PDA

View Full Version : Liberals will get you eaten.


muntz
02-13-2008, 8:16 AM
I just wanted to share an excerpt from a book that exemplifies the armed vs. the unarmed.

On the Chatham Islands, 500 miles east of New Zealand, centuries of independence came to a brutal end for the Morior people in December 1835. On November 19 of that year, a ship carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs, and axes arrived, followed on December 5 by a shipload of 400 more Maori. Groups of Maori began to walk through Moriori settlements, announcing that the Moriori were now their slaves, and killing those who objected. An organized resistance by the Moriori could still then have defeated the Maori, who were outnumbered two to one. However, the Moriori had a tradition of resolving disputes peacefully. They decided in a council meeting not to fight back but to offer peace, friendship, and a division of resources.

Before the Moriori could deliver that offer, the Maori attacked en masse. Over the course of the next few days, they killed hundreds of Moriori, cooked and ate many of the bodies, and enslaved all the others, killing most of them too over the next few years as it suited their whim. A Moriori survivor recalled, “The Maori commenced to kill us like sheep…we were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to esccape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed-men, women, and children indiscriminately.”

Jared Diamond
Guns, Germes, and Steel
The fates of Human Societies
Copyright 1999, 1997


Moral of the story?

Si vis pacem para bellum.

thefifthspeed
02-13-2008, 8:22 AM
There are hundreds of stories like this. Just take a quick look at out history with the indians. Those with guns > those without

troyus
02-13-2008, 9:01 AM
Balance is key. You don't see the progeny of Stalin, Hitler, or Napoleon ruling the world either do you?

Soldier415
02-13-2008, 9:15 AM
You don't see the progeny of Stalin, Hitler, or Napoleon ruling the world either do you?

Not yet, but Hillary is still high in the polls

tgriffin
02-13-2008, 9:40 AM
:43:Not yet, but Hillary is still high in the polls

Solid burn. :43:

Steyr_223
02-13-2008, 11:36 AM
"Not yet, but Hillary is still high in the polls"

Obama will stop Hilldog..God willing.

Soldier415
02-13-2008, 12:35 PM
Obama will stop Hilldog..God willing.



http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f273/ganjaman415/Posters/motivator7715708fb2.jpg

troyus
02-13-2008, 12:43 PM
Hillary lost a month ago she just doesn't know it yet.

The republicans lost about 3 years ago.

WolfMansDad
02-13-2008, 1:13 PM
Balance is key. You don't see the progeny of Stalin, Hitler, or Napoleon ruling the world either do you?

Hitler and Napoleon were both defeated in battle by superior forces. Stalin would have been, if Patton had gotten his way.

But you're right. Evil falls sooner or later, no matter how much strength it wields.

muntz
02-13-2008, 1:18 PM
Let's alter the text:

In the United States, centuries of independence came to a brutal end for the American people in December of 2009. On November 19 of that year, a ship carrying 5 million Martians armed with guns, clubs, and axes arrived, followed on December 5 by a shipload of 4 million more Martians. Groups of Martians began to walk through American cities, announcing that the Americans were now their slaves, and killing those who objected. An organized resistance by the Americans could still then have defeated the Martians, who were outnumbered 10 to one. However, the Liberals in Washington had a tradition of resolving disputes peacefully and didn't understand show of force. Hillary/Obama, having banned fireams and downsized the military to a non-functioning condition, decided in a council meeting not to fight back but to offer peace, friendship, and a division of resources as well as massive amounts of US dollars and arms left over from military downsizing.

Before the Democrats could deliver that offer, the Martians attacked en masse. Over the course of the next few days, they killed millions of Americans, cooked and ate many of the bodies, and enslaved all the others, killing most of them too over the next few years as it suited their whim. A American survivor recalled, “The Martians commenced to kill us like sheep…we were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to esccape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed-men, women, and children indiscriminately.”

JohnJW
02-13-2008, 1:45 PM
Let's alter the text:

You have some serious issues with race war fantasies, but why indulge yourself with mere fantasies when you can pick up any history book and read about our treatment of native Americans.

Soldier415
02-13-2008, 2:01 PM
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f273/ganjaman415/Political/libbeer.jpg

mk19
02-13-2008, 2:19 PM
lesson from history, peaceful dialogue is useless when armed resistance is the answer.

MrTuffPaws
02-13-2008, 3:11 PM
What about armed liberals ;)

muntz
02-13-2008, 3:55 PM
You have some serious issues with race war fantasies, but why indulge yourself with mere fantasies when you can pick up any history book and read about our treatment of native Americans.

Nah, just picked a culture I hear people complaining about. I'm rather indifferent to the Native American whining, though. You ever read up on how they waged war with each other? It's not like they were peaceful and minding their own business. And on top of it all, no government in the history of the world has ever paid tribute to a people they conquered...and over generations and generations on top of it.

troyus
02-13-2008, 4:00 PM
Nah, just picked a culture I hear people complaining about. I'm rather indifferent to the Native American whining, though. You ever read up on how they waged war with each other? It's not like they were peaceful and minding their own business. And on top of it all, no government in the history of the world has ever paid tribute to a people they conquered...and over generations and generations on top of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_West_Germ any

muntz
02-13-2008, 4:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reimbursement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribute

JohnJW
02-13-2008, 11:27 PM
Nah, just picked a culture I hear people complaining about. I'm rather indifferent to the Native American whining, though.


So, without thinking you wrote a fairly offensive and derogatory fantasy on people you heard other people complaining about. Add in a little 2A topic, do you like guns because you like guns or because other people like guns? Regardless of you views, use your own brain next time. Look past your own race war fantasy and ask yourself, when was the last time you heard people traveling to and from Mexico by boat.

muntz
02-14-2008, 8:21 AM
Would you feel better if I had used Cubans? Or maybe the English? Or dinosaurs? But since it was supposed to be a silly statement I'll modify it for you to remove the offensive nature. If you had such a problem with it why not just come out and be big boy and ask me to change or delete it?

The fact of the matter is that we are being invaded and the complaciency of the general public and the sharing caring liberal mentality are combining to hand this land over to foreigners...and we need to protect our 2A so we aren't eaten by them as were the Moriori.

redneckshootist
02-14-2008, 8:32 AM
:lurk5: IBTL

Rem1492
02-14-2008, 10:09 AM
This is out of Jared Diamond's, Guns Germs and Steel.
A Great read, his follow up, Collapse, is another great book.

Basically his premise was that GEOGRAPHY and location dictate who will be on top of the world. The maori never developed weapons or warrior groups. They never developed major farming which would lead to cities and defenses and large governing organizations. However to the north the islands were much more fertile and the people there could farm easier and therefore become sedentary and develop a more centralized culture, and therefore weapons and then a military to expand.

This is why Europe conquered the rest of the world and why Africa speaks French and S.America speaks Spanish.

He with the mostest firstest, wins.

muntz
02-14-2008, 10:23 AM
Awsome read and good perspective.

JohnJW
02-14-2008, 12:15 PM
The fact of the matter is that we are being invaded and the complaciency of the general public and the sharing caring liberal mentality are combining to hand this land over to foreigners...and we need to protect our 2A so we aren't eaten by them as were the Moriori.


I don't buy into this liberal vs conservative BS. True liberals are pro 2A. 2A is about self sufficiency and self reliance and helping others if you have more guns than you have hands for.

The greatest social ill from over enthusiastic "liberal" policies is over emphasis on the sharing and helping that leads to higher taxes for everyone, but at least we will still have our jobs and have a voice. The people handing over our country to "unfriendly" foreigners are the big corporations busy shipping jobs overseas and import crap we don't need from countries we shouldn't be trading with, all in the name of EPS, ROI, and higher stock price.

By having a gun, like it or not, you are a liberal.

Soldier415
02-14-2008, 12:33 PM
By having a gun, like it or not, you are a liberal.


:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:


Funniest thing I have heard in a while...oh man...my eyes are watering.

Thanks for the laugh

muntz
02-14-2008, 12:33 PM
True liberals are pro 2A.

Never met one. Not saying they don't exist.


but at least we will still have our jobs and have a voice

Until everything is in spanish.


By having a gun, like it or not, you are a liberal.

I just can't make the connection.

JohnJW
02-14-2008, 2:19 PM
Never met one. Not saying they don't exist.
Until everything is in spanish.
I just can't make the connection.

I'm fairly liberal and I don't mind being classified as either a liberal or a conservative. Either way, 2A is a lot closer to a liberal agenda than a conservative agenda, unless of course if you allow the mass media to define your ideals for you.

Liberlism:
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberalism

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Suvorov
02-14-2008, 2:23 PM
I don't buy into this liberal vs conservative BS. True liberals are pro 2A. 2A is about self sufficiency and self reliance and helping others if you have more guns than you have hands for.

By having a gun, like it or not, you are a liberal.

That is a noble view, unfortunately 99% of your fellow liberals do not see it the way you do.

Modern liberalism is just a watered down socialism and is about big government being the fix for all the social ills. The idea that the government/state has the responsibility to oversee people's lives and knows better what is good for them. It becomes a symbiotic relationship where the people depend on the state for everything and the state depends on the people for their labor. Thus the simple idea of self reliance (which you stated very correctly is the heart of what the 2nd Amendment is all about) does not promote reliance upon the state and is therefore contrary to modern liberal thought.

muntz
02-14-2008, 2:25 PM
You're confusing the literal definition of liberalism with what modern liberalism is:

It forms the core of the somewhat wider movement of left-liberalism, with which it is often (if not usually) conflated. Used as a term it has also meant support for civil and human rights and freedoms, particularly in opposition to traditional values and beliefs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism

I would say that 2A is a traditional value and belief and therefore a liberal may or may not be a gun owner, but gun ownership is not liberal.

JohnJW
02-14-2008, 2:44 PM
You're confusing the literal definition of liberalism with what modern liberalism is:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism

I would say that 2A is a traditional value and belief and therefore a liberal may or may not be a gun owner, but gun ownership is not liberal.


Note that "modern liberalism" is redirected to "social liberalism." Liberalism by itself does not confer social economical philosophies.

If you value personal freedom you are a liberal, by extension gun ownership is an expression of personal freedom.

Suvorov
02-14-2008, 2:49 PM
If you value personal freedom you are a liberal, by extension gun ownership is an expression of personal freedom.


No, if you believe in the 2nd Amendment, you believe in Liberty, not modern liberalism.

Classic Liberal philosophy and Modern Liberalism are NOT the same thing. Actions and words speak louder than semantics. Until Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Clinton, Obama, Schumer, Kennedy, the political leaders of the EU, and all the other leaders of modern liberalism stop trying to restrict the Second Amendment, then your arguments are without merit.

FallingDown
02-14-2008, 3:06 PM
Balance is key. You don't see the progeny of Stalin, Hitler, or Napoleon ruling the world either do you?


They seem to settle for ruling countries, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

Matter of fact, the wannabee film director, former head of the minsistry of information now turned mini-me of the DPRK only had to swear that he wasn't born on a train in the USSR but on the top of the most holy mountain for all Koreans after his dear daddy died before assuming the mantle of Dear Leader.

JohnJW
02-14-2008, 3:13 PM
No, if you believe in the 2nd Amendment, you believe in Liberty, not modern liberalism.

Liberty and Liberalism are NOT the same thing. Actions and words speak louder than semantics. Until Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Clinton, Obama, Schumer, Kennedy, the political leaders of the EU, and all the other leaders of modern liberalism stop trying to restrict the Second Amendment, then your arguments are without merit.

Look up the definition of liberalism. There is a difference between socialism and liberalism. Furthermore, even socialism is not against gun ownership. Take a look at the Scandinavian countries. Politicians likes to polarize wedge issues for their own personal gain from abortion to gay rights to gun rights and if you allow yourself to be defined and categorized by the politicians then 2A is in trouble. To protect 2A we have to take it past the partisan politics.

muntz
02-14-2008, 3:27 PM
I have a great idea. Let's go to a gay rodeo and tell everyone they're actually straight. Then we'll go to a straight rodeo and tell them they're all gay.

liberals=anti gun
conservatives=pro gun

It's not really a debate.

FallingDown
02-14-2008, 3:29 PM
Finland is the only Scandinavian country that isn't mad crazy against guns. I believe they had a school shooting just last year but I don't recall cries for more gun control afterward.

Anyway, socialists have always been against guns, outside the hands of those in goverment. Shall I quote some examples from 1873, 1906 and 1913?

I'll wager any amount of money you care to front, if you can find anything Marx, Engels, Trotsky or any big wig from the Socialist movement ever said, promoting gun ownership for the masses, in times of peace or in even in prelude to the revolution in 1917 that didn't involve waging revolution and uprisings against the Bourgeoisie.

I'll even throw in Mao and his Red Book if you want.

Suvorov
02-14-2008, 3:34 PM
Look up the definition of liberalism. There is a difference between socialism and liberalism. Furthermore, even socialism is not against gun ownership. Take a look at the Scandinavian countries. Politicians likes to polarize wedge issues for their own personal gain from abortion to gay rights to gun rights and if you allow yourself to be defined and categorized by the politicians then 2A is in trouble. To protect 2A we have to take it past the partisan politics.

While guns are not totally banned in the Scandinavian countries, the idea of using them for self defense or resistance to government oppression is considered barbaric.

As I have stated, the classical liberal philosophy is NOT what is being pushed by the liberals today. I have no problem with you supporting the 2nd Amendment and considering yourself liberal, in fact I welcome you to the fight, but the facts are that the VAST MAJORITY of the people of your political persuasion are opposed to the 2nd Amendment and what it stands for. I know full well that there are many so called conservatives who are snakes in the grass and either openly or secretly oppose firearms ownership, but you can not deny that standard bearers of gun control in this country today are the self proclaimed liberals.

FallingDown
02-14-2008, 3:40 PM
While guns are not totally banned in the Scandinavian countries, the idea of using them for self defense or resistance to government oppression is considered barbaric.

As I have stated, the classical liberal philosophy is NOT what is being pushed by the liberals today. I have no problem with you supporting the 2nd Amendment and considering yourself liberal, in fact I welcome you to the fight, but the facts are that the VAST MAJORITY of the people of your political persuasion are opposed to the 2nd Amendment and what it stands for. I know full well that there are many so called conservatives who are snakes in the grass and either openly or secretly oppose firearms ownership, but you can not deny that standard bearers of gun control in this country today are the self proclaimed liberals.


Guns outside of Finaland are limited to 3 round or less shotguns at hunting clubs and .22LR for target shooting and olympic types. Outside of that, no guns and no knives either. If you have a knife, it can only be an occupational one, such as a sailor or carpenter and that's it.

I believe the current amicus brief filed by Sen. Hutchinson had 9 democrat senators out of the 55 who signed and only 2 Republicans who did not sign it. (I think they were out of Indiana and Ohio) All the democrat signers were from places like Montana, MO, etc. and none were from Illinois, MD, NY or CA.

Over 255 congressman signed it and only a small fraction were democrats. Look at the ones from California who did - all republicans, not one democrat.

FYI - I'm not a conservative or a republican and I'm not a liberal or democrat either.

JohnJW
02-14-2008, 3:50 PM
You're confusing the literal definition of liberalism with what modern liberalism is:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism

I would say that 2A is a traditional value and belief and therefore a liberal may or may not be a gun owner, but gun ownership is not liberal.


Really. Take 2A and the death penalty. Two common dividing line between the "conservatives" and the "liberals." Most of us own guns for self defense, and if faced with imminent threat of great bodily injury we are prepared to use our firearms until the cessation of that threat. Once the imminent threat has been removed, deadly force is no longer justified. Yet, surprisingly, most 2A supporter will gladly support the execution of people who poses no imminent threat to our society by a government that we know can't be trusted to be fair and impartial. So, we have the paradoxical situation where 2A supporters who do not trust the government with their guns willingly trusting the government with the lives of other citizens.

The same goes for the "liberals" who champaign civil rights and exposes the weakness of our government in protecting "minorities" yet failing to realize that denying people the right to defend themselves due to the weakness of our government is a violation of their civil rights. They abhor arbitrary enactment of legislation due to public hysteria instead of facts, yet continues to happily pursue fear based gun control agendas with no crime reduction value.

I see a lot people labeling themselves as either a liberal or a conservative and sometimes I wonder if they had really thought through their positions instead of relying on the various politicians and talk shows hosts to think for them.

FallingDown
02-14-2008, 3:57 PM
Really. Take 2A and the death penalty. Two common dividing line between the "conservatives" and the "liberals." Most of us own guns for self defense, and if faced with imminent threat of great bodily injury we are prepared to use our firearms until the cessation of that threat. Once the imminent threat has been removed, deadly force is no longer justified. Yet, surprisingly, most 2A supporter will gladly support the execution of people who poses no imminent threat to our society by a government that we know can't be trusted to be fair and impartial. So, we have the paradoxical situation where 2A supporters who do not trust the government with their guns willingly trusting the government with the lives of other citizens.

The same goes for the "liberals" who champaign civil rights and exposes the weakness of our government in protecting "minorities" yet failing to realize that denying people the right to defend themselves due to the weakness of our government is a violation of their civil rights. They abhor arbitrary enactment of legislation due to public hysteria instead of facts, yet continues to happily pursue fear based gun control agendas with no crime reduction value.

I see a lot people labeling themselves as either a liberal or a conservative and sometimes I wonder if they had really thought through their positions instead of relying on the various politicians and talk shows hosts to think for them.

I'm not a death penalty fan nor necessarily a detractor but then again, I'm not a republican or a conservative but I am a believer in the Second Amendment. Other people can debate the merits of the death penalty, I'm not handicapped by your accusation of hypocrisy.

You're talking about the true believers and implying most 2A proponents are hypocritical true believer republicans. I haven't seen that to overwhelmingly true, so your assertion, isn't a strong argument to me.

I'll wait and see if any Republicans chime in and see what they have to say.

P.S. liberals suck "baba bouie baba bouie"

CCWFacts
02-14-2008, 4:03 PM
I'll wager any amount of money you care to front, if you can find anything Marx, Engels, Trotsky or any big wig from the Socialist movement ever said, promoting gun ownership for the masses, in times of peace or in even in prelude to the revolution in 1917 that didn't involve waging revolution and uprisings against the Bourgeoisie.

I'll even throw in Mao and his Red Book if you want.

What about British socialist George Orwell? He was seriously pro-gun-ownership, for all the same reasons we are.

muntz
02-14-2008, 4:13 PM
Let's kick a dead horse.

FallingDown
02-14-2008, 4:13 PM
What about British socialist George Orwell? He was seriously pro-gun-ownership, for all the same reasons we are.

Orwell had a falling out with the communists and started writing novels critical of socialism.

FallingDown
02-14-2008, 4:19 PM
I'm fairly liberal and I don't mind being classified as either a liberal or a conservative. Either way, 2A is a lot closer to a liberal agenda than a conservative agenda, unless of course if you allow the mass media to define your ideals for you.

Liberlism:
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberalism

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism


Are you refering to the enlightenment age? If you're talking about Liberalism of the golden age, then you better get your timeline together.

Are we discussing John Locke (1632-1704) or the ideas and beliefs that people who refer to themselves as liberals espouse in 2007?

Not too many people confuse Whigs, Tories, Populists and Federalist with "progressives" and "liberals" these days.

The only place you'll find people bickering about the label liberal is in Europe where it has a different meaning than the USA.

Soldier415
02-14-2008, 4:27 PM
Wierd. I always thought of a Liberal as someone who is so open minded their brain has fallen out.

JohnJW
02-14-2008, 4:34 PM
You're talking about the true believers and implying most 2A proponents are hypocritical true believer republicans. I haven't seen that to overwhelmingly true, so your assertion, isn't a strong argument to me.

I'll wait and see if any Republicans chime in and see what they have to say.



I am a registered Republican. Regardless, I used to support the death penalty until I took firearms/self defense classes that went through the legal justification for the use of deadly force. Issues surrounding 2A made me realized some of the fallacies of our judicial system and the death penalty. I began to wonder why did I support death penalty in the first place. Was is something that I personally believe in or was is something the party I support believes in.

I think for 2A to survive, it needs to be freed from the gasps of our two party system that uses it as a wedge issue for further their own agendas. However, in order to do so we have to look past the "liberal" and "conservative" labels and realize that the other side is not a bunch of monolithic zombies, ie take a look at the title of the tread, but people whom we can have an open dialog with.

We cannot always rely on the rural "conservative" to come to our rescue. Our gun culture is changing. There are less and less hunters every year. Images of Norman Rockwell paintings of boy scouts meandering in the open field shooting rabbit are being replaced with rap videos of gangsters wannabes brandishing their guns in their trademark stance. If we want 2A to survive we need to start reaching out to like minded individuals who believes in personal freedom/responsibility regardless of their ideological identification and that will include "liberals."

CCWFacts
02-14-2008, 4:35 PM
Orwell had a falling out with the communists and started writing novels critical of socialism.

Very true. He saw the crux of the problem that we are talking about here: the Bolshevik model of socialism is based on force, and the idea that the individual exists to serve the state. That's not at all compatible with RKBA. And he valued the individual and individual freedom, so he abandoned Soviet-style ideas of socialism, and started writing powerful novels critical of it.

Scandinavian-style socialism doesn't seem to rely on force. Somehow they all seem to cooperate with it. It only works there because of their unique cultural and demographic aspects.

FallingDown
02-14-2008, 4:46 PM
LOL - they ain't too happy with the situation nowadays. The shortage of children and aging of the population aren't working out, so with no one to pay for the seniors, combined with an unhappy immigrant muslim population, e.g. the situation in the city of Malmo, Sweden or the harsh new immigration policies of Denmark and you have a stagnating economy, slightly better than Germany and France. Only Finland's economy is doing okay.

European socialism isn't panning out for Germany, Spain, Britain or most of Europe. London had a short upswing in the 1990s but the UK is suffering the largest exodus since WWII and the cost of living is beyond the means of most citizens, even in places like Birmingham, Manchester and York.

Even the would be socialist candidate for prime minister lost big in the French elections. When a 35 hour workweek and the highest income tax rate of western Europe doesn't cut the mustard, even the French get a clue.

Only Switzerland, Austria, Finland and Ireland seem to be doing okay.

FallingDown
02-14-2008, 4:51 PM
Very true. He saw the crux of the problem that we are talking about here: the Bolshevik model of socialism is based on force, and the idea that the individual exists to serve the state. That's not at all compatible with RKBA. And he valued the individual and individual freedom, so he abandoned Soviet-style ideas of socialism, and started writing powerful novels critical of it.

Scandinavian-style socialism doesn't seem to rely on force. Somehow they all seem to cooperate with it. It only works there because of their unique cultural and demographic aspects.

There was only 2 other proposed models of the socialist movement that didn't advocate force and both of those individuals became persona non grata after Lenin's clique dominated the party. One of those people ended up in Scandinavia as a matter of fact. (She lived in NYC before she was deported to Europe in the 1870s)

CCWFacts
02-14-2008, 5:00 PM
There was only 2 other proposed models of the socialist movement that didn't advocate force and both of those individuals became persona non grata after Lenin's clique dominated the party. One of those people ended up in Scandinavia as a matter of fact. (She lived in NYC before she was deported to Europe in the 1870s)

I'm guessing the other person was killed in Mexico City?

Re: it not working out any more: Maybe. Things are changing. Their system certainly can't survive an influx of hostile immigrants.

JohnJW
02-14-2008, 5:02 PM
Are you refering to the enlightenment age? If you're talking about Liberalism of the golden age, then you better get your timeline together.

People think 2a is outdated because it was written 200+ years ago. I see liberalism as an embodiment of personal freedom be it women's right, gay rights, civil rights, or gun rights. There isn't that much difference between liberalism as espoused by the likes of John Locke during the enlightenment age and the liberalism that propelled our civil rights advancement in the last 50 years.

Time to get out the cultural war trenches. . . . Are we against "liberals" because we believe their are against personal freedom or we against "liberals" because we don't like their support of expanding social warfare programs, ie national health care, or is "liberal" simply some generic label we use for anyone who is against 2A?

FallingDown
02-14-2008, 5:23 PM
I'm guessing the other person was killed in Mexico City?

Re: it not working out any more: Maybe. Things are changing. Their system certainly can't survive an influx of hostile immigrants.

No, I wasn't referring to Leon Trotsky, these people appeared much earlier than him. The socialists go well back to the 1870s and it was these people who generated the movement that would overthrow the czar and lead to the comintern international and the worldwide socialist movement that swept the planet in the 20th century.

Remember the Communist Manifesto was written by Marx around 1848 but the USSR wasn't founded until 1922.

Here's number 1

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/index.htm

and here's number 2 (who I mixed up with a german communist who espoused using democracy, rather than violence as a vehicle to galvanize the masses and defeat the capitalists back in the 1800s) - so there's actually 3 and all were shunned by the majority of the socialists of their era and also from the apparatchiks after the 1917 revolution.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSmartov.htm

FallingDown
02-14-2008, 5:39 PM
People think 2a is outdated because it was written 200+ years ago. I see liberalism as an embodiment of personal freedom be it women's right, gay rights, civil rights, or gun rights. There isn't that much difference between liberalism as espoused by the likes of John Locke during the enlightenment age and the liberalism that propelled our civil rights advancement in the last 50 years.

Time to get out the cultural war trenches. . . . Are we against "liberals" because we believe their are against personal freedom or we against "liberals" because we don't like their support of expanding social warfare programs, ie national health care, or is "liberal" simply some generic label we use for anyone who is against 2A?



Um, that would be in line with libertarian thought. Quite a few libertarians think the government should stay out of gay marriage, smoking pot, owning guns or abortion.
While I'm fundamentally a libertarian, I don't concur with some of these particular things for a variety of reasons.

For instance, I'm opposed to abortion but think a woman should have the right to "choose" (murder if you prefer) but I don't think the government should support this decision, e.g. funding, brochures, counseling, etc. and if a woman wishes to go that route, she's on her own, as far as I'm concerned. That's her cross to bear, emotionally, financially, spiritually and physically.

I would disagree with your assertion regarding civil rights to some degree. John Locke was speaking on a larger scale than that of the women's rights movement or stonewall or even Martin Luther King. To a large degree, these movements are focused on their particular group's aspirations, rather than all of mankinds. Therein, lies the difference.

Spend all the time you want on the label liberals, they're busy trying to get everyone to call them progressives nowadays.

JohnJW
02-15-2008, 3:24 PM
Um, that would be in line with libertarian thought. Quite a few libertarians think the government should stay out of gay marriage, smoking pot, owning guns or abortion.
While I'm fundamentally a libertarian, I don't concur with some of these particular things for a variety of reasons.

I lean toward the libertarian philosophy as well. Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We don't care what people do themselves or to other consenting adults, but don't spend our hard earn tax dollars to promote what people should or shouldn't do morally. So, I do consider 2A to be more of a liberal idea that is consistent with individual freedom.



I would disagree with your assertion regarding civil rights to some degree. John Locke was speaking on a larger scale than that of the women's rights movement or stonewall or even Martin Luther King. To a large degree, these movements are focused on their particular group's aspirations, rather than all of mankinds. Therein, lies the difference.

But, small scale advancement of individual rights to bring minority rights, whether they are women, gun owners or KKK members, on par with what the majority enjoys advances the rights of the group as a whole.

retired
02-18-2008, 12:21 AM
I'll wager any amount of money you care to front, if you can find anything Marx, Engels, Trotsky or any big wig from the Socialist movement ever said, promoting gun ownership for the masses

I guess my distant cousin would be upset then that this member of the masses has guns.:D