Anti-gun does not = automatic Leftist.
- Thread starter Love&Hate12
- Start date
Charshooter
New member
That is exactly why I'm here, to talk guns, shooting and hunting. Other forms I belong to shut these post down fast, because they beg an argument and no matter how you try to hide that fact, most of us see through it. I'm gald the other post was closed!!
the only good thing about this post is it lets me know who to put on ignore, so I can act responsible and not pester the moderators.
because having rational discussions about the nature of the political environment and issues that affect us all is somehow bad? sure you can put me on ignore but that doesn't help the grand cause of retaining our 2a rightsIndrid Cold
New member
SecDef, I agree, but I just don't think that some issues are truly infringing on the rights of others, or are harmful to them. That being said, I am *really* not about to get entrenched in this discussion. I am here to discuss firearms - nothing more. I think one of the great points of this forum is that people from all sorts of different backgrounds can come together to discuss one subject and not have to worry about it getting tangled in a mess of other politics. Let's keep to one issue, people. We've got enough on our hands as it is.
Sharp Phil
New member
Leftists have one thing in common -- they hate being outed for what they are, because they know that fundamentally, rational people abhor the political philosophy of leftism. Leftists come up with all kinds of excuses for why they're not leftists, not really -- chief among these being that if they can demonstrate they don't consistently adhere to left-wing principles (like a Democrate who's also a Catholic and therefore votes pro-life, despite voting Democrat on other issues), they must not be leftists, not really.
Well, yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus -- unless you're capable of rational, logical thought, in which case you understand that a hatred of firearms and a desire to take these away from law-abiding citizens makes you a socialist tyrant who believes in the "collective good" over the individual's right to his life.
Of course, I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who thinks Mrs. Bill Clinton, who attempted to nationalize one-sixth to one-seventh of the nation's economy by socializing medicine in the United States, is somehow a "center-rightist," or whatever other euphemism is being used to mean, "is triangulating in an attempt to conceal her true beliefs in order to garner support."
I hate to break it to you lefties out there trying to have it both ways (no, southpaws, I'm not talking to you), but a person's philosophy has implications. It has logical conclusions. It has meaning. Even if your philosophy is not consistent, it has ramifications. Denying those ramifications or refusing to see them for what they are merely makes you irrational. It does not make you something other than a leftist if you adhere to ANY leftist tent.
Well, yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus -- unless you're capable of rational, logical thought, in which case you understand that a hatred of firearms and a desire to take these away from law-abiding citizens makes you a socialist tyrant who believes in the "collective good" over the individual's right to his life.
Of course, I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who thinks Mrs. Bill Clinton, who attempted to nationalize one-sixth to one-seventh of the nation's economy by socializing medicine in the United States, is somehow a "center-rightist," or whatever other euphemism is being used to mean, "is triangulating in an attempt to conceal her true beliefs in order to garner support."
I hate to break it to you lefties out there trying to have it both ways (no, southpaws, I'm not talking to you), but a person's philosophy has implications. It has logical conclusions. It has meaning. Even if your philosophy is not consistent, it has ramifications. Denying those ramifications or refusing to see them for what they are merely makes you irrational. It does not make you something other than a leftist if you adhere to ANY leftist tent.
There is a widely held belief that the majority of people are somewhere in the middle, politically speaking, or in other words, moderated. Yet, according to one published study which I conveniently do not have in front of me, more people actually identify themselves as either liberal or conservative, at least at any given moment. That could help explain why the last two presidential elections were so close.
I have my own theory on the political spectrum, however. Assuming you all know the origins of the terms "left" and "right" (it has to do with the French, so maybe you don't), it is misleading to think of it in a straight line. Think instead of a circle, or better yet, a horseshoe magnet. Notice how with a horseshoe magnet, the two oppositely charged ends are so close to one another. In terms of extreme behavior, which you might say is at the two ends of the spectrum, the two extremes become very much alike. In terms of policital behavior, they are similar in both favoring strong government for their own ends, and extreme action in achieving those aims.
Think about it.
I have my own theory on the political spectrum, however. Assuming you all know the origins of the terms "left" and "right" (it has to do with the French, so maybe you don't), it is misleading to think of it in a straight line. Think instead of a circle, or better yet, a horseshoe magnet. Notice how with a horseshoe magnet, the two oppositely charged ends are so close to one another. In terms of extreme behavior, which you might say is at the two ends of the spectrum, the two extremes become very much alike. In terms of policital behavior, they are similar in both favoring strong government for their own ends, and extreme action in achieving those aims.
Think about it.
"Mrs. Bill Clinton, who attempted to nationalize one-sixth to one-seventh of the nation's economy by socializing medicine in the United States"
And I distinctly remember when a journalist asked her about medical savings accounts
She said "We can't trust people to take care of themselves"
Of course not...it takes a village to raise the village idiot
And I distinctly remember when a journalist asked her about medical savings accounts
She said "We can't trust people to take care of themselves"
Of course not...it takes a village to raise the village idiot
JuanCarlos
New member
If you just want to talk about guns/hunting, there are other subforums here where you are safe from these conversations. If you just want to talk about gun-related politics, there are other threads here where you are relatively safe from these conversations. You can tell from the title of this and the other thread exactly what you're getting into, yet still you chose to click.
All I see here is a child walking into a room, not liking what the grown-ups are talking about, and shoving his fingers in his ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" instead of just, you know, leaving.
This thread (and others where similar talk goes on) is not mandatory. This forum is not just for Republicans and/or conservatives, and it's not just for firearms-releated talk. Get over it.
You're making the mistake of thinking that if somebody holds one liberal view then they must be leftist on all issues. You're absolutely wrong, much the same way somebody can hold one conservative view and yet not be rightist on all issues. I have no problem admitting I'm a leftist...I know where my views on most issues lie on the US political spectrum. But is there some fundamental reason I can't believe in gay rights and firearms rights?
See, political views don't always come as one big package. Our two-party system sometimes makes it seem that way, because when it comes time to vote we have to vote for one of two big packages. But my personal views on any given issue can fall just about anywhere on the spectrum, regardless of where any of my other views fall.
Hence somebody can be a leftist, believe in anything from gay rights to abortion rights to socialized healthcare, and yet still believe in unrestricted personal firearms rights. Somebody can be a rightist, believe in small government, firearms rights, and be pro-life....and still believe in gay rights. It's just that either of these people are going to have a really crappy day come election day, because they're guaranteed to be disappointed.
I don't mind admitting I'm a leftist. What I do mind is when (as is common around here) somebody calls someone a leftist as if that's an actual argument. Yes, "leftist" carries a strong negative connotation around here (being a firearms forum and all)...but that doesn't make ad hominem arguments any more valid. Especially since, as this thread is meant to argue, one can be a leftist and pro-gun. Heck, once can generally be socially conservative and rightist and anti-gun. I've met such people. Not anti-gun as in no personal ownership, mind you...but I've met several right-wing Christian Republicans who actually don't mind things like "assault weapon" bans. Go figure.
HURRAAAAYYYYY for you!!!!
I haven't read this thread much as I could see right away it was going in the same general direction as another thread that got locked yesterday.
IMHO This is a firearm forum that's why I come here not for all the other gripes.
It is the same people whining the same off subject ideals every time.
They are unhappy about other things than guns and continually force it in our faces..
IMHO get a dime and go call someone who cares this is a gun forum.
cuate
Very well said. There is no reason I need to know the sexual preferences of those who post here..........NONE!
Sharp Phil
It is amazing how many here claim to be "leftists"........well, mostly "leftist"........well, sometimes "leftist". Mostly I would just call them rudderless.
Very well said. There is no reason I need to know the sexual preferences of those who post here..........NONE!
Sharp Phil
It is amazing how many here claim to be "leftists"........well, mostly "leftist"........well, sometimes "leftist". Mostly I would just call them rudderless.
Sharp Phil
New member
No, I'm saying that when you hold certain leftist viewpoints, these taint your thinking and your political position remains left-wing despite whatever exceptions you may apply to your worldview. You can have a conflicted, paradox-ridden personal philosophy if you wish; nobody ever said you had to be consistent. But if you believe in certain things -- banning firearms, for example, or socialized medicine -- you're a leftist no matter how much you wish not to be identified as such.
That's just it; it is. When you are a leftist, this means that some (or all, but let's say some) of your thinking is polluted with left-wing ideals. Anyone who would hold these ideals has real problems with his philosophy and his thought-process, and this calls into question everything he believes. To put it another way, you can't trust any politician who wants to ban guns not to arbitrarily infringe on your rights in other areas, for anyone who believes you have no right to the tools of self-defense is presuming to tell you how much your life is worth (and saying that this value is low, at least to him).
JuanCarlos
New member
I have no problem being identified as such. I self-indentify as such. And what's the paradox? Is there a rational reason that being pro-firearms and pro-socialized healthcare are somehow mutually exclusive?
In other words, I challenge you to provide a logical reason why a belief in socialized medicine and a belief in unrestricted firearms ownership are (as you suggest) inconsistent. For bonus points, explain to me logically why a belief in gay rights and a belief in unrestricted firearms ownership are inconsistent.
Do you have a rational argument as to why leftists are "wrong?" Or why it would call into question everything somebody believes? Because I'd say a belief in denying gay rights (or anybody's rights) is wrong. I believe racism is wrong. But I've known enough racist or gaybashing firearms enthusiasts that were I to subscribe to your thinking here....well, the next logical step is to ban guns, right? 'Cause they strongly believe in keeping them, and everything they believe should be called into question.
We aren't talking about politicians who want to ban guns. We're talking about leftists who are pro-gun.
Sharp Phil
New member
There's another word for a pro-gun leftist -- "hypocrite." You cannot subscribe to an ideology of government control and infringement of natural rights on the one hand, yet advocate the free ownership of firearms for self-protection and resistance to the very tyranny you advocate. It's a paradox.
I would suggest that anyone who understands just why the Second Amendment matters who still thinks of himself as a leftist needs to take a long, hard look at what he believes, and why.
I would suggest that anyone who understands just why the Second Amendment matters who still thinks of himself as a leftist needs to take a long, hard look at what he believes, and why.
JuanCarlos
New member
Out of curiosity, how do you define "leftist?"
For instance, if I'm only far left on social issues (but fiscally conservative), am I still a leftist? Or is there a "middle" to be had (because somebody who believes in, say, abortion rights and gay rights certainly doesn't fit in over on the right).
The Constitution of the United States guarantees us the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. As a people it's a matter of personal choice if we want a weapon or not. The anti-gun folks don't have to have a gun, but they have no Right to infringe on our RIGHTS. It's against the LAW for them to even try. LEFT, RIGHT, UP, or DOWN, makes no difference. What part of "shall not be infringed" do people have a problem with. Trying to steal property is bad. Trying to steal our rights is worse. These ANTI-AMERICANS can't count past two. They get stuck on our 2nd Amendment. And it's the simplest one.