to cry about. Besides I did'nt draw it, I just posted it, though I do find it pertainant and relevant to todays political climate.

Doug L
03-20-2010, 9:40 AM
No, they're not... [Nazis weren't socialists.]

Actually, theirs was a socialist movement---a national socialist movement. That's why they called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party (die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei).

...a Glenn Beck drone...

Unfortunately, name calling doesn't enhance your position.

By the way, this thread is a stupid idea. It's not 2A-related, it's just divisive, simplistic, political partisan propaganda. It doesn't help our cause, and it doesn't belong here. Take it somewhere else.

Perhaps this thread is not directly 2A related, but it's not stupid, either. Ideas always need to be tested. Truly good ideas will always survive a vigorous debate, and emerge stronger.

We should never be reticent to defend our ideas and opinions, in a civil fashion.

magsnubs
03-20-2010, 9:52 AM
If nothing else, engaging here will cause you to re-examine your ideas and beliefs. I never shy from a good discussion of religion or politics. It either reinforces my held beliefs or causes needed change to them.

BTW, we could all get along if we were willing to allow others to live according to their OWN dictates, rather than ours. I just don't get how liberty has becomes so controversial!

Roadrunner
03-20-2010, 9:52 AM
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNlib2ndammend.jpg

The problem is, this is what the socialists, Marxists, and despots would like to see happen. This is a cartoon, but it puts the light on a serious threat that exists regardless of how the Supreme court rules in June.

This is a cartoon as well, and I'm sure everyone will laugh and enjoy watching it, but it served a purpose to remind the people of the time that a real threat existed.

fZcs1SHVbz0

GaryV
03-20-2010, 10:02 AM
BTW, we could all get along if we were willing to allow others to live according to their OWN dictates, rather than ours. I just don't get how liberty has becomes so controversial!

Absolutely! This is the real issue, not liberalism or conservatism, both of which are equally guilty in violating this concept. But Liberty is ALWAYS controversial. That's why it's also so rare in the world. Power comes from denying it to others, and all groups continually seek to have more power than they already do, no matter what end of the political spectrum they represent.

a1c
03-20-2010, 10:37 AM
Actually, theirs was a socialist movement---a national socialist movement. That's why they called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party (die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei).

I don't need a lecture on a subject I studied extensively. You are oversimplifying here like I'm some high school kid taking Poli Sci (BTW, even in high school I didn't get such a simplistic lecture on the subject, and my teacher was a gun-owning hardcore conservative). It's not like Hitler was a socialist who just decided to slap "national" in front of his movement's name. His ideology was different than that of marxist ideology, which he despised. There were similarities (especially in the way their regime worked), but nazism and socialism are two different animals.

Perhaps this thread is not directly 2A related, but it's not stupid, either. Ideas always need to be tested. Truly good ideas will always survive a vigorous debate, and emerge stronger.

We should never be reticent to defend our ideas and opinions, in a civil fashion.

The topic is not stupid, but it was started in a stupid way, and it was stupid to start it here.

This forum is supposed to focus on the Second amendment, not on simplistic, divisive political propaganda which does nothing but polarize the movement. We don't need this. Focus on a non-political fight to defend the RKBA, and then we can have political debates in another venue. Until then, all this is achieving is turning off and alienating more gun owners, and we don't need this.

I understand that many gun rights activists, who usually lean right or even far right of the political spectrum, see infringements of the RKBA as a political move, and it's true that many of those come from the left, but things are far from being that simple. It's not like I couldn't come up with a list of Republicans or conservatives who have voted or supported gun control measures. And there is also a very large libertarian movement, traditionally very supporting of the 2A, who doesn't subscribe to this simplistic polarization either.

Please do realize that many people use the Second amendment for political strategic means. Many of them pretend to be pro-gun, but in reality they're just using the 2A to promote their personal political career and their own ideology. It is pretty sad that so many people fall into this trap.

So let's keep this fight apolitical as much as possible in this forum. I got turned off by Calguns for a long time for that reason. Things have gotten much better and much more open, and it's good because many people who have different political beliefs, religious faiths and social backgrounds can now come here to discuss 2A-related issues. Let's keep it that way. Political discussions should belong in the "off topic" forum.

Roadrunner
03-20-2010, 10:47 AM
I don't need a lecture on a subject I studied extensively. You are oversimplifying here like I'm some high school kid taking Poli Sci (BTW, even in high school I didn't get such a simplistic lecture on the subject, and my teacher was a gun-owning hardcore conservative). It's not like Hitler was a socialist who just decided to slap "national" in front of his movement's name. His ideology was different than that of marxist ideology, which he despised. There were similarities (especially in the way their regime worked), but nazism and socialism are two different animals.

Where did you get your information from; the german-american bund?

Meplat
03-20-2010, 11:05 AM
"Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, (GUILTY) suspicious (GUILTY) and lacking in altruism (NOT GUILTY). But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

-RAH:cool:

problemchild
03-20-2010, 11:12 AM
Its been my experience that Liberalism is a disease. The person inflicted with the disease has clouded judgment, poor logical skills, controlled by fear and emotion, unable to reason when confronted by new data that conflicts with belief system and thinks his opinion is the only and best opinion.

Roadrunner
03-20-2010, 11:27 AM
Its been my experience that Liberalism is a disease. The person inflicted with the disease has clouded judgment, poor logical skills, controlled by fear and emotion, unable to reason when confronted by new data that conflicts with belief system and thinks his opinion is the only and best opinion.

Funny, that's what liberals label conservatives. Perhaps they are projecting.

Meplat
03-20-2010, 11:38 AM
This is probably the best possible summation of this entire thread. We're all pro-Second Amendment here, regardless of our political leanings.

Now that is just nieve. You think we do not have moles who love to foment internal dissention?:rolleyes:

Meplat
03-20-2010, 11:52 AM
Yep, don't worry, be happy, take a walk, read a book. But if you do don't count on being able to go to the range much longer.

Do you have any idea what the toads in washington are doing to our country this weekend? Don't worry, be happy.:):rolleyes:




"By the way, this thread is a stupid idea. It's not 2A-related, it's just divisive, simplistic, political partisan propaganda. It doesn't help our cause, and it doesn't belong here. Take it somewhere else."
Yep, I agree... I remember when two people could sit around with a cup of coffee or a beer and politely talk about their political differences without frothing at the mouth or having the veins popping out of their necks. Cable News, both Fox and MSNBC, have deepened this chasm to keep their ratings up and have found a willing audience in the American viewer. Right vs Left, Conservative vs Liberal, now it's O'Reilly's Secular and Progressives...no middle ground. Get a life, turn off the TV, go out to the range or go for a walk, read a book. None of those talking heads could care less about our Freedoms, they're just interested at collecting their huge checks..they have NOTHING in common with any of us.

Meplat
03-20-2010, 12:36 PM
Basically what you just said was. If you are in the majority on a particular point and can get a lot of reinforcement of your ideas it's fine to have that discussion in the most popular forum, where you like to hang out. But if your opinion is in the minority, then that discussion should be banished to a lesser forum so it does not make you uncomfortable. No one is forcing you to participate in this thread. So you must be concerned about others who may be exposed to it and may be persuaded toward a position different than yours. In other words CENSORSHIP. But then we already know that censorship is a tool dear to the hearts of modern liberals.





I don't need a lecture on a subject I studied extensively. You are oversimplifying here like I'm some high school kid taking Poli Sci (BTW, even in high school I didn't get such a simplistic lecture on the subject, and my teacher was a gun-owning hardcore conservative). It's not like Hitler was a socialist who just decided to slap "national" in front of his movement's name. His ideology was different than that of marxist ideology, which he despised. There were similarities (especially in the way their regime worked), but nazism and socialism are two different animals.



The topic is not stupid, but it was started in a stupid way, and it was stupid to start it here.

This forum is supposed to focus on the Second amendment, not on simplistic, divisive political propaganda which does nothing but polarize the movement. We don't need this. Focus on a non-political fight to defend the RKBA, and then we can have political debates in another venue. Until then, all this is achieving is turning off and alienating more gun owners, and we don't need this.

I understand that many gun rights activists, who usually lean right or even far right of the political spectrum, see infringements of the RKBA as a political move, and it's true that many of those come from the left, but things are far from being that simple. It's not like I couldn't come up with a list of Republicans or conservatives who have voted or supported gun control measures. And there is also a very large libertarian movement, traditionally very supporting of the 2A, who doesn't subscribe to this simplistic polarization either.

Please do realize that many people use the Second amendment for political strategic means. Many of them pretend to be pro-gun, but in reality they're just using the 2A to promote their personal political career and their own ideology. It is pretty sad that so many people fall into this trap.

So let's keep this fight apolitical as much as possible in this forum. I got turned off by Calguns for a long time for that reason. Things have gotten much better and much more open, and it's good because many people who have different political beliefs, religious faiths and social backgrounds can now come here to discuss 2A-related issues. Let's keep it that way. Political discussions should belong in the "off topic" forum.

GaryV
03-20-2010, 12:38 PM
Its been my experience that Liberalism is a disease. The person inflicted with the disease has clouded judgment, poor logical skills, controlled by fear and emotion, unable to reason when confronted by new data that conflicts with belief system and thinks his opinion is the only and best opinion.

Sounds exactly like Creationists. Oh, but then they're not Liberals are they. Willful ignorance is practiced on both sides, with equal abandon.

Meplat
03-20-2010, 12:41 PM
Modern liberals project a lot!

Funny, that's what liberals label conservatives. Perhaps they are projecting.

BluNorthern
03-20-2010, 1:01 PM
Yep, don't worry, be happy, take a walk, read a book. But if you do don't count on being able to go to the range much longer.

Do you have any idea what the toads in washington are doing to our country this weekend? Don't worry, be happy.:):rolleyes:
"Don't worry, be happy"? Whatever...that's what you said, not me. My thought was to chill out over the so called opinions of the Cable News halfwits, of either persuasion. As far as I'm concerned, the second I start hearing everything being grouped into simplistic black and white I tune it out. Always amazes me how someone will base their entire belief system on just one source, say MSNBC, and refuse to get another point of view on maybe Fox, and vice-versa. Friggin' blind ignorance. The truth is somewhere in the middle. And again, gunowners living in California should really tone it down when talking about Washington when they've allowed Sacramento to get away with what it has regarding firearms.

Mr.CRC
03-20-2010, 1:39 PM
No, they're not. Sounds like your knowledge and understanding of history and politics is some sort of Cliff Notes version for intellectually challenged children. And yes, I've "read history." I've studied it, even. Only a Glenn Beck drone would equal nazism with socialism (and by the way, no, I'm not trying to defend socialism, nor nazism for that matter). You can make parallels about some aspects of those ideologies (you can do that with just about any other set of ideologies), but they're absolutely not the same thing.[edit]

Socialism and fascism are functionally the same. Nazism had aspects beyond the scope of fascism.

http://mises.org/daily/1937

magsnubs
03-20-2010, 1:49 PM
Nazism includes nationalism. It is severly socialist, hence the appearance of the term in it's title. They siezed control of the means of production and distribution for the greater good. It just turns out that their version of "greater good" was racial, and nationalist. The new crop of "hope & changers" thinks that we need them to determine what's for our greater good. This time they are more like anti-nationalists, however.

Aegis
03-20-2010, 2:39 PM
Nice that "liberal" as an invective insult. You realize that there are liberals who post here who are steadfastly pro-RKBA, right?

Not all, but most liberals are in favor of destroying the 2A. Some Republicans are no better, and deserve to be called on it. The fact is, part of the Democratic party platform is to eliminate the 2a and the Democratic party is currently controlled by liberals such as Pelosi, Frank, Biden and Obama. Anyone who believes Pelosi, Frank, Biden and Obama are not liberals is misinformed.

2Bear
03-21-2010, 3:17 AM
I am odd man out in almost all crowds as a Libertarian.

I've been a CA registered Libertarian since the early '90s.

Glad to be an odd man with you.

I've always perceived the political spectrum as a circle, not a line; keep going way past the far right OR far left and you should end up at the Libertarians.

BobB35
03-21-2010, 7:04 AM
I've been a CA registered Libertarian since the early '90s.

Glad to be an odd man with you.

I've always perceived the political spectrum as a circle, not a line; keep going way past the far right OR far left and you should end up at the Libertarians.

Actually if you look at the political spectrum not as a line but instead as a circle you will get a different picture....go far to the left or the right and you end up meeting your opposite number...quite telling if you think about it....A far, far right fascist/statist regime starts to look exactly like a far, far left communist/socialist or leftist regime....which is where the confusion comes in....in order for either to remain in power the state must control the people through the use of force. The "other end" of the spectrum actually becomes the dead center where I would place the Libertarians...Limited but necessary government as small as possible....just a different perspective for all you politicalphiles out there.

Skidmark
03-21-2010, 7:40 AM
Not all, but most liberals are in favor of destroying the 2A. Some Republicans are no better, and deserve to be called on it. The fact is, part of the Democratic party platform is to eliminate the 2a and the Democratic party is currently controlled by liberals such as Pelosi, Frank, Biden and Obama. Anyone who believes Pelosi, Frank, Biden and Obama are not liberals is misinformed.

That's news to me. Can you show us where, in the Democratic Party platform, it calls for the elimination of the second amendment?

It's a false dichotomy to claim that dems/repugs are opposed/support gun owner's rights, just as it's incorrect to equate the two parties with strict ideological labels, like liberal/conservative. Some of the worst "anti" legislation has been supported by, voted on, and signed into law by nominally conservative republicans.

dominic
03-21-2010, 9:41 AM
That's news to me. Can you show us where, in the Democratic Party platform, it calls for the elimination of the second amendment?

It's a false dichotomy to claim that dems/repugs are opposed/support gun owner's rights, just as it's incorrect to equate the two parties with strict ideological labels, like liberal/conservative. Some of the worst "anti" legislation has been supported by, voted on, and signed into law by nominally conservative republicans.

Look at the voting record of politicians, judges, etc. then look at their political party and you will see who supports the second amendment or not.

tube_ee
03-21-2010, 9:56 AM
Try again. KKK were made up of southern democrats and Nazis were another flavor of socialist. You should read history.

And you should understand it.

The Southern Democratic party was about as liberal as G. Gordon Liddy, which is why they're all Republicans now, and the National Socialist German Workers Party was about as socialist as the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

Here's a hint for you: Jonah Goldberg is lying to you.

--Shannon

a1c
03-21-2010, 10:09 AM
This is the kind of thread that makes me wonder why I came back to Calguns in the first place. Some of you guys don't give a crap about defending the Second amendment. You've just been brainwashed by some ideologues whose ideas you share (since you obviously never really studied what you're talking about).

You're just interested in more partisan politics, even if it alienates gun owners that don't agree with your ideology.

Good luck with the fight. You'll keep alienating more people and then wonder why other gun owners are not stronger activists. You are the problem as much as anti-gun politicians.

Skidmark
03-21-2010, 10:10 AM
Look at the voting record of politicians, judges, etc. then look at their political party and you will see who supports the second amendment or not.

When I fix your post, it works much better.

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 10:32 AM
And you should understand it.

The Southern Democratic party was about as liberal as G. Gordon Liddy, which is why they're all Republicans now, and the National Socialist German Workers Party was about as socialist as the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

Here's a hint for you: Jonah Goldberg is lying to you.

--Shannon

G. Gordon Liddy is liberal compared to most people in the 19th century.

Hm, and I'll bet you think that the holocaust is a work of fiction by lying Jews.

Got it. :rolleyes:

dominic
03-21-2010, 10:48 AM
When I fix your post, it works much better.

Is this better?

Look at the voting record of politicians, judges, etc. and compare that to their political affiliation and you will see which party supports the second amendment.

magsnubs
03-21-2010, 12:12 PM
Power corrupts. Both parties seek increased power. They both have designs on somebodies rights. The liberals clearly are way more ambitious in their attempts to control our lives, but the "conservatives" are close on their heels. Anybody who thinks that either of these choices are tolerant of liberty or individualism is either blind or stupid. We badly need to legalize and encourage an end to the two party system.

Meplat
03-21-2010, 12:43 PM
We badly need to legalize and encourage an end to the two party system.

????????????????:TFH:

Kerplow
03-21-2010, 12:53 PM
man, talk about :threadjacked:

To me, when i think of gun control..... the term "bleeding heart liberal" comes to mind... does this make me ignorant?

i think its a pretty fair generalization to say that gun control is a mostly liberal agenda.

This is really just semantics. i think the OP was using the term Liberal very generally, and thus does not deserve such harsh criticism for his choice of words. while this has sparked a somewhat interesting debate, its really gone astray from the original purpose of the thread, IMO.

this thread reminds of how everything seems to be getting over PCed. you cant say a damn thing without angering some group of people and getting sued. where is the ACLU when you need em?:rolleyes::p

tuolumnejim
03-21-2010, 1:01 PM
Marxists and Socialists? Really? Thant's like someone saying conservatives lean towards the KKK and the nazi party. Both ridiculous.

Sigh. Can't believe I'm being drawn into Glen Beck land.....

Sorry but thats an example of extreme socialism, aka liberalism.

magsnubs
03-21-2010, 1:12 PM
All of our election rules preclude any third party from gaining any traction. It should be obvious that the current election scheme is unfairly biased towards a fair fight between the (D)s and the (R)s and no chance in hell for anyone else. From what I've heard, "Independent"s are the fastest growing voting block. The two major parties do not represent the majority of voters interests. When there is a debate, there should be equal opportunity to engage, regardless of party affiliation. Why was Bob Barr precluded from participating? Why were the voters prevented from hearing his angle on policy issues? Even if he fails to garner enough votes to win, at least the public would get an opportunity to hear his ideas, and to learn that it's possible to run on a reasonable platform. Right now, we get to choose between degrees of coercion. We will either be prohibited and mandated alot, or a little less. What about none? What about reducing the prohibitions and mandates? That's off the table, because neither of the two accepted parties will ever engage in that.

I will proudly wear the tinfoil hat, if it means that I recognize the diminished ability foisted upon any candidate who is not a member of the established two parties. I firmly believe that the media and the current crop of "leaders" have chosen our status quo, and vigorously defend it from outsiders, who, if given a chance, might actually be able to affect some positive change in our once great nation!

targetarcher
03-21-2010, 1:20 PM
Awwww I was hoping I wouldn't find stuff like this here, it's rather disappointing. At the least let's get this moved over to off-topic?


As a funny note for all the Christian Conservatives out there- check out the rest of the red letters, you might find he's showing some radical liberal socialist tendencies in there... Still think you can support that guy? :eek:

Meplat
03-21-2010, 1:28 PM
This thread epitomizes the concept that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.:p

magsnubs
03-21-2010, 1:43 PM
Perhaps you are right, and i should just shut up and become a good republican.

Meplat
03-21-2010, 1:43 PM
Well, yes, but third parties are not illegal.:confused:

All of our election rules preclude any third party from gaining any traction. It should be obvious that the current election scheme is unfairly biased towards a fair fight between the (D)s and the (R)s and no chance in hell for anyone else. From what I've heard, "Independent"s are the fastest growing voting block. The two major parties do not represent the majority of voters interests. When there is a debate, there should be equal opportunity to engage, regardless of party affiliation. Why was Bob Barr precluded from participating? Why were the voters prevented from hearing his angle on policy issues? Even if he fails to garner enough votes to win, at least the public would get an opportunity to hear his ideas, and to learn that it's possible to run on a reasonable platform. Right now, we get to choose between degrees of coercion. We will either be prohibited and mandated alot, or a little less. What about none? What about reducing the prohibitions and mandates? That's off the table, because neither of the two accepted parties will ever engage in that.

I will proudly wear the tinfoil hat, if it means that I recognize the diminished ability foisted upon any candidate who is not a member of the established two parties. I firmly believe that the media and the current crop of "leaders" have chosen our status quo, and vigorously defend it from outsiders, who, if given a chance, might actually be able to affect some positive change in our once great nation!

Meplat
03-21-2010, 1:46 PM
Never! Become a libertarian republican and be a pain in the authoritarian repubs' backside!:43:

Perhaps you are right, and i should just shut up and become a good republican.

magsnubs
03-21-2010, 1:54 PM
They are not illegal, but they are hindered by the current laws. Carrying a gun is not illegal, but is it?

CalNRA
03-21-2010, 3:02 PM
Nice that "liberal" as an invective insult. You realize that there are liberals who post here who are steadfastly pro-RKBA, right?

and you sit in Washington, the state of shall-issue CCWs, free PPTs, etc, but where California transplants are pushing for semi auto bans.

Zomgie
03-21-2010, 5:07 PM
This thread epitomizes the concept that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.:p

This is what I've been thinking. Maybe I'm less partisan than most, but I can't see how anyone could support the way either side is acting. There seems to be an overabundance of name calling and all too often I see good intentions slandered by others because of non-related issues with the person trying.