PDA

View Full Version : I am a proud Liberal and the Second Amendment don't mean Jack


Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-18-2012, 3:43 AM
because the constitution DOESN'T grant rights. It only secures rights which are yours by birth.

I think its high time we start driving this point home as often as we can. Every time we hear or read about how the Second Amendment should be abolished. Our first response should always be the constitution doesn't grant rights it only secures rights which are natural rights.

In fact in the case of United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875) (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html)

The Supreme Court Says:



6. "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."


http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html




Of course this would be consistent with the FACT that the constitution (including the Second Amendment) don't mean Jack regarding the granting of rights. These rights are natural rights and cannot legitimately be outlawed no more than outlawing your right to life.

Since this is a FACT. Consequently therefore it can legitimately be said the Ninth Amendment also secures the right to keep and bear arms. And repealing the Ninth Amendment would trash ALL civil rights not numerated in the Constitution.

I think we should keep driving these points home every time the Second Amendment comes up.

--

Yes I am a Liberal, but I am a REAL Liberal. Not one of these idiots who makes the term Liberal into some monstrosity it ain't.

A true Liberal is someone who believes in 'maximum' freedom. The very definition of the word liberal means a liberal amount of something. Like a liberal amount of money or a liberal amount of freedom.

Also a true hippie (which I am) has no problem whatsoever in hunting. In fact a true hippie shuns industrialized food in favor of living off the land more the way nature intended. Growing and harvesting your own fruits, grains and vegetables, and hunting for your own meat. That's what a true hippie prefers.

I am a proud Liberal Hippie. A REAL Liberal Hippie.



http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rant.gif

stingray4540
12-18-2012, 4:51 AM
YEAH!
:punk:

voiceofreason
12-18-2012, 5:38 AM
Those of us that are true conservatives feel the same way regarding the label "conservative" being hijacked by the idiots of today.

Your definition of liberal is strikingly similar to what many of my friends consider to be a true conservative.

Labels don't mean much. It's the character and actions of the individuals that define them.

cdtx2001
12-18-2012, 5:41 AM
Rationality and logic have no place in a reactionary and emotional society.

Good point though, I'll try to make that point to some people I know.

dieselpower
12-18-2012, 6:40 AM
there are several problems here...
1) No one is talking about abolishing the 2nd. That type of discussion is along the same lines as a gun guy saying we all should be allowed to have LAWS rockets and Tanks since the Army has them. In the real world neither of those will happen.
2) They do not need to abolish the 2nd to restrict firearms in opposition to the 2nd. We live in a Republic. Which means if they pass a law saying white people are now slaves and blacks are now slave owners...guess what... white people are slaves until the law is overturned in a court action. Of course this is never going to happen on any level, I am merely pointing out that they can pass any anti-firearms law they want and until the USSC rules its invalid, its a valid law we all must follow.

We should be ignoring people in #1 and not let them distract us from the people in #2.

3) You may consider yourself Liberal, but Liberals do not. You can call yourself anything you want, this is America. Please remember this statement when you tell people what you think you are, "I am a racist and support our rights to be left alone...BUT I believe in equality for all people and respect the rights of Blacks and minorities. I do not believe the BS rest of the KKK and racist believe in." A statement like this was spoken by a man who was on trial for murder. His wife and son where killed by LEO in the action that arrested him. Another example... most if not all Germans in WWII were 100% AGAINST what the Nazis did. When they found out what was going on many committed suicide from grief of what they supported. They all called themselves Nazis. The Democrats supported slavery, and opposed the 14th. Any person supporting slavery right now is not a democrat no matter what they say they are. YOU REALLY NEED TO RE-CONSIDER YOUR CLASSIFICATION.

Hopalong
12-18-2012, 6:48 AM
I think you are confusing "liberal" with Libertarian.

Spyder
12-18-2012, 8:20 AM
Dirty stinky liberal hippie!!! :D

Where ya at? ...because I want to buy you a beer. Boonville has tasty tasty beer.

ThePatriot
12-18-2012, 8:31 AM
Right on Bro! Tyranny can cut in any direction, time people understood that without arms they are just speed bumps to any political cause that would use force to achieve its ends.

El Toro
12-18-2012, 8:54 AM
there are several problems here...
1) No one is talking about abolishing the 2nd. That type of discussion is along the same lines as a gun guy saying we all should be allowed to have LAWS rockets and Tanks since the Army has them. In the real world neither of those will happen.
2) They do not need to abolish the 2nd to restrict.....

This thread should be in Off-Topic really but.....

Actually many on the Left have been calling exactly for this. Ed Schultz, liberal radio-show host was actually Tweeting that the 2ndA doesnt mean anything, the Constitution is the Peoples, and the People can re-write it. Many liberals have publically stated that the Constitution is a "living document" and it's time We re-write it to reflect "changing times". Honestly, this kind of talk should scare both liberals, conservatives, atheists, Christians, dog owners, grandmas bingo club. The Lefty Loonytunes only want control of our lives. The word Liberal has little relationship to the agenda of the party on the left.

SanPedroShooter
12-18-2012, 8:57 AM
I still cannot get a straight answer out of any so called 'liberals' and how they square gun rights with the party the vote for.

Where are they all now? There were dozens of them here before the elections. The house is, hopefully, going to stop any federal gun control. A house with a majority of Republicans.

Your welcome.....

El Toro
12-18-2012, 9:03 AM
Oh I forgot to address the LAW rocket-Tank statement.

It may never happen (universal ownership of said weapons) but I am a firm believer that our Founding Fathers would not want the Federal government to restrict any weapon system that the People may need for defense or to 'throw off' a tyrannical government. Would individual ownership be problematic?? You betcha. Cant let a crazy person drive down the freeway in a tank, hell-bent on destruction :-) Oh Wait!!!!! That already happened! Guess its not the tank, its the crazy guy driving.
;-)

mt4design
12-18-2012, 9:04 AM
Kudos Hippie. I got chills reading your words.

Mike

Coyote12
12-18-2012, 9:53 AM
I agree with this 100%. And the OP falls more into the libertarian ideology (the real ones, not the far-right religious conservative ones).

SpunkyJivl
12-18-2012, 9:59 AM
You sound much more libertarian than a hard leftist.

IVC
12-18-2012, 10:04 AM
What a true liberal and true conservative means has nothing to do with the political parties of today. They are hijacked by extremists with very little common sense on both sides.

Rock on hippy! Just ease up on the bong - it doesn't mix with guns :)

Antony06
12-18-2012, 11:21 AM
Your not a liberal, you vote for democrats? I don't think so. Libertarian is what you mean.

dieselpower
12-18-2012, 12:56 PM
And like I said...talk of abolishing the 2nd is the same as guys talking about owning anti-tank rockets and 25mm chain guns.... While it gets attention its never going to happen. I dont care how many radio talk show host take calls on it.

NoJoke
12-18-2012, 1:03 PM
In the dental world (my retired profession) there's a saying: You don't need to floss all your teeth, just the one's you want to keep. :D

At first, I read "proud Liberal" and discounted the thread, but decided to read anyway.

New saying:

I don't disagree with all Liberals, just the one's that don't understand. :D:D

Thanks for understanding that self defense against someone who wants to do me and my family harm requires UNFETTERED access to a tool.

Meplat
12-18-2012, 1:23 PM
because the constitution DOESN'T grant rights. It only secures rights which are yours by birth.

I think its high time we start driving this point home as often as we can. Every time we hear or read about how the Second Amendment should be abolished. Our first response should always be the constitution doesn't grant rights it only secures rights which are natural rights.

In fact in the case of United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875) (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html)

The Supreme Court Says:





Of course this would be consistent with the FACT that the constitution (including the Second Amendment) don't mean Jack regarding the granting of rights. These rights are natural rights and cannot legitimately be outlawed no more than outlawing your right to life.

Since this is a FACT. Consequently therefore it can legitimately be said the Ninth Amendment also secures the right to keep and bear arms. And repealing the Ninth Amendment would trash ALL civil rights not numerated in the Constitution.

I think we should keep driving these points home every time the Second Amendment comes up.

--

Yes I am a Liberal, but I am a REAL Liberal. Not one of these idiots who makes the term Liberal into some monstrosity it ain't.

A true Liberal is someone who believes in 'maximum' freedom. The very definition of the word liberal means a liberal amount of something. Like a liberal amount of money or a liberal amount of freedom.

Also a true hippie (which I am) has no problem whatsoever in hunting. In fact a true hippie shuns industrialized food in favor of living off the land more the way nature intended. Growing and harvesting your own fruits, grains and vegetables, and hunting for your own meat. That's what a true hippie prefers.

I am a proud Liberal Hippie. A REAL Liberal Hippie.



http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rant.gif

You sir, are a classical liberal; as am I. Though I don’t call myself a hippy, I try to stay well groomed, my hair is short and my beard is trimmed, I don’t do pot. I'm not saying you do or don't do any of these things, I don’t know you, that is just the cleshaie that the term ‘hippy’ congers up. But I think you and I could sit down togather and agree on almost everything. I call myself a libertarian. What a country! BTW the founders were classical liberals.

AragornElessar86
12-18-2012, 1:48 PM
Those of us that are true conservatives feel the same way regarding the label "conservative" being hijacked by the idiots of today.

Your definition of liberal is strikingly similar to what many of my friends consider to be a true conservative.

Labels don't mean much. It's the character and actions of the individuals that define them.

Preach it brother! I'm on the side of liberty, whichever that may be at the time.

Trenchfoot
12-18-2012, 1:52 PM
I still cannot get a straight answer out of any so called 'liberals' and how they square gun rights with the party the vote for.



The same way republicans who are pro-choice and for gay marriage vote for the republican party.

The same way people who call themselves Libertarian support criminalization of pot.

Most people can find things in their chosen party that they don't like. Choosing a party isn't really choosing who you agree with, it's choosing who you disagree with less.

"That's what governments are for, to get in a man's way." -Malcolm Reynolds

Spyder
12-18-2012, 2:22 PM
Meplat, I'll buy you a beer too...

shy 7th
12-18-2012, 3:43 PM
because the constitution DOESN'T grant rights. It only secures rights which are yours by birth.

...

this would be consistent with the FACT that the constitution (including the Second Amendment) don't mean Jack regarding the granting of rights. These rights are natural rights and cannot legitimately be outlawed no more than outlawing your right to life.

...

If, in fact, the constitution is what you say it is... then how do you explain amendment 18: the prohibition of alcohol?
Is it our natural right, which is ours since birth, to be disallowed alcohol?

Additionally, then how do you explain, 14 years later, amendment 21: repealing amendment 18?
It must be our natural right, which is ours since birth, to consume alcohol. Right?

We assume that since 21 repealed 18 that it must be our natural right to consume alcohol. But this constitution you speak of still contains two contradictory amendments. Which of those was our natural right? How do we know that 18 wasn't correct and 21 was just a 60 year mistake?


If an amendment can be repealed, as we have seen in 21, and if an amendment can deny us a freedom (right?), as we have seen in amendment 18, then isn't it entirely possible we could see a future amendment (28) that repeals amendment 2 and at the same time prohibits firearm ownership?*

*not that I would agree with it.

nullman
12-18-2012, 3:57 PM
I understand that the first ten amendments are 'rights'. Everything after the 10th are 'later amendments'.

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm

Nick

skilletboy
12-18-2012, 5:27 PM
I agree with classification question/concern. However as one who agrees with the OP I can relate.

My best friend who is an attorney and poly sci instructor calls me the "Libertarian Liberal". Which is in fact a sub-classification many in poly-sci use.

We're moderate by total measure but conservative/liberal on social issues (I.e personal liberties, morality issues, religion) but more liberal on the financial side (prefer higher taxes and social programs etc...)

It's weird when I tell people I'm hard core pro-gun but I voted for Obama, twice.

RoyBatty
12-19-2012, 2:46 AM
I would beg to differ..

The Bill of Rights limits the power of the Government...it does not bestow rights or secure rights...

The War Wagon
12-19-2012, 3:40 AM
I've been noting this for decades - glad to see ONE liberal who gets it, too. :thumbsup:

fizux
12-19-2012, 6:39 AM
I think you are confusing "liberal" with Libertarian.

The Progressive movement hijacked the word "liberal" in order to rebrand itself. Once upon a time, "liberal" referred to Lockean-style liberalism. John Locke was a strong proponent of individual liberties in the 17th century, long before Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and the New Deal.

It's kinda like redefining "the people" to mean the National Guard, and applying that definition only to the 2A -- if you don't like what the words say, change the meaning of the words.

fizux
12-19-2012, 6:43 AM
I would beg to differ..

The Bill of Rights limits the power of the Government...it does not bestow rights or secure rights...

I would argue that limiting the power of government is a very necessary component of securing rights. The other component of securing rights is up to the individual at the ballot box, and ultimately the individual's willingness to defend those rights with force.

SanPedroShooter
12-19-2012, 6:49 AM
The same way republicans who are pro-choice and for gay marriage vote for the republican party.

The same way people who call themselves Libertarian support criminalization of pot.

Most people can find things in their chosen party that they don't like. Choosing a party isn't really choosing who you agree with, it's choosing who you disagree with less.

"That's what governments are for, to get in a man's way." -Malcolm Reynolds

Yes, but some of those things are not quite equal. I can vote GOP and tolerate gay marriage, and as far as I know, while the party might be opposed to it, I dont see anyone proposing laws banning civil union, or confiscation of marriage licenses.

I think the dissonance is stronger on this issue.

ACfixer
12-19-2012, 7:35 AM
I think you are confusing "liberal" with Libertarian.

That's what I was thinking.

Trenchfoot
12-19-2012, 7:48 AM
Yes, but some of those things are not quite equal. I can vote GOP and tolerate gay marriage, and as far as I know, while the party might be opposed to it, I dont see anyone proposing laws banning civil union, or confiscation of marriage licenses.

I think the dissonance is stronger on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banni ng_same-sex_unions_by_type

While I disagree with a the Dems stance on the 2A and certain other liberties, I feel just as strongly about other issues. I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who stated that he wouldn't have someone in his cabinet purely based on their religion (Herman Cain), Someone who never met a position he didn't like if it could help him get elected (Romney), and I certainly didn't spend the better part of 3 calendar years fighting religious extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan to turn this country over to the same type of people (Bachmann, Santorum). We have freedom of and FROM religion in this country. And making laws purely based on your religion is no different than Sharia law that the GOP likes to shriek about. The GOP really screwed the pooch this election. This should have been an easy win for them.

That being said, I do have a history of voting R for the House purely because I don't like either party controlling both chambers and the presidency.

In 2016 if it is Hillary v Christie, I'll vote for Christie, assuming he doesn't cave to the far right in order to secure the nomination.

fizux
12-19-2012, 8:01 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banni ng_same-sex_unions_by_type

While I disagree with a the Dems stance on the 2A and certain other liberties, I feel just as strongly about other issues. I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who stated that he wouldn't have someone in his cabinet purely based on their religion (Herman Cain), Someone who never met a position he didn't like if it could help him get elected (Romney), and I certainly didn't spend the better part of 3 calendar years fighting religious extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan to turn this country over to the same type of people (Bachmann, Santorum). We have freedom of and FROM religion in this country. And making laws purely based on your religion is no different than Sharia law that the GOP likes to shriek about. The GOP really screwed the pooch this election. This should have been an easy win for them.

That being said, I do have a history of voting R for the House purely because I don't like either party controlling both chambers and the presidency.

In 2016 if it is Hillary v Christie, I'll vote for Christie, assuming he doesn't cave to the far right in order to secure the nomination.

I have come to believe that gun control is just another extremist religion. They may not call what they worship a divine entity, but they advocate taking away non-believers' civil liberties in order to satisfy religious beliefs that are not supported by any scientific evidence. This results in the slaughter of innocent lives that were unable to defend themselves, creating martyrs for the cause.

Hopalong
12-19-2012, 8:14 AM
There's been some debate here about liberal vs Libertarian

And "classical" liberal vs modern liberal

To me, the modern "liberal" believes that government has the answer to everything

They believe in a re-distribution of wealth

And instead of working hard, and personal responsibility, they go find what line to stand in to sign up for their "check in the mail"

Fate
12-19-2012, 8:25 AM
Nice teaser title OP! :stuart:

I am merely pointing out that they can pass any anti-firearms law they want and until the USSC rules its invalid, its a valid law we all must follow.
The Founding Fathers felt no compulsion to follow unjust laws. In fact there's no such thing as a "law we all must follow." Any law can be broken. Some laws, like racial segregation, demand to be broken by Liberty herself. There are just consequences for doing so.

But consequences cut both ways. Should tyrannical laws be passed, there will be consequences. Whether they are insignificant, localized events or larger struggles would remain to be seen.

I hope it never comes to that.

kcstott
12-19-2012, 8:25 AM
I'm copying and pasting this to my face book and giving you sir proper credit.

I have a few of those so called liberal friend you speak of. I do intend to bring this to their attention.

Trenchfoot
12-19-2012, 9:38 AM
There's been some debate here about liberal vs Libertarian

And "classical" liberal vs modern liberal

To me, the modern "liberal" believes that government has the answer to everything

They believe in a re-distribution of wealth

And instead of working hard, and personal responsibility, they go find what line to stand in to sign up for their "check in the mail"


You do realize that a large number of people that make over 100k a year voted for Obama. Categorizing people that voted for Obama as lazy and irresponsible is just as simplistic as saying people that voted against him are racist.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/245889/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2012-elections-by-income/

I believe gay people should be allowed to marry. I against abortion as a form of birth control, but I don't think that a pregnancy that could endanger the life of the mother should be carried to term, nor do I think that a woman should be forced by the gov't to carry a rapist's baby. I despise Michelle Bahmann's McCarthyesque witch hunt against Huma Abedin, purely because of her religion. Not to mention the joke that was Rep Allen West stating that 80 members of the House Democratic Caucus were actually members of the Communist Party. I've served proudly with people of all religions and even no religion, and I find it awful to have TN state rep Rick Womick say: “I don’t trust one Muslim in our military,” When asked if Muslims should be forced out of the military, Womick said, “Absolutely, yeah.” I believe in the Constitution, and I will fight other liberals when it comes to defending the 2A, just like I will fight the likes of Christine O'Donnell and Michelle Bachman when they claim that the Constitution doesn't separate church and state. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-4-the-constitution-doesnt-separate-church-and-state/240481/

However, I also dislike being told what size of soft drink I can purchase, or what guns I can own and I support welfare reform.

So that's my dilemma. Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative and hoping that Chris Christie can secure the nomination without tacking to far the right on social issues in 2016. He isn't the most gun friendly republican in the field, but I think he'll toe the party line on that issue.

Chicago
12-19-2012, 10:23 AM
It's not clear to me that we do ourselves any favor by refering to the rights we here assert as 'second-amendment rights'. Survival is instinctive. Self preservation is instinctive. To defend yourself -- implying, to be in possession of the wherewithall to defend yourself -- is a natural right, an inalienable right; and to defend your family, your dependents, your fellow man in need, a moral imperative.

The second amendment, on the other hand, is a part of the U.S Constitution, the document by means of which we created the national government; in order, as we say in its preamble, 'to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity'; echoing sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the document by means of which we created the country a dozen years earlier: "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed'. We institute and empower governments to 'secure' rights; not to dispense rights, and certainly not to deny rights. The Constitution defines the architecture of the national government, establishes the scope of the national government, and enumerates the powers delegated to the national government. And, as anyone who's ever impartially read the thing can attest, those powers are very few, and very specific, and they simply do not include the power to infringe the people's right to arms. Moreover; its second amendment does not grant any right whatsoever but, rather, simply seeks to foreclose -- redundantly -- the national government's exercise of a postulated power.

We can appreciate the federalist's sense that the best way to constrain a government is to be succinct as to powers delegated, we can appreciate the anti-federalist's sense that the best way to constrain a government is to be succinct as to powers not delegated, and we can certainly appreciate both's sense that governments do need to be constrained. So we understand the ratification-facilitating compromise embodied by the so-called Bill of Rights. Amendment ten puts the national government on notice that it has no powers save for those explicitly delegated. Amendments one through eight put the national government on further notice that there are human rights we consider so sacred and so precious -- religion, assembly, privacy, justice, and arms -- that they are not to be transgressed. And amendment nine puts the national government on final notice that while it may be able to identify something we neglected to mention, such does not engender dominion over it. Surely there was ample reason to feel secure in the thought that the national government had been enveloped in a very small, very securely locked, cage (at least until Lincoln got hold of the keys, but that's another story).

Too many people seem resigned to the notion that the Constitution is a government-authored document to which they are supposed to look for permission to do the things they might like to do. It is to their great detriment -- and, by virtue of their vast and ever growing numbers, to the detriment of the country at large -- that we lose sight of the fact that the Constitution is, quite to the contrary, a people-authored document to which the national government is supposed to look (and infrequently find) permission to do the things it might like to do.

The Heller hubbub notwithstanding; the people's right to arms does not owe to the Supreme Court's decision that the right secured by the second amendment is unencumbered by prerequisite for membership in an organized militia but, rather, to the fact that power to infringe the right was never delegated.

Brujo
12-19-2012, 10:43 AM
This is a great thread.

Reminds me of why all of these liberal/conservative/democrat/republican BS just trying to distract us. If you associate with any of these labels you sir/madam are the problem and a have a new label for you my little sheeple.

The complexity of choices with respect to our (or at least my) beliefs/thoughts can not be narrowed down to the choice of two parties.

For one the democrats don't believe in the bill of right the second to be specific. Oh wait neither do the republicans since they love to violate #4 and 7.

Neither believe in Habeas Corpus.

This is simply un-american in my opinion and if you happened to have taken a certain oath to defend the Constitution and you support one of the two parties well...You might want to re-read that particular document and the the two parties platform lines and re-think who the enemy is.

I think a comedian said it best...

I can't be a democrat because I like to spend the money I earn, I can't be a republican because I like to spend the money I earn on drugs and hookers.

SanPedroShooter
12-19-2012, 11:43 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banni ng_same-sex_unions_by_type

While I disagree with a the Dems stance on the 2A and certain other liberties, I feel just as strongly about other issues. I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who stated that he wouldn't have someone in his cabinet purely based on their religion (Herman Cain), Someone who never met a position he didn't like if it could help him get elected (Romney), and I certainly didn't spend the better part of 3 calendar years fighting religious extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan to turn this country over to the same type of people (Bachmann, Santorum). We have freedom of and FROM religion in this country. And making laws purely based on your religion is no different than Sharia law that the GOP likes to shriek about. The GOP really screwed the pooch this election. This should have been an easy win for them.

That being said, I do have a history of voting R for the House purely because I don't like either party controlling both chambers and the presidency.

In 2016 if it is Hillary v Christie, I'll vote for Christie, assuming he doesn't cave to the far right in order to secure the nomination.

Agreed.

Hopalong
12-19-2012, 11:52 AM
You do realize that a large number of people that make over 100k a year voted for Obama. Categorizing people that voted for Obama as lazy and irresponsible is just as simplistic as saying people that voted against him are racist.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/245889/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2012-elections-by-income/

I believe gay people should be allowed to marry. I against abortion as a form of birth control, but I don't think that a pregnancy that could endanger the life of the mother should be carried to term, nor do I think that a woman should be forced by the gov't to carry a rapist's baby. I despise Michelle Bahmann's McCarthyesque witch hunt against Huma Abedin, purely because of her religion. Not to mention the joke that was Rep Allen West stating that 80 members of the House Democratic Caucus were actually members of the Communist Party. I've served proudly with people of all religions and even no religion, and I find it awful to have TN state rep Rick Womick say: “I don’t trust one Muslim in our military,” When asked if Muslims should be forced out of the military, Womick said, “Absolutely, yeah.” I believe in the Constitution, and I will fight other liberals when it comes to defending the 2A, just like I will fight the likes of Christine O'Donnell and Michelle Bachman when they claim that the Constitution doesn't separate church and state. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-4-the-constitution-doesnt-separate-church-and-state/240481/

However, I also dislike being told what size of soft drink I can purchase, or what guns I can own and I support welfare reform.

So that's my dilemma. Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative and hoping that Chris Christie can secure the nomination without tacking to far the right on social issues in 2016. He isn't the most gun friendly republican in the field, but I think he'll toe the party line on that issue.
Look, there are always exceptions to the rule

What, exactly, is your definition of "large number"?

I doubt it fits my definition.

Even so, these people fit into my category or "re-distribution of wealth"

Trenchfoot
12-19-2012, 12:34 PM
Look, there are always exceptions to the rule

What, exactly, is your definition of "large number"?

I doubt it fits my definition.

Even so, these people fit into my category or "re-distribution of wealth"

According to exit polls, Obama got 44% of the vote from people making over 100k.

And just because you vote for someone doesn't mean you agree with them 100% For some people, the social issues outweigh the economic issues of the candidates.

My mother disagrees with almost everything the GOP stands for, but she votes for them for 1 reason....she would like to see abortion banned. That is the most important thing for her.

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:36 PM
Thanks everyone who posted a response and my apologies for taking so long to respond back. Its been a very busy holiday season for me this year and haven't had the time to log on.

But again I would like to say thanks for all those who responded.

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:37 PM
We live in a Republic. Which means if they pass a law saying white people are now slaves and blacks are now slave owners...guess what... white people are slaves until the law is overturned in a court action. Of course this is never going to happen on any level, I am merely pointing out that they can pass any anti-firearms law they want and until the USSC rules its invalid, its a valid law we all must follow.

3) You may consider yourself Liberal, but Liberals do not. You can call yourself anything you want, this is America. Please remember this statement when you tell people what you think you are...........YOU REALLY NEED TO RE-CONSIDER YOUR CLASSIFICATION.



Thanks for your response dieselpower.

Any law which is in conflict with the constitution is null & void (Mulberry vs Madison). Of course we have had many examples of unconstitutional laws being passed/enforced throughout our history. But nevertheless any law which conflicts with the constitution is not a valid law. This is the main reason why we have a justice system which operates on a jury of our peers. As a juror you are suppose to not only examine the facts of the case, but you should also be examining the law itself. Our jury system is meant to be the last line of defense against arbitrary laws.

As for my classification of "liberal". I can assure you that I am very much a liberal. The problem with most of today's liberals is they erroneously believe that promoting nanny state laws is aligned with liberalism when it is indeed the contrary.

Liberal:

"4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal?s=t



Also, in my opinion I believe there are 'overlaps' of ideology where conservatives and liberals should agree on issues. One of these overlaps should be the topic of individual freedom.

If we were in an economic discussion you would know that I am indeed a liberal. To summarize for example: I do not believe in supply side economics. I believe in consumer side economics. I do not believe in deregulated capitalism. I believe capitalism needs regulation to defend against fraud, exploitation and lawlessness in the markets. I also believe that in a civilized society there ought to be socialized programs for the needy. However, I also believe in order to receive such public assistance you must show one of three things. 1) That you're actively looking for employment and not turning down offers. 2) Or that you are enrolled as a full time student in a reasonably marketable course. 3) Or that you are medically disabled and cannot meet either of the other two standards.

Anyway, all that is a different subject. But yes I will agree that most liberals today would disagree with me on the subject of guns and hunting and probably a few other things. But I maintain that is only because like most people, they are not thinking for themselves. They are just following what is poplular with their peers even if it conflicts with true liberalism.

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:37 PM
Dirty stinky liberal hippie!!! :D

Where ya at? ...because I want to buy you a beer. Boonville has tasty tasty beer.


Hello Spyder http://www.backstreet.net/chat/images/wave-smiley.gif

I live in San Pedro (part of Los Angeles). Thanks for the offer, I would love to drink a beer with you. Maybe if I ever visit the Boonville area. :)

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:38 PM
Right on Bro! Tyranny can cut in any direction, time people understood that without arms they are just speed bumps to any political cause that would use force to achieve its ends.


Hear here! I couldn't agree more.

Thanks ThePatriot.


http://www.backstreet.net/chat/images/wave-smiley.gif

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:44 PM
I still cannot get a straight answer out of any so called 'liberals' and how they square gun rights with the party the vote for.

Where are they all now? There were dozens of them here before the elections. The house is, hopefully, going to stop any federal gun control. A house with a majority of Republicans.

Your welcome.....



Thanks SanPedroShooter. I am a longshoreman and I live in San Pedro too. :)

I'll try to answer your question. Fellow liberals who like myself fully support gun rights probably are voting not just on single issues. They like most folks are probably looking at the multitude of issues and basing their decision on what most closely matches their views. Then there's always (in any party) are going to be those idiots who don't pay attention and just blindly vote their party. Bad idea and whoever does that should be ashamed of themselves IMO.

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:45 PM
Kudos Hippie. I got chills reading your words.

Mike



Thank you Mike. http://www.backstreet.net/chat/images/wave-smiley.gif


Jimmy

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:46 PM
I agree with this 100%. And the OP falls more into the libertarian ideology (the real ones, not the far-right religious conservative ones).


Thank you Coyote12. http://www.backstreet.net/chat/images/wave-smiley.gif


I agree that there would be some overlap between myself and libertarians. But economically speaking I am a bit more on the liberal side. I have to admit that libertarian is very attractive to me and I would absolutely register as a libertarian if their views concerning economics and labor unions were just a little bit more to my liking.

If there were such a thing as half liberal and half libertarian. That would exactly be me.

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:47 PM
What a true liberal and true conservative means has nothing to do with the political parties of today. They are hijacked by extremists with very little common sense on both sides.

Rock on hippy! Just ease up on the bong - it doesn't mix with guns :)



Thank you IVC. And I couldn't agree with you more.

http://www.backstreet.net/chat/images/wave-smiley.gif

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:48 PM
In the dental world (my retired profession) there's a saying: You don't need to floss all your teeth, just the one's you want to keep. :D

At first, I read "proud Liberal" and discounted the thread, but decided to read anyway.

New saying:

I don't disagree with all Liberals, just the one's that don't understand. :D:D

Thanks for understanding that self defense against someone who wants to do me and my family harm requires UNFETTERED access to a tool.


Excellent points and I totally agree. Thanks NoJoke

http://www.backstreet.net/chat/images/wave-smiley.gif

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:49 PM
You sir, are a classical liberal; as am I. Though I don’t call myself a hippy, I try to stay well groomed, my hair is short and my beard is trimmed, I don’t do pot. I'm not saying you do or don't do any of these things, I don’t know you, that is just the cleshaie that the term ‘hippy’ congers up. But I think you and I could sit down togather and agree on almost everything. I call myself a libertarian. What a country! BTW the founders were classical liberals.



Actually I just cut my hair. Just taking a break from the maintenance. Funny thing is. The next day I heard the song "Almost Cut My Hair" by Neil Young and it made me feel bad.. LOL

Thanks for your post Meplat.

http://www.backstreet.net/chat/images/wave-smiley.gif

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:50 PM
Preach it brother! I'm on the side of liberty, whichever that may be at the time.


Hear here! AragornElessar.


http://www.backstreet.net/chat/images/wave-smiley.gif

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:50 PM
If, in fact, the constitution is what you say it is... then how do you explain amendment 18: the prohibition of alcohol?
Is it our natural right, which is ours since birth, to be disallowed alcohol?

Additionally, then how do you explain, 14 years later, amendment 21: repealing amendment 18?
It must be our natural right, which is ours since birth, to consume alcohol. Right?

We assume that since 21 repealed 18 that it must be our natural right to consume alcohol. But this constitution you speak of still contains two contradictory amendments. Which of those was our natural right? How do we know that 18 wasn't correct and 21 was just a 60 year mistake?


If an amendment can be repealed, as we have seen in 21, and if an amendment can deny us a freedom (right?), as we have seen in amendment 18, then isn't it entirely possible we could see a future amendment (28) that repeals amendment 2 and at the same time prohibits firearm ownership?*

*not that I would agree with it.



Thanks shy 7th.

I would answer your question by saying: Throughout our history we have had examples of basic rights being usurped by the state. I.e. Blacks were enslaved. Japanese were rounded up and put into camps. People thought up of as witches were burned. The right to autonomy over one's own mind & body usurped by the war on drugs. Etc. This in my opinion isn't evidence against the concept of individual rights being secured by the constitution rather than granting them. Its just evidence of the corrupting nature of political power.

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:51 PM
I agree with classification question/concern. However as one who agrees with the OP I can relate.

My best friend who is an attorney and poly sci instructor calls me the "Libertarian Liberal". Which is in fact a sub-classification many in poly-sci use.

We're moderate by total measure but conservative/liberal on social issues (I.e personal liberties, morality issues, religion) but more liberal on the financial side (prefer higher taxes and social programs etc...)

It's weird when I tell people I'm hard core pro-gun but I voted for Obama, twice.




Thanks skilletboy and I totally agree.

Also, I can read the republican platform and agree with several parts of it. Same holds true for the other party platforms. I too would consider myself as part libertarian and a bit more liberal.


http://www.backstreet.net/chat/images/wave-smiley.gif

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-29-2012, 9:51 PM
I've been noting this for decades - glad to see ONE liberal who gets it, too. :thumbsup:



Thanks The War Wagon.

http://www.backstreet.net/chat/images/wave-smiley.gif

Tarn_Helm
12-30-2012, 12:15 AM
because the constitution DOESN'T grant rights. It only secures rights which are yours by birth.

I think its high time we start driving this point home as often as we can. Every time we hear or read about how the Second Amendment should be abolished. Our first response should always be the constitution doesn't grant rights it only secures rights which are natural rights.

In fact in the case of United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875) (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html)

The Supreme Court Says:

Of course this would be consistent with the FACT that the constitution (including the Second Amendment) don't mean Jack regarding the granting of rights. These rights are natural rights and cannot legitimately be outlawed no more than outlawing your right to life.

Since this is a FACT. Consequently therefore it can legitimately be said the Ninth Amendment also secures the right to keep and bear arms. And repealing the Ninth Amendment would trash ALL civil rights not numerated in the Constitution.

I think we should keep driving these points home every time the Second Amendment comes up.

--

Yes I am a Liberal, but I am a REAL Liberal. Not one of these idiots who makes the term Liberal into some monstrosity it ain't.

A true Liberal is someone who believes in 'maximum' freedom. The very definition of the word liberal means a liberal amount of something. Like a liberal amount of money or a liberal amount of freedom.

Also a true hippie (which I am) has no problem whatsoever in hunting. In fact a true hippie shuns industrialized food in favor of living off the land more the way nature intended. Growing and harvesting your own fruits, grains and vegetables, and hunting for your own meat. That's what a true hippie prefers.

I am a proud Liberal Hippie. A REAL Liberal Hippie. . . .

The language we have inherited to discuss fundamental issues is part of the problem.

Think of it like this.

We have terminology and conceptual dichotomies from many different eras of the history of Western Civilization.

Here are three pairs:

"left vs. right"

"liberal vs. conservative"

"Democrat vs. Republican"

But these are incommensurate terms to begin with.

Making matters worse, their meanings and usages have undergone change and slippage over time.

Now we have words (and concepts for them) that are a mish-mash of conceptual systems from different time periods.

Almost as if someone mixed together boxes of Tinker Toys, Lincoln Logs, and Erector Sets--and then can't figure out why all the pieces don't fit together snugly to form one coherent, unified system.

The whole simplistic notion of a left/right spectrum, with "extremists" at the opposite ends of some imaginary political number line, is precisely what confuses the way folks talk and think about political issues.

This underlying framework is called a "conceptual metaphor (http://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356853991&sr=1-1&keywords=metaphors+we+live+by)."

It is very difficult to learn to talk and think in terms other than the ones everyone is always already using, but we have to learn to do this.

First you have to read, reflect, and discuss this with the people you know who care about this stuff: Awareness is step one.

Otherwise we all will stay stuck with the forms of discourse we already have, i.e., the language for morality and politics in which these forms are embedded--and which we ourselves are embedded (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/0226467716/ref=pd_sim_b_7). . . and in which we are stuck.

Then you have to stop people when they start throwing around the same stale, canned terminology, and question them, ask them what they mean by "left" or "right"--and then explain how this simplistic "number line" metaphor for politics and power is incoherent.

You have to explain how power is really organized in societies that espouse representative government rooted in the idea of popular sovereignty.

People are free in direct proportion to the extent to which their government has a monopoly on the use of legitimate force--or the means of such force: firearms.

This little ten-minute video can begin to clarify the situation. It is a bit simplistic, but it makes the general point.

It shows why the simple "Either/Or" dichotomies (Democrat/Repbulican, Liberbal/Conservative, etc.) don't work. And ultimately don't make sense! They collapse into each other, as the various network TV news stories about the "Tea Party" and "Occupy Wallstreet" demonstrations did.

Nothing was funnier, sadder, and stranger than to listen to those two groups echo each other with their rhetoric against "oppression!"

I hope this helps.

DioQooFIcgE

philobeddoe
12-30-2012, 12:19 AM
there are several problems here...
1) No one is talking about abolishing the 2nd. That type of discussion is along the same lines as a gun guy saying we all should be allowed to have LAWS rockets and Tanks since the Army has them. In the real world neither of those will happen.
2) They do not need to abolish the 2nd to restrict firearms in opposition to the 2nd. We live in a Republic. Which means if they pass a law saying white people are now slaves and blacks are now slave owners...guess what... white people are slaves until the law is overturned in a court action. Of course this is never going to happen on any level, I am merely pointing out that they can pass any anti-firearms law they want and until the USSC rules its invalid, its a valid law we all must follow.

We should be ignoring people in #1 and not let them distract us from the people in #2.

3) You may consider yourself Liberal, but Liberals do not. You can call yourself anything you want, this is America. Please remember this statement when you tell people what you think you are, "I am a racist and support our rights to be left alone...BUT I believe in equality for all people and respect the rights of Blacks and minorities. I do not believe the BS rest of the KKK and racist believe in." A statement like this was spoken by a man who was on trial for murder. His wife and son where killed by LEO in the action that arrested him. Another example... most if not all Germans in WWII were 100% AGAINST what the Nazis did. When they found out what was going on many committed suicide from grief of what they supported. They all called themselves Nazis. The Democrats supported slavery, and opposed the 14th. Any person supporting slavery right now is not a democrat no matter what they say they are. YOU REALLY NEED TO RE-CONSIDER YOUR CLASSIFICATION.


There is no legal requirement to obey an unconstitutional law, and your slave law hypothetical is inaccurate.

Neo Sharkey
12-30-2012, 7:24 AM
there are several problems here...

2) They do not need to abolish the 2nd to restrict firearms in opposition to the 2nd. We live in a Republic. Which means if they pass a law saying white people are now slaves and blacks are now slave owners...guess what... white people are slaves until the law is overturned in a court action. Of course this is never going to happen on any level, I am merely pointing out that they can pass any anti-firearms law they want and until the USSC rules its invalid, its a valid law we all must follow.



I had to respond to this... They can pass the a new law that doesn't make it a valid law.

I'd say that these are laws we must resist.

Otherwise, it'd be very easy for them to round up the guns and say "Sure, we'll return them if we loose the court case." It costs them nothing to tie things up in court for years (after all, they're spending our tax dollars).

Bobio
12-30-2012, 7:49 AM
I'm a proud liberal but I support the second amendment.

Sierra57
12-30-2012, 8:23 AM
because the constitution DOESN'T grant rights. It only secures rights which are yours by birth.

I think its high time we start driving this point home as often as we can. Every time we hear or read about how the Second Amendment should be abolished. Our first response should always be the constitution doesn't grant rights it only secures rights which are natural rights.

In fact in the case of United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875) (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html)

The Supreme Court Says:





Of course this would be consistent with the FACT that the constitution (including the Second Amendment) don't mean Jack regarding the granting of rights. These rights are natural rights and cannot legitimately be outlawed no more than outlawing your right to life.

Since this is a FACT. Consequently therefore it can legitimately be said the Ninth Amendment also secures the right to keep and bear arms. And repealing the Ninth Amendment would trash ALL civil rights not numerated in the Constitution.

I think we should keep driving these points home every time the Second Amendment comes up.

--

Yes I am a Liberal, but I am a REAL Liberal. Not one of these idiots who makes the term Liberal into some monstrosity it ain't.

A true Liberal is someone who believes in 'maximum' freedom. The very definition of the word liberal means a liberal amount of something. Like a liberal amount of money or a liberal amount of freedom.

Also a true hippie (which I am) has no problem whatsoever in hunting. In fact a true hippie shuns industrialized food in favor of living off the land more the way nature intended. Growing and harvesting your own fruits, grains and vegetables, and hunting for your own meat. That's what a true hippie prefers.

I am a proud Liberal Hippie. A REAL Liberal Hippie.



http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rant.gif

I believe your values and beliefs are called classic liberalism. The sad thing is that I doubt that any of the under 30, vegucated little bastards cranked out by the public vegucation system have ever heard the term.

cineski
12-30-2012, 9:16 AM
All parties have been hijacked (except the libertarian party as of yet....just because they get the most hate from both sides). Most people who flaunt labels don't really know what the current definition of a label is. Also, modern day liberals have absolutely nothing to do with classic liberals and calling yourself a liberal today, in my mind, makes you a communist (in that if you look at history, communism arose because people were willing to give up their rights by being duped by the government to make them think they're there to help). Liberal use of government to control is what a liberal is today. Oh, and watch this:

ODXgGS50AVY

There's a marked difference between liberal government and liberal people. Liberal people may still want freedom, but they are horribly mistaken that giving absolute power to government to save them is the answer. Liberal government has been completely hijacked by communists because they know the liberal population is stupid enough to grant absolute power.

movie zombie
12-30-2012, 10:05 AM
The Bill of Rights Is Not Negotiable, nor is the 2A:

"I propose that any who attempt to denounce Bill of Rights protections for others must first surrender their own rights and freedoms. Do not speak of taking away my Second Amendment rights while you enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. Surrender all your rights and freedoms first, because only then have you achieved the necessary moral consistency from which you can demand others be deprived of their rights."

http://www.naturalnews.com/038471_Bill_of_Rights_declaration_America.html

Rider1k
12-30-2012, 10:07 AM
Agreed

reznunt
12-30-2012, 1:43 PM
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

this quick quiz will give you a better idea of where you stand.

razr
12-30-2012, 1:59 PM
Where have you been?

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-30-2012, 4:08 PM
Where have you been?


Hello razr.

Sorry for the long delay in responding back. Its just been a very busy holiday season this year. :)

That plus I've been spending more time following the markets lately. They are warning about a fiscal cliff? Heck we've fallen off that cliff back in 2008. What they're actually referring to is all the band-aids and kicking the can down the road gimmicks are about at the end of their rope. So watching the massive bond market bubble, rehypothecated to infinity CDO's and the mother of all bubbles, credit swap derivatives to keep an eye out for great shorting and put-option opportunities.

I'm gonna have a bit more time to read/post on CG's in about a week.


http://www.backstreet.net/chat/images/wave-smiley.gif

Johnnyfres
12-30-2012, 4:59 PM
Most intelligent statement I have read in some time.


I scored this...

Libertarian
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

glocksmith
12-30-2012, 5:10 PM
I get the feeling that most Americans regardless of political standing is getting very sick and tired of the Government intrusion and the expansion going on.

NoJoke
12-30-2012, 5:46 PM
I'm a proud liberal but and I support the second amendment.

Fixed. :D

OIFVet03
12-30-2012, 8:56 PM
I totally agree with you. You are a true liberal, not like these people who want the government to do everything for them and don't even know how to take care of themselves. I too would much rather live off the land and be in nature.

Cylarz
12-31-2012, 12:24 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banni ng_same-sex_unions_by_type
I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who stated that he wouldn't have someone in his cabinet purely based on their religion (Herman Cain), Someone who never met a position he didn't like if it could help him get elected (Romney), and I certainly didn't spend the better part of 3 calendar years fighting religious extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan to turn this country over to the same type of people (Bachmann, Santorum).



All of the candidates you mentioned were fine. It's not their fault that they had to campaign before a populace more interested in "free stuff" than in jobs....or that we had a bunch of libertarian loons like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson getting in the way of the Republican vote.

Oh, and you don't have freedom FROM religion in the United States...you have a right to the religion of your choice, even if that choice is "none." It doesn't mean you have a "right" never to hear or read any references to religion. Read what the 1st Amendment actually says.

Your comparison of God-fearing men like the ones I go to church with...to the murderous fanatics you saw in Iraq and Afghanistan is insulting, to put it mildly. To compare people who serve their communities, give to their churches, feed starving children in Africa and preach the Good News.....to people who fly airplanes into buildings, stone gays, and all the other hideous things going on in the Muslim World.....I don't even know where to begin in addressing that. It's like trying to explain to someone that oranges can't fly under their own power.

Good golly, I'm tired of all people of faith being lumped together. Why don't you try getting to know some of us and finding out what we're actually about?

HYPEractive
12-31-2012, 12:52 AM
It's really not a liberal/conservative thing... it's a totalitarian vs libertarian government thing.

Vermont, the MOST liberal state in the nation (they even have a socialist senator!) has more gun-friendly laws than my home state of Texas! Also, look at Oregon and Vermont. It's a Cali, NYC, Chicago thing... not necessarily a "liberal" thing.

Side note: NPR recently had the story about gun control in american and how it started in California with Reagan to halt the civil rights movement (the Black Panthers open carried).

razr
12-31-2012, 8:03 AM
errr you go, calguns at its best! Lets call each other names. Have a happy and safe 2013 everyone.

Sierra57
12-31-2012, 8:08 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banni ng_same-sex_unions_by_type

While I disagree with a the Dems stance on the 2A and certain other liberties, I feel just as strongly about other issues. I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who stated that he wouldn't have someone in his cabinet purely based on their religion (Herman Cain), Someone who never met a position he didn't like if it could help him get elected (Romney), and I certainly didn't spend the better part of 3 calendar years fighting religious extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan to turn this country over to the same type of people (Bachmann, Santorum). We have freedom of and FROM religion in this country. And making laws purely based on your religion is no different than Sharia law that the GOP likes to shriek about. The GOP really screwed the pooch this election. This should have been an easy win for them.

That being said, I do have a history of voting R for the House purely because I don't like either party controlling both chambers and the presidency.

In 2016 if it is Hillary v Christie, I'll vote for Christie, assuming he doesn't cave to the far right in order to secure the nomination.

Thanks for your service. 2 of my nephews spent time in those middle eastern hellholes, ditto my son-in-law. Son-in-law found out a few days before Christmas that he lost another buddy from his old unit ......:(

I do find your your comparison of Santorum and Bachmann to the Taliban a bit of a stretch, to put it politely That's like saying that anyone to the left of center is a huge fan of Stalin and Mao, and wants to employ their genocidal tactics here in America.

movie zombie
12-31-2012, 8:35 AM
.............Side note: NPR recently had the story about gun control in american and how it started in California with Reagan to halt the civil rights movement (the Black Panthers open carried).


most have selective memory and will discount this because its from NPR.....


Hippie, i believe the correct term bandied about by those that love to label is "liberal libertarian"......... which is the label assigned to me although i find my pro-choice stance to still be an affront to so-called libertarians.

HYPEractive
12-31-2012, 9:10 AM
errr you go, calguns at its best! Lets call each other names. Have a happy and safe 2013 everyone.

Me? I didn't call anyone names. If it's about my "Vermont has a socialist senator" comment, it was stating fact. Bernie Sanders from Vermont really is a "Democratic Socialist" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders (if that's not what you were referring to, please ignore)

most have selective memory and will discount this because its from NPR.....

Why would it be discounted? It wasn't even an opinion program where the host and guests yell at each other (which NPR doesn't even have). The fact that gun control was spearheaded by Reagan is also so easy to google; the results that show up aren't even from polarizing sources. (note: that's not to say that modern liberals have not taken the torch passed by Reagan... again, it's a totalitarian thing, not necessarily a liberal/conservative thing)

- http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

- Here's a fun quiz: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/reagan-obama-feinstein-gun-quiz.html

- http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/15/when-the-black-panthers-challe

- Here is a pretty a pretty bone-chilling link with a clip to a 1960s clip of an interview of an official commenting on why the US should enact gun control
https://diva.sfsu.edu/collections/sfbatv/bundles/206875
The official says he does not believe that in the "urban environment we have in California" that we should allow people to carry guns "in an excited and hostile atmosphere," and laments that there was no way to prosecute the Panthers under the current law. "We have to protect society from nuts with guns."

movie zombie
12-31-2012, 9:33 AM
because many calgunners don't do research and think NPR is nothing more than a liberal propaganda source. however, you are so very right that its a tolitarian thing which crosses party lines.

i see you've got 11 posts: welcome to calguns!
do some research here and you'll find why i said what i said.....
you are a very welcome addition!

looking forward to more of your posts. i like that you provide links for those that are disinclined to do research....although many on calguns don't even take the time to click on the links.

again, welcome!

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-31-2012, 9:39 AM
I'm sure this link has probably been posted at CalGuns before. Just thought to post it to show where I land on the political compass map
after taking the test HERE (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test)


;)



http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m395/thepopolvuh/Misc/compass.jpg

Horton Fenty
12-31-2012, 10:38 AM
I think you are confusing "liberal" with Libertarian.

^^ This.

Old_Bald_Guy
12-31-2012, 10:38 AM
I'm sure this link has probably been posted at CalGuns before. Just thought to post it to show where I land on the political compass map
after taking the test HERE (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test)


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/wink.gif



http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m395/thepopolvuh/Misc/compass.jpg


Interesting quiz/assessment. I've seen ones similar to this, but not this one. Here are my results:

http://i.imgur.com/2P6JQ.jpg?1

HYPEractive
12-31-2012, 11:01 AM
because many calgunners don't do research and think NPR is nothing more than a liberal propaganda source. however, you are so very right that its a tolitarian thing which crosses party lines.

i see you've got 11 posts: welcome to calguns!
do some research here and you'll find why i said what i said.....
you are a very welcome addition!

looking forward to more of your posts. i like that you provide links for those that are disinclined to do research....although many on calguns don't even take the time to click on the links.

again, welcome!

Thanks for the welcome! This place is a great resource.

razr
12-31-2012, 1:20 PM
[QUOTE=HYPEractive;10066517]Me? I didn't call anyone names. If it's about my "Vermont has a socialist senator" comment, it was stating fact. Bernie Sanders from Vermont really is a "Democratic Socialist" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders (if that's not what you were referring to, please ignore)

It was someone else and he ended up changing it, the original was very different in my email notification.

HBrebel
12-31-2012, 7:24 PM
right on but why not just relieve yourself of the burden of political sides and political BS. We are men and women who are citizens of this country. We have our natural rights and that is all that matters. Civil rights are great so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others i.e. robbing from my paycheck to pay for it. Jefferson said "The beauty of the second amendment is that we will not need to use it unless they try to take it away from us"

themandylion
01-01-2013, 3:44 AM
I, too, am a "liberal." Only a "liberal" in the same way Thomas Jefferson was a "liberal."

The modern "liberal" is actually illiberal: unable to consider and analyze ideas and beliefs that do not concur with his own ideas and beliefs. A true liberal is open to the facts, and willing to seek Truth, not declare that he possesses it and that nothing can amend it.

The belief in and the defense of the Bill of Rights is not a "left v. right," "liberal v. conservative," or "Democrat v. Republican" issue. Mitt Romney would be just as willing to sign new citizen control ("gun control") legislation as Obama (he was, after all, the governor of the most anti-2A state in the USA).

movie zombie
01-01-2013, 8:27 AM
me = 2 intersects above you.........