Anti-gun does not = automatic Leftist.

Boreingaccountant and STAGE2,,

I wish I had the skills to present my ideas as well as you guys..I think I agree 100% with you both..

WA

That said however, the most rabidly pro gun folks are almost always the most rascist, sexist and intolerant as well.
Click to expand...


Your in the firearm huntin and fishing business?
Seems strange bedfellows for such views to me.
Or are you being fascists. (sp)


Seriously. I'm outta here.
Click to expand...

YOur a good man Juan and I am gonna follow your lead, we can just agree to disagree.

Posted below ,,, yes thanks
 
Last edited:
I guess we shouldn't discuss anything then. No one can change their mind or adjust their views. Why do we even need an online forum?
Click to expand...

@BoringAccountant: Maybe I'm just strange, but I've actually had my political views change thanks to discussions I've had with others...including some I've had on political forums just like this one. Maybe when I get older my views will end up set in stone right now, but nowadays I like to think of myself as pretty open minded...when somebody makes a good point, I notice it at use it to re-evaluate my views. And again, every now and then some of them even change.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe I was a little misunderstood, maybe not, but let me try to clarify.

I am not going to say how old I am, I know I am younger than most of the posters, moderators, etc. in this forum. I do not know and will not put myself out there as knowing everything and having my mind made up about every concern that comes along. I for one, know what I believe when it comes to politics, religion, war, etc. (not every detail, because frankly I haven't had the time in 22 years to think about it all :D ), but I love hearing why people think other things.

My problem with this post is that it wasn't a debate about leftists and rightists and their respective views, it was merely about one person being offended because he was viewed as a right-winger because he opposed gun control. I am sorry if that happened, whoever did it doesn't understand the nature of politics and the very way in which we are categorized. But to be honest, if someone opposes gun control...they are aligned with the right-wingers.

Overall, I would love for this post to be why does someone think gun control is wrong or why do you not believe in gay-marriage (I was disappointed I couldnt respond to the other post before it was closed) or any other real debate, not just for someone to say I think I was labeled wrong and lets argue that.

Juan, I agree with you that I too have had my thoughts and opinions change on certain issues through this forum or in everyday experiences. I may have believed something or thought something was correct and came to realize I was being ignorant for some reason. I think these forums are a great idea, a great place for wannabe scholars like some of us to debate real issues and learn more about why someone believes something else. My believes are not based on the fact that I only see my side of things, my believes are always changing, whether it be to further my agreement of one side, or change my whole outlook on that topic. I tend to believe and trust things when I know the other persons side too, and then I can say I respect your view, I just dont agree with it. :p

Sorry if anyone misunderstood how the original post came across...as you know its hard to get emotion, attitude, body language, and all the other communcation devices into a forum. Hope this clears it up and I would love to talk (debate) whatever the case is with Juan or stanger04 anytime.

Redworm, I have to PM you back, I just havent had time during tax season yet, sorry. Looking forward to continuing that discussion!!!


BoringAccountant
 
That said however, the most rabidly pro gun folks are almost always the most rascist, sexist and intolerant as well.
Click to expand...

When you paint with a broad brush you're going to get some things you don't intend to. But on the national scene, you do have to agree with me Wild that the real anti gun go getters are the ones who come up with wonderful ideas like the fairness doctrine and 70% tax rates for the "rich" and other fantastic notions of liberalism.
 
But on the national scene, you do have to agree with me Wild that the real anti gun go getters are the ones who come up with wonderful ideas like the fairness doctrine and 70% tax rates for the "rich" and other fantastic notions of liberalism.
Click to expand...

But on the national scene, you do have to agree with me Stage that the real pro gun go getters are the ones who come up with wonderful ideas like the Patriot Act, flag buring amendments and tax subsidies/cuts for the oil companies and other fantastic notions of conservatism..

WildletspickoneveryoneAlaska
 
"True. However, if being anti-gun automatically makes one a "leftist" then logically wouldn't being pro-gun automatically make somebody "right-wing?"

Good question, Juan Carlos, but no.

A person can be a leftist and still be pro gun.

It has to do with MY personal values and how I weight them in importance.

To me, the firearms issue is the top issue. Number 1. No other issue is as important to me; it is my litmus test.

If someone fail my litmus test on issue one, there's no recovering.

If, however, someone passes muster on issue one, they can still fail badly on the rest of the issues that I find important and as such would end up categorized the same as the social and economic conservative who hates guns.

Rudy Gulliani? Poster child for the Republican Party these days? Gun hater. Will never get my vote. He is, as far as I'm concerned, a leftist.

Michael Bloomberg? Republican from New York? I'd sit down to dinner with Josef Stalin before Michael Bloomberg. At least Stalin was somewhat honest about his politics.
 
But on the national scene, you do have to agree with me Stage that the real pro gun go getters are the ones who come up with wonderful ideas like the Patriot Act, flag buring amendments and tax subsidies/cuts for the oil companies and other fantastic notions of conservatism..
Click to expand...

Wow, I can finally say it. Wild, I just agreed with you. The Patriot Act makes me want to :barf: . As far as flag burning, I say let'em do it, so long as they wrap themselves in it first. :D . I'm quite sure the Gov't makes just as much, if not more money, off that oil than the Oil companies themselves... Kinda like cigarettes... JMHO. Both parties do good things, and both do not-so-good things. It just depends on the election year, and who's running, as to which canidates/party is the lesser of 2 evils. Liars and cheats, the whole lot of 'em.:(
 
Michael Bloomberg? Republican from New York? I'd sit down to dinner with Josef Stalin before Michael Bloomberg. At least Stalin was somewhat honest about his politics.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole doesnt suit you Mike:D

Comparing Milquetoast Mike to Iosef Vissarionvich is a bit much, neh?


WildbutthenagainwecoulddoothercomparisonsAlaska
 
"Comparing Milquetoast Mike to Iosef Vissarionvich is a bit much, neh?"

Ask some of your fellow gunshop owners in the states surrounding the People's Republic of New York what they think of Mr. Bloomberg's political persuasions.
 
To me, the firearms issue is the top issue. Number 1. No other issue is as important to me; it is my litmus test.
Click to expand...

My father was in the USAF for 22.5 years, as a cop. He's black, from the south, and is currently a Fed LEO.

All of these would most likely make him a Republican (given the statistics), but he is a registered Democrat, that votes heavily Republican, because his #1 issue is also gun control.

To say that if someone is left-leaning they are anti-gun is about the same as when they used to say you were against the troops if you were against the war. I can remember a few arguments I had about this. Today, there are plenty of Repubs who now have their doubts about the war, so that argument appears to be fading.

The Left/Right Dem/Repub line that is drawn in the sand is not adequate for a lot of people, myself included. For those who have it that easy, I do envy you. And yes, it is hard to choose candidates, so you have to compromise some and pick your candidates. At some basic level, democracy is about compromise, I suppose.
 
Ask some of your fellow gunshop owners in the states surrounding the People's Republic of New York what they think of Mr. Bloomberg's political persuasions.
Click to expand...

I dont like his political positions either (or some of them) but a treacherous paranoid dictatorial mass murderer he's not.

The Rosie O"Donnel screeches dont suit ya brother ;)

WildnewsyearsresolutionistokeepitrealbabyAlaska
 
But on the national scene, you do have to agree with me Stage that the real pro gun go getters are the ones who come up with wonderful ideas like the Patriot Act, flag buring amendments and tax subsidies/cuts for the oil companies and other fantastic notions of conservatism..
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The flag burnning amendment is a traditional conservative position, as well as tax cuts. The patriot act is a conversation in itself, however, since we are talking about the ideas, and not their validity, I think you kinda proved my point.

Gun stances are a pretty good litmus test.
 
Something that should help clear up this confusion:
I think it's safe to say that DailyKos is fairly representative of the left-of-the-mainstream community.
When the D.C. ruling was handed down, there was nary a peep about it on the main page. I had to look at a "rescued diary" to see any mention of it. Where it is mentioned and discussed, the tone of the story is supportive of the ruling itself and critical of the judges. The comments regarding it were overwhelmingly supportive and traffic was light.
For those who can read liberal-type without their heads exploding, here it is:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/9/133819/1902

The upshot: the 2nd amendment is actually *positively received* among the leftist rank & file! The politicians...not so much.
Food for thought.
 
Then I've got to wonder... Why don't more Democrat politicians support the 2nd amendment?

There's something sinister about it all... Almost like there is an agreement between the two parties on who gets what policy, which is ridiculous. What factors are causing this?

What I'm trying to get at is, why isn't there a pro/neutral gay rights/abortion rights, pro-gun, pro-environmental protection candidate likely in the cards?
 
It's called "divide and conquer". The debate between the left and right is about which rights we're willing to give up. Many side with the liberals because they fear losing the rights that the conservatives wish to deny them.
Why are things this way? Because 1) that's how the politicians want it and 2)the average American doesn't care.
 
It's not that the avg. person doesn't care, I think between paying all the bills and working their butt off all day they just don't have time or the energy.

Republicans are there to keep you poor, Democrats are there to remind you how poor you are. :D

It's always a win/lose situation as with everthing else in life. You want stuff then you have to pay for it. There are always downsides to everything, as well as upsides too.
 
More of the same, this time from Talk Left

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/3/9/194513/3373

And a very-well written "liberal" excerpt:
The 2nd does not "confer" a right to bear arms. It acknowledges a right which is "God-given" - that is, a little bit of natural law which predates the Bill of Rights. That was the 18th century theory, at least.

"Assault rifles" have not been "banned" since the 1920s. Machine guns have been registered and heavily taxed since the mid-1930s (National Firearms Act). That is not banning. Assault rifles - the real thing - didn't appear until the 1940s. What the gun grabbers call "Assault Rifles" aren't, in any meaningful sense. They just use the term to stampede the public, as people have votes even if they don't know flip about guns.

The 2nd Amendment did not originally refer to weapons which one could carry. Recall the agony the American privateer fleet caused to the Royal Navy and British carrying trade during the War of 1812. Privateers were all privately owned - hence the name. The armed ship was the strategic weapon of the day. A commission as a privateer did not confer a right to be armed. Ships in those days were armed as a matter of routine. Evidently a restricted interpretation of the word "bear" did not preclude such armament. A privateer commission, or, similarly, a letter of marque, meant only that seizure or destruction of British property, or attacking British subjects with guns and swords, was not piracy. The performance of the various American militias on land was not particularly impressive during the War of 1812, but the performance of something essentially indistinguishable from a militia, the privateers, at sea, was a crucial factor in the war.

And please, people, don't cite the Miller decision unless you've read it. It's not that long or difficult. It doesn't say what far too many people think it says. The Miller Court decided to play dumb, and claim that it wasn't aware that a "sawed-off" (whatever that means) shotgun contributed to the efficiency of a militia. As Miller himself had skipped town, no counterargument was offered, and the Court could claim ignorance of the fact that "sawed-off" shotguns were military weapons, and therefore also legitimate militia weapons. They were in fact used by the Army in the war with the Moros, in the trenches in France (hence the military name, "trench gun"), and, after Miller's day, by the Marines in the Pacific, in Viet Nam, and on patrol in Lebannon after the barracks bombing. On the other hand, the Miller decision does not mean that if the Court had stooped to acknowledge the fact that the weapon in question was indeed a legitimate militia weapon, that it would have found for Miller after all. It implied that the Court would at least be receptive to an argument that the 2nd meant that the public could indeed keep and bear, and maybe even transport across state lines, weapons which would be appropriate for the military. But it didn't actually say that. The decision is actually quite useless. All that Miller really tells us is that the SCOTUS shouldn't hear a case if nobody is going to show up to argue it.

I'm still waiting to hear an appeals court tell us why "shall not be infringed" means that "reasonable" controls are A-OK. I can think of a rationale, but I'd like to see a court do its own work on that one.
Click to expand...


I think this concept requires a new thread...
 
Ah yes lefties loving guns...

Bet they want to arm themselves to force our tyrannical government to recognize same sex unions, promote abortion, raise taxes....

One mans tyranny is another mans freedom

WildfascistpigAlaska
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top