Civil Liberties versus Civil Rights.

[nicki]

Reading an article that focused on the difference between Civil Liberties versus Civil Rights and at first I thought, what difference?

As I got more into the article, the author went on that Civil Liberties are things that Conservatives/Libertarians fight for and that they see the Federal government as the main threat, as such they are strong on state's rights and of course look at things from an individual rights perspective.

Civil Rights are things that the Liberals/Progressives fight for and they see that states and local governments have been the main threats to Civil Rights and they see the Federal Government as a force of good to protect and promote the rights of oppressed "Groups".

The author contends that these differences contribute to the splits between Conservative/Libertarians and Liberals/Progressives when it comes to the issues of rights even though from an outward position to the average person, both groups claim that they are the champions of people's rights.

While many of us here go deep into history and for the most part, we can have honest disagreements, I have noticed that many people I know who identify as Liberal/Progressive can't or won't go as deep.

Over the years I have talked with hundreds of average folks about both the "Wickard" and "Raich" cases which are the cases that established the Federal Jurisdiction in our lives via the "Commerce Clause" and I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that either ruling is a "good ruling".

In fact the reaction of most of those people is that these rulings are exercises in creative legal writing to promote government power at the expense of individuals and overall most people I talked with felt the rulings were BS.

Even the few Liberals/Progressives that I talked with acknowledged that those cases were BS, but then they went on to defend those cases because without them, the legal foundation for Federal Civil Rights acts and many of the Federal Policies they support would be gone.

Things I find most people will agree with me on are:

1. Our government is supposed to serve us, not oppress us.
2. Government should protect and promote our rights, not destroy them.
3. Our government should be open, honest and transparent.
4. We should have effective means to redress problems with our government.

With all the misdeeds of government on all levels, I actually don't find myself getting into heated arguments anymore with people on gun rights, rather I find that after finding common ground, the worse I get is we agree to disagree.

Like it or not our state is deep blue, but being deep blue doesn't necessarily mean we will lose our gun rights. It just means we need to fight smarter and reach out to those who are not in our same choir.

The battle for our rights will be in the middle among undecided voters. If we take the high road and expand our base so that we change the image of gun owners from being only White Protestant Conservative Christian Males to one where ownership goes across the Cultural, Political, Racial and Social Spectrums and that who owns guns is as common as who owns cars, then we can start shifting the court of public opinion in this state our way.

Governor Brown will get re elected and while he can't run for Governor after this election, he could run for President against Hillary in 2016 for the Democratic Nomination for President.

Nicki

[ja308]

Thank you for the clarification between civil rights and civil liberties. I believe your correct on that .

I sort of disagree that liberals or democrats can be supportive of gun rights in our current political situation .

There is absolutely no reason for them to want citizens armed. In fact the entire democrat power base has their agenda as destroying RKBA .
Big Media
Big education
Big labor
So called minorities
On and on .

[Yankee Clipper]

Luckily we seem to be getting away from the image of gun owners "being only White Protestant Conservative Christian Males" with the percentage of female gun buyers showing huge increases lately. To be sure their purchases are mainly handguns for protection but hopefully they'll also find how user friendly the AR-15's are and we'll see more of them shooting rifles.

[M. D. Van Norman]

Civil rights are simply more defined and specific than civil libertiesnatural

[chiselchst]

Nicki,

I completely agree with your quoted words below, especially the bolded text. I think you're spot on. IMHO, the demographic or group we should concentrate on or provide the majority of our resources and time on is specifically this group.

We could start by just eliminating any attention directed for folks already in our camp (such as mainstream conservatives) or anti's that we'll never persuade (far left extreme liberals that are just firmly locked in an anti position and cry out "if it just saved one child").

IMHO, that would be the most effective use of our treasure and time.

Thus concentrate on the group you mention, which are more likely to have an open mind and are candidates for us, that might come to our side (opinion wise).

If we were successful in forwarding the view and mainstream IMAGE that "common" 2A supporters come in all shapes and sizes (for lack of a better term), we would just plain have won! That would disarm any BS attempts by the other side (that opposes us) of that valuable weapon, or tool to attack us.

I guess that's a long winded way to say "I agree"

...Things I find most people will agree with me on are:

1. Our government is supposed to serve us, not oppress us.
2. Government should protect and promote our rights, not destroy them.
3. Our government should be open, honest and transparent.
4. We should have effective means to redress problems with our government.

With all the misdeeds of government on all levels, I actually don't find myself getting into heated arguments anymore with people on gun rights, rather I find that after finding common ground, the worse I get is we agree to disagree.

Like it or not our state is deep blue, but being deep blue doesn't necessarily mean we will lose our gun rights. It just means we need to fight smarter and reach out to those who are not in our same choir.

The battle for our rights will be in the middle among undecided voters. If we take the high road and expand our base so that we change the image of gun owners from being only White Protestant Conservative Christian Males to one where ownership goes across the Cultural, Political, Racial and Social Spectrums and that who owns guns is as common as who owns cars, then we can start shifting the court of public opinion in this state our way.

Nicki[/I]

_____________________________________________

I agree with the stats and numbers, but have we been successful enough in changing the mainstream perception of this? I think we have MUCH more potential in that regard...in that we have much more opportunity to increase that positive view, or image of 2A supporters.

Luckily we seem to be getting away from the image of gun owners "being only White Protestant Conservative Christian Males" with the percentage of female gun buyers showing huge increases lately. To be sure their purchases are mainly handguns for protection but hopefully they'll also find how user friendly the AR-15's are and we'll see more of them shooting rifles.

[Carnivore]

Civil rights, the born right of all people regardless of others feeling.

Civil liberties: laws made to control the above rights for the "best" of the community.

Political theology doesn't have a damn thing to do with it as a whole or in general. Each theology has their own pet peeves they want to control through laws or the liberties they want us to have.

[M. D. Van Norman]

Civil rights, the born right of all people regardless of others feeling.

[Carnivore]

Nope. Civil rights are only the legal rights of a given citizenry. You’re thinking of natural rights.

Civil rights are the legal extension of Natural rights making natural rights enforceable with in the law. They are one in the same. I can't sue for violations of my natural right to free speech but I can sue for my civil right to free speech...that kind of thing. I know it is nit picking but the law is funny that way.

[nicki]

Where I was going with this.

Many of us here view that the Government that is big enough to provide for all is the government big enough to take it all.

We view that as the government becomes more expansive that our rights shrink, consequently most of us would like to see the size of government cut down because we see government itself as a threat to our Liberties.

Now if you go back prior to the 1970's, if you were non-white, if you were female, in short, if you weren't a white protestant male, you had less rights.

In the view of many on the political Left, large portions of the US population didn't have rights until the passage and enforcement of Federal Civil Rights laws.

In their view, it took the power of the Federal Government and the Federal Courts to force State and Local governments to recognize the rights of minority groups and women.

They see the Federal Government as a force for good. In their view, many of the State and Local government programs that they support wouldn't exist if the Federal government didn't force the issue.

When we champion State's rights and local government control, in our view we are promoting more efficient, less costly and less invasive government in our lives.

The way they see it, we want to undo the Civil Rights Act and return us to the Days of Jim Crow and no equality for women.

Their are Liberals that we can have adult conversations with, lay things on the table and come to some consensus and that is only because they actually are "open minded". Of course when "open minded" Liberals get exposed to the truth, often their positions start shifting and after a while, they evolve.

Of course there are the hardcore Left Wingers who will never flip because their real agenda is changing our country into a socialist Democracy.

Of course they won't tell people the truth because in order to do that, they have to destroy the middle class first so that way everyone is equally broke, poor and dependent on the government for survival.

When our Liberal opponents attack, they make it personal, they use emotion and try to belittle our position, make us feel like horrible persons, in short, they put us on defensive not just on guns, but many other things as well.

Understanding their mindset and how they came to such "scrambled believes" allows us to not only defend ourselves, but go on a counter attack.

Most Americans are horrible at History, they don't know it nor do they care to actually learn it. Truth is we have many "STUPID PEOPLE" because in my view, willfully staying ignorant of the past means you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Many Americans believe that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a good thing, yet if you discuss with them about the "Wickard case", I haven't found anyone yet who thought the Wickard case is good case law once they were given the background of the case.

We will never get the hard left, but if we could carve out support just Left of political center, we could stop and maybe even get bad lost rights.

We don't need 100 percent of Liberals, just enough to sway elections.

Nicki


Nicki

[sl0re10]

Progressives talk a good game about keeping the gov in check but we just had hobby lobby and look at their postings and writings. It drove them nuts. Bloody murder was proclaimed. Also; look at the way they spin other non prog groups. Tea Partiers are x,y,z. Even libertarians and mainstream republicans become anarchists when its their turn. Such that / they are made out to be so bad; thats its okay to mistreat them and remove their rights. Even the hobby lobby plaintiffs were 'privileged, white, Christians' to the lefties I talked to. Ergo; not deserving of the protections they received from the court (and/or equal protection under the law to others in other classes / groups...).

I think their claims of wanting to protect people from gov power are as true as their other claims (like being for free speech). They're not. Its just one of their movement's traits to claim to be 'all good things' to 'all good people'... but your not good people so not much good things for you.

So what do you do when after talking rationally to a liberal person in hypothetical and big picture stuff... they fall into line and go nuts when something goes against the collective position in real world issues? Now and then you'll find a lib who became one because of the 'we are the all good things' lines... and when you show them some other sides they'll move away from it... but its rare and it doesn't work on the actual libs. They want power over other people; period. All the rest is spin and misdirection.

[sl0re10]

In the view of many on the political Left, large portions of the US population didn't have rights until the passage and enforcement of Federal Civil Rights laws.

In their view, it took the power of the Federal Government and the Federal Courts to force State and Local governments to recognize the rights of minority groups and women.

True; its their view... but is it true?

Seeing their labor day postings offer an interesting opportunity for perspective. Is the current labor climate / existing work law all thanks to the labor movement? I don't think so.

Even if I am granted that. Is it is even mostly due to their agitating or did the society just change? re: I doubt anyone here thinks its okay to send people into a mine, with air quality issues, without a respirator... even if you can find workers freely willing to do it (re: contract to do it). The labor movement didn't convince us it was okay to mandate rules like this. We think it falls within the legitimate scope or realm of what legislative bodies can regulate with law. The federal gov regulated the railroads (terribly btw... natch) before the progressives and this was seen as a legitimate exercise of gov fed power... so its not like they created the meme or notion that fed regulation was acceptable either.

Also; they cling to the civil rights acts because they justify intrusive federal power in the economy... and over individuals (outside of gov) and their conduct.... Getting normalization of rights for non whites had been a popular movement, in the Anglosphere, going back hundreds of years... before the civil rights act and before liberals. Ironically; they picked it up as an issue after Stalin started it as a meme to push back on criticism of the lack of civil liberties in the USSR. Before then; liberals and the hard left were as racist as society in general... easy enough to see when you read their writings from the period.