A serious quesion on gun control - How can conservatives and liberals coexist?

K

KenPaul

New member
How can two fundamentally different ideologies coexist in a form of government controlled by a populace in conflict? I don't mean simple differences of opinion, but rather basic, fundamental beliefs in our very liberties.

In the old days, the presidency didn't matter as much as it does today, at least not in the areas of personal liberty. You were largely left alone to live your life.

Today, with the federal government assuming broad powers and reaching directly into the lives if its citizens, demanding obedience or punishment, how can you not take a strong adversarial position to your neighbor who advocates those very intrusions? The fact exists that, in modern politics, *their* beliefs will directly affect your life, your very liberties, once they cast their vote at the ballot box.

Let me rush to say that I DO NOT advocate that adversarial opinions should not be heard. I am just wondering how people with two fundamentally different opinions (gun control as a pertinent example) can coexist, especially when the passive side (gun owners) are constantly under attack by the zealous actions of the active side (anti-gun advocates).

By passive, I do not mean that you sit idly by while your rights are taken away. What I mean is that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that we currently have (the passive side in my example) and the opposition is actively trying to strip those rights away (the active side in my example.) The anti-gunners are the aggressors here, not the gun owners.

Knowing what these people's intentions are, and knowing how they are going to actively strive to reduce your personal liberties, is like knowing that a crime is going to be committed against you and not taking any action to stop it. I really do believe this - a crime is about to be committed against me, and I am going to watch it happen.

As I see it, the conflict is this: Those folks have every right to cast their votes. The problem is that, by them exercising this right (for, say, a gun control measure), they are committing a crime against me and every other American who values their liberties as granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

How can this state of affairs *possibly* continue? I fear I know the answer... it cannot.

I believe that we are seeing the beginning of a serious rift in this country - Those who believe in personal liberty, and those who believe that power should be centralized in a powerful umbrella government that allows you to be "free" when it suits them but can force you to obey their will, at their whim. The rift has always been there, just under the surface, but it has now risen to the surface. The liberals have tasted real power over the past eight years, and they will do anything, *ANYTHING* to keep it - including ignoring the Constitution.

We had better proceed extremely cautiously from here. With recent events, we have clearly exposed the tender underbelly of our Constitution - what keeps us together is a common belief in that document. But some are now calling into question the very principles that it defines.


Admittedly, this is a rather one sided rant. I have been trying to come to grips with this for a while now, and I would welcome any comments or opinions...

Ken

------------------

God so values free will that He gave us all the freedom to turn our back on even Him. If liberty is that important to God, it should be that important to us all...
 
This not a flame against libertarians....so bear with me here.......We all know that nothing is truly absolute, including opinions,.....that combination of competeing ideaology's within all of us and as an extension in what ever we form.........using libertarians as an example only, they tend to be socially liberal, with strong beliefs in capatalism as an economic structure---in all presentations today by the media and most liberal/conservative groups these views are seperated from each other.....until the seperation can be narrowed in either voters exceptance or concepts that party will remain small in numbers.....In taking this back to your original example, the people of a given state are influenced through their education, socialization, and who controls their media and there govt., those things will change and will always leave part of the population wondering what the heck happened.....sorta like were gun owners are at, cept we have been working on "what happened" for a while.....fubsy.
 
The answer is simple and has been posted by folks many times. They usually get flamed and quit the list.

The RKBA has to be disassociated from right wing cranks. There are moderates and even left wing folks who would accept the need for self defense and even defense against government (certainly black militants have spoken for the need for guns).

However, most folks thing the RKBA is correlated with right wing loonies and since right wing loonies are suspect - if they like the RKBA, then it must be a loonie tune also.

That's the nub and not pleasant for the usual
conservative PC types on this list who spew forward all kinds of empassioned rhetoric, etc.

The usual post here:

Liberal Israeli Gay Abortionists will take my
gun over my dead body!!!! Alert, Alert!!!

Can't convince anybody with this.

Heston, the NRA and GOA sometimes go this way.
Bad move.

Flame away.
 
Hey Enoch, what you said sounds a lot like rhetoric from an elitist bigot. Do you believe the divisive drivel foisted on the public by the mass media? Do you have something against folks who wear flannel and listen to country music?

As a communications professional I'm well aware of the old phrase that... "perception IS reality". Sounds like your perceptions are way off base. The discussions and thoughts expressed here a usually more lucid and articulate than the ones the board at George magazine. What does that tell you about reality vs perception?

I'm not flaming you, just saying that your comments and the "perception" you are leaving may not be what you intended IMHO>

------------------
"The more perfect
civilisation is, the less occasion has it for government." Thomas Paine The Rights of Man 1792
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coyote 6:
Hey Enoch, what you said sounds a lot like rhetoric from an elitist bigot. Do you believe the divisive drivel foisted on the public by the mass media? Do you have something against folks who wear flannel and listen to country music?

As a communications professional I'm well aware of the old phrase that... "perception IS reality". Sounds like your perceptions are way off base. The discussions and thoughts expressed here are usually more lucid and articulate than the ones the board at George magazine. What does that tell you about reality vs perception?

I'm not flaming you, just saying that your comments and the "perception" you are leaving may not be what you intended IMHO>
[/quote]



------------------
"The more perfect
civilisation is, the less occasion has it for government." Thomas Paine The Rights of Man 1792
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You were largely left alone to live your life.[/quote] Amen, brother.

I agree with every word ... including your conclusion.

EnochGale, your point is well taken ... to a point. In my experience, the 'Neanderthal' element is present to a very small degree among gun owners ... and, the 'Star Gazer' element represents a similar group among anti-self defense types and liberals. I agree that to conclude we are represented as you suggest is to accept the bigotry of the anti-self defense movement. And, it is bigotry, no question about it.

Returning to a 'live and let live' society would reduce the conflict, but I can't see liberals ever accepting that approach. They seem bent on coercion, and they may be writing checks that they can't cash.

Regards from AZ
 
I was going to reiterate my thoughts from another thread but, seeing as this has deteriorated into the "if you're not with us, you're against us" flame war which prevents discussion of how the radical fringe hurts our efforts, then screw it.
 
Sorry if I sound like a looney.

Any attempt to disarm me or mine would be treated as attempted rape. I would try to talk my way out of the situation, use force if reason fails.

I would not settle for "only" getting felt up or permitting the rapist to use a cigar because then it isn't "really" a rape. Any effort to abuse me or to separate me from what's mine is unwelcome but an effort to remove my means of preventing of future victimizations is especially loathsome.

That means NO COMPROMISE is possible. I also promise not to feel sorry for the people whose behavior and morals are analogous to conventional rapists. If and when they get rebuffed as they should be, it would be a response long in coming and, hopefully, utmost in severity.

I act reasonably. I wish to sound reasonable because it took me a couple of years of persuasion to change some minds. It was an unpleasant task, talking to people who start out wishing to victimize me, me having to convince them that they shouldn't. But, for a peace-monger that I am, that is the preferred outcome. Just like some parents need to educate their kids as to what consitutes unacceptable behaviors, so we need to clarify the same question for certain adults.

Better set limits clearly and deal with transgressions early on than have to deal with consequences of antisocial behaviors gone unchecked ("Clockwork Orange", anyone?)

People who wish us disarmed do not accept responsibility for their behavior, same as little kids. Unlike kids, they are capable of inflicting grievous damage on the rest of us and must be dealt with. Sometimes dealing with people whose base side prevailed is not pleaseant as Prosper Merimee's Mateo Falcone had found out: http://www.bibliomania.com/0/5/160/535/8109/1.html
When I read that story at the age of ten or so, I though it was crazy. Now I understand the point a little better.

------------------
Oleg "peacemonger" Volk http://www.a-human-right.com

[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited November 11, 2000).]
 
They can't be reconciled.

If you want to live free you'll always pay a price, because there are always those who would want to enslave you.

Your response to this has to be decided on an individual level.
 
Beware of any politition or judge who thinks the constitution and bill of rights need reinterpeting. These documents are written in plain english and are very easy to understand. The second ammendment is the clearest of all. People are interpeting the first to mean they can do anything they want, and be covered. TAIN'T SO !!!. We have went from personal responsibility to a free for all. It won't get any better until we return to personal responsibility.
 
Since the subject of anti Democrats vs. pro-gun Republicans has come up, maybe it's time to ask the question again: what happened to the Democratic Party? There was a time when even Hubert Humprey waxed eloquent on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Somehow that party has been hijacked by HCI. When did that happen? I can only think of a handful of Democratic congressmen or senators who give lip service to RKBA. Of course, there's a ton of Republicans who could give a rat's patootie, but the number pales in comparison.
One has to wonder if Democratic legislators in hunting states like Michigan don't wish that HCI, and gun control in general, would just go away.

If the NRA were smart--and I emphasize "were"--they'd approach congressmen and senators in those states where union members bolted the party and begin a meaningful dialogue.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnochGale:
The RKBA has to be disassociated from right wing cranks. There are moderates and even left wing folks who would accept the need for self defense and even defense against government (certainly black militants have spoken for the need for guns).
[/quote]

This isn't strictly a flame (actually, this is more for the lurkers here) and I hope you don't take it as such, but methinks your mindset is showing through a bit, Enoch. Let's see, you have "right wing cranks" (of which there are no doubt some within the RKBA movement) on the one hand, but simply "black militants" as an example of left wing folks (notice, "folks" not "cranks") on the other. I fully support the right of black militants to (peacefully) march around in black berets and uniforms with AK-47s proclaiming conspiracy theories no less loony than any of those spouted by the "Gay abortionists want to take my gun!" crowd. Yet, you rail against the latter as "right wing cranks" while using the former as an example of leftists who might be drawn to the RKBA cause, if only there wasn't so much mean-spirited rhetoric on the part of conservatives.

The fact that the RKBA movement is stereotyped by the action of the fringe is not 100% the fault of those in the movement itself. Isn't bigotry simply the act of applying the characteristics of the worst of one group to its entirety? By that rationale, should we judge the civil rights movment by the actions of the Farrakhans and Sharptons instead of the Dr. Kings? Why is it bigotry when "right wing cranks" do it and not when "left wing folks" do? Is it incumbent upon Jews to prove that they're not gun-grabbing Zionist conspirators or is it the responsiblity of the bigot who holds those views to find out that's a myth? Barring that last possibility, would you say that Jews might be forgiven for writing off those bigots as unreachable? Similarly, why is it fully the responsibility of gun owners to convince anti-gun bigots that we're not really subhuman vermin that just live to oppress minorities and incinerate schoolchildren as a hobby when they won't even make the slightest attempt to find out if the rhetoric spouted by the fringe (and seized upon by the media) is even remotely true or not? Would you then begin to understand the level of frustration within the RKBA community at their inability to get their position cogently and fairly presented to the public? Finally, would that dispose you to label those frustrated people as "right wing cranks?"

I (and possibly others here) am(are) confused by this apparent contradiction. Could you please explain it to us so we understand? Note: that's a serious request, not a smarmy remark. I sincerely would like to better understand where you're coming from, as that's the only way the giant rift we saw so much evidence of this Election Day has any chance of peacefully being bridged.

[This message has been edited by Gopher a 45 (edited November 11, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coyote 6:
Hey Enoch, what you said sounds a lot like rhetoric from an elitist bigot.

I'm not flaming you, just saying that your comments and the "perception" you are leaving may not be what you intended IMHO>

[/quote]

Not flaming you?!? What would you consider a flame?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>How can two fundamentally different ideologies coexist in a form of government controlled by a populace in conflict? I don't mean simple differences of opinion, but rather basic, fundamental beliefs in our very liberties.[/quote]

In theory, the Constitution sets limits on how far adherents of any belief can go in using government to impose their will on non-believers. The courts are supposed to say, "No, that's not allowed" when a law or a policy goes too far.

The courts haven't done a good job of that, hence we have warring factions who think that they can use the federal government as a weapon to impose their beliefs on others.
 
I think you're all oversimplifying this into conservatives/libertarians vs. socialists in the Repub vs. Dem tie recently.

Most people just do not think of these things when they're voting.

Most people are just coasting along content with pretty much whatever happens. Even a conservative may want to vote Gore if it means some pork project - likewise a pro-gun socialist may vote Bush.

Remember also that Bush campaigned solely on Democratic issues - the argument was not whether or not to have Socialist medicine; but how best to implement it - I could imagine a socialist voting for Bush because he had a more plausible plan for socialist medicine.

A lot of people don't give a cra* about the things that we are for, or that the fringe socialists are for.


Battler.
 
There's no particular reason that gun control needs to be a "liberal issue". In fact, the strongest RKBA advocate in California politics is a liberal inner-city Democrat name of Rod Wright (Assemblyman from Compton).

Gun control is "scapegoat politics". It's a way of blaming *somebody* for the failure to control crime. The "thinking" is identical to how Hitler blamed Jews for Germany's financial crisis - due to historical Jewish involvement in banking, it sounded just barely plausible enough.

No hardcore gun control advocate in politics can be trusted or tolerated.

Jim
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In the old days, the presidency didn't matter as much as it does today, at least not in the areas of personal liberty. You were largely left alone to live your life[/quote]
Check out the Election of 1800, and the people involved. Ie: Jefferson and Burr, for a look at "the old days".

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited November 12, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Battler:
Most people just do not think of these things when they're voting.

Most people are just coasting along content with pretty much whatever happens. Even a conservative may want to vote Gore if it means some pork project - likewise a pro-gun socialist may vote Bush.
[/quote]

Battler,

This is largely my point. OUR RIGHTS are being pi**ed away by these mindless people. They don't engage, they just mindlessly live their lives, making random feel-good decisions, while we all pay for it. And those who do actively, with knowing intent, work to subvert the Second Ammendment (or any of our rights) are even more dangerous because, behind those actions, there is a focused intelligence tactically plotting our rights away.

Our Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. My frustration stems from the fact that apparently a huge proportion of the population chooses to ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and, knowingly or not, actively works/votes to undermine their principles.

I'm not trying to be self righteous here, but I always walk around with enough change in my pocket to pay the piper. If I do another person wrong, I will do everything I can to make it right, and I will accept the responsibility for whatever comes out of that. Being held accountable for ones actions is a basic necessity in a free society, and I live my life by it.

By logical extension, I believe that if others make mistakes, then they will have to take responsibility and accept the consequesces for their actions. If they live irresponsibly, that is their right. But when the piper calls, *they* will have to pony up.

But what's happening now is that *I* am going to have to pay for *other peoples* mistakes. Their lack of interest or understanding of the basic principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is going to be the direct cause of my loss of fundamental liberties.

When the inevitable does finally happen, and these people dazedly look around at what they have done, they will then realize the enormity of their mistake. But by then it will be too late. The injustice is that their mistake goes far beyond their ability to take sole responsibility for it. Their mistake affects all of us - we all have to pay for their irresponsibility with the loss of our liberties.

We can't simply use the excuse that this is "the will of the people" either. We are not a straight democracy, we are (thank God) a constitutional republic. The popular vote rules except where it violates the principles of the constitution upon which the republic is founded. I realize that we do have some recourse in the courts for constitutional violations, but the courts are becoming more and more ideological. Less and less focus is being placed on constitutional principle and more and more focus is being placed on political ideology.

This is what prompts me to wonder how these two fundamentally different ideologies can coexist.

What exactly can be done to awake and educate the populace to the very real danger we are now facing? What's worse is that our schools are teaching our kids revisionist history that completely distorts and downright lies about how and why this country was founded. They are minimizing, and even distorting, the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and maximizing the role of the federal government.

When we consistently ignore the violations of the basic tenets of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we eventually will see these documents as "suggestions on the governing of a nation and the rights of its citizens" instead of the FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this nation and the INALIENABLE RIGHTS of human beings.

At this point, what I see is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will simply be allowed to fade into obscurity in the interest of a "more enlightened" way of government. They won't be brought down in the courts. They won't be brought down in the legislature. They will simply be allowed to fade away until they no longer have any real meaning. When enough people don't know what a constitution is, let alone what it says, the transition will be complete. We are almost there now...


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jim March:
There's no particular reason that gun control needs to be a "liberal issue". In fact, the strongest RKBA advocate in California politics is a liberal inner-city Democrat name of Rod Wright (Assemblyman from Compton).
[/quote]

Jim,

It wasn't my intention to make this an issue between liberals and conservatives. I am well aware that both sides have both pro-gun and anti-gun folks in their ranks. My concern is the fact that, regardless of its source, our rights are being willingly and actively subverted.

What's so ironic is the fact that this is being done by people who enjoy the very rights that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees. They are so blinded by their personal beliefs that they - intentionally or not - are destroying the foundations of our civilization.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAE:
Check out the Election of 1800, and the people involved. Ie: Jefferson and Burr, for a look at "the old days".
[/quote]

RAE,

I'm not pining for the way things were, per se, I was just pointing out that the federal government of today is *much* more intrusive on individual liberties than they were "in the old days".

I want things to be THE WAY THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is clear. Whether the violations occurred two days ago or two hundred years ago, they are still wrong.


Ken

------------------

God so values free will that He gave us all the freedom to turn our back on even Him. If liberty is that important to God, it should be that important to us all...

[This message has been edited by KenPaul (edited November 12, 2000).]
 
Ken I think you are right that it will for the most part all fade into obscurity. There are too many people that just dont care anymore, let me rephrase that, they never did care and never will.
There really arent any americans without hyphenations of some type left. The divisions are everywhere real or imagined. As to the stereotyping of the RKBA community as part of the vast right wing conspiracy look at the stats on voting with reguard to demographics. I would bet a lot more women and minorities voted for gore v white males. I think things like this create divides and many of the liberal/commie supporters see the majority of gun owners as red necks and can safely spew these beliefs out because white males are the last safe people to discriminate against.And even catagorizing people such as women and minorities together is now deemed racist/discriminatory. This country used to be a melting pot when there was time to melt, but now the herds stampeed into this country and balkanize it once they arrive. I think there is ultimately only one solution, I wont put my written opinion on the solution here, as there is no need when Jefferson did it so many times in the past.
Sorry about this rambling rant, am too tired to spend a couple hours trying to make it easy to understand and cohesive, hope nobody takes it wrong.

------------------
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON

Do you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breakings laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law breakers--and then you cash in on guilt.
A RAND

Carry concealed so as not to spook the herd. "Some TFL Member?"

Some Problems require a pre-ban LGM-118A Solution.
 
All,

Enoch doesn’t need me to be an apologist for his views, but as I understood him,
Enoch meant we need to destroy the stereotype of a gun owner as presented by our
enemies.

Even some gun owners consider most of their fellow gun owners to be fat, dirty,
tobacco-spittin’, kill raccoons during deer season (“because they’re there!”),
pseudo-religious, bigoted, ONLY flannel/wool shirt wearers.

How often does the typical non-owner of guns picture the gun owner in a business
suit, or being a 105 lb female model who carries a .38 wheel gun? ;) Not very
often, I’d reckon!

Unfortunately (like Enoch), most of America doesn’t picture the diversity of TFL
members to be representative of gun owners. They are wrong. And like Enoch, I
believe we must find some way to DE-demonize the gun owner stereotype.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top