Enlighten me please

K

Kyote

New member
How can you be a liberal and own a gun? Do liberals believe in the second amendment as I do ie: "shall not be infringed"? Do liberals believe in the death penality?

Not calling any names here, but it seems as though there are folks here that have liberal leanings and I'm curious.
 
I think your confusion stems from the fact that you've labeled people as 'liberal'. The phrase 'liberal' has come to represent the demonization of everything non-republican, leaving no room for anyone who does not toe the party line. (Tag it with Unpatriotic and you've got a Cheney speech.) Similarly 'Gun owner' does not automatically place you in a belltower offing students.

This country seems to have shifted to a state of only two extreme points of view (ie right wing / liberal) and ignores the rest of us near the middle.

I (for example), do not believe in our use of the death penalty, not because of the death part, but the sheer fubar'd judicial system. Negligent homicide due to judicial misconduct and/or incompetence is inexcusable. Thankfully the Supreme court finally tossed mandatory sentencing.

On the other hand, I believe in reduction of government, reduction of debt and fiscal responsibility, which seems to match neither party, but with the current house and senate majority and last four years of control, who does it match more?

If I had my way, I'd go the Guv'nator's route and rewrite all the voting districts so we can eliminate most of the incumbent extremists. 95% incumbancy reelection signals a rotten state of government in my opinion. When those in power have (and exercise) the control to ensure their continued stay, that falls under my interpretation of corruption and abuse.
 
Ok

I do believe in the death penality BUT only when there is NO doubt about who did what. ie: John Hinkley, he's toast. Scott -------? out in Kalifornia, Life. (because there IS SOME room for error here)

See, you've made a distinction of "republican" and "liberal". Its "conservitive" and "liberal". Zell Miller is definitly a conservitive! I'ld vote for him or someone like him in a heart beat!

But, talk to me about guns. No question or restrictions?
 
Be careful what you wish for....

I would not wish Zell Miller on Osama Bin Laden. There are some things out of bounds. Our Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment"...
Old Mad-Dog Zell is just that....
Ill bet, like most "conservatives" of modern type, anyone who doesn't think the way you do is considered a "liberal".
Anyone who thinks that George W. Bu$h is an idiot MUST be a fan of John Kerry.
Man, you need to get out a little more on your way to and from the range.... ;)
 
I'm no "fan" of G.W. but we were given TWO choices this past year. I feel the lesser of two evils won.

But,........Please answer the questions, where do you stand on gun control? No restrictions or limitations. Death penality or not? Just how different are we?
 
I think you have a logic flaw there.. Thinking Bush is an idiot doesn't preclude Kerry from being an idiot, nor make me like him. Why we elect people we wouldn't certify to teach our kids, I still don't understand..
 
I'm a liberal. I believe the 2nd (and all others, for that matter) indeed shall not be infringed.

Took me a while to get to this point, yes. But I got here.
 
Rather than get into the whole liberal/conservative definition game, I think the original question could be stated as "how can a pro gun control person own a gun?"

The woods are full of people who want rules for everyone else and exceptions for themselves. They deserve being excepted due to their special (insert almost anything here). After all, one can't have the unwashed, hairy-knuckled masses running amok with, cringe, firearms! They, on the other hand, are a step higher on the evolutionary scale, as should be immediately obvious to anyone with discernment, and can be trusted in all things.

Elitism is responsible, not liberalism per se.
 
Libertarian-progressive-anarchist

In that order.... I STILL get called a "liberal"......
Not really an anarchist in the formal sense of the term. I am 100% opposed to the federal government having the power over the citizens of the respective states that it has usurped. There are functions for the Federal government and there are powers reserved to the states. They are (to me at least) clearly delineated in the Constitution, a document which is unknown to most citizens of our Republic. :confused:
While I do not think it is a good idea to sell weapons like a 50 cal. s/a rifle on the open market (I can't afford one.... :eek: ), I think it is better to sell them than to prohibit them. As far as "traditional" firearms(including assault rifles), I can't imagine the thought process that arrives at the position which says it's ok for everyone else on earth to have them and not the average U.S. citizen. :mad:
 
Maybe we do need some new lingo...or do away with it altogether. There is this idea that if you are pro-2nd Amendment, then you are against a woman's right to abortion; if you are for gay rights, you are against securing the border. Issues that are not related are lumped together under the titles of "liberal", "conservative". I can be either, depending on the particular soap box I'm standing on at the time. I think a lot of people are that way.
 
Jailmedic: You wouldn't wish Zell on Osama, why not? There's nothing that I wouldn't wish on Osama. You don't think 50's should be sold but you say no gun control. Me, you want a 50 and can afford one, go get it. You use it irresponsibly, you pay the price. (can't do the time, don't do the crime). So, you would give up your guns so that Bush wouldn't be in the White House. I work for the Govt. and the Union was running around telling everyone that a vote for Bush was going to kill your job. I tell folks that I have a real delima, the republicans want my job and the dem.s' want my guns. I vote conservitive. If you voted for Kerry, you voted for gun control. (no falicy here, look at his record)

Wyldone: Are you able to vote for Kennedy? (are you in his district?) If yes, why? Like I said somewhere, one million (reportedly) gun owners in Mas. and that state has some of the worst gun laws in the country.

PsychoSword:If there is no such thing as a liberal, what is the word that would define those folks?

Charley: A friend sent me a "test" one day to see where one stands, to the right or the left. I wound up being 3 ticks to the LEFT(!) of center. I do believe in helping folks out (I just don't want to make a career out of it[welfare]). CLOSE the borders,(to illegal imigration) if your in prison, you WILL know the meaning of "hard work" (ala "cool hand luke") I don't want my $ going to pay for an abortion just because the gal doesn't want to be pregnant any more. If, IF you are found guilty of a capital crime, hang 'em high, after ONE set of appeals. You get ONE chance at the appeals process. (an while your waiting for your lawyers to work out the details, you WILL be in the chili patch. Complete with dogs and guns and horses and chains).

Do liberals feel that convicts get the weight room w/sauna type treatment? Why? Do liberals feel that a gal should be able to get a taxpayer paid abortion because she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore? Why? Do liberals feel we should close the borders to illegal immigration or open them up? Why? Do liberals feel that there is a "seperation" of church and state or just that the state won't MAKE you worship a certain way?

I sincerly want to try to understand liberals. We all have to live on Gods' earth, I want to get along.

Later tater
 
In answer to your original question, yes, there are "liberals" who support the 2nd Amendment. It is not really a liberal/conservative issue despite how it is portrayed by both sides sometimes. Most of the politicians who we see as liberal...hillary, kennedys, scarry kerry...are no friend to the 2nd Amendment, so it makes "gun control" a politically liberal position. But there are plenty of people who are "liberal" on other issues but support the 2nd Amendment just like there are "conservatives" who support gun control.
In answer to one of your other questions, I personally consider my conviction that we should close the border to be "conservative" in nature. Which would mean Bush is actually an extreme "liberal", and Hillary is "conservative" in her approach to the issue. Words can be useful, but if you cling to them too tight, you can find yourself spinning down the rabbit hole.
 
Why do liberals own firearms?

Try because they can. The right to protect oneself from harm is not a liberal or a conservative right. It is a human right.

Some liberals want to take away that right. Some conservatives want to take away that right. Nobody, not even the people who want to take away your rights to self protection want that right taken away from themselves.
 
Wyldone: Are you able to vote for Kennedy? (are you in his district?) If yes, why? Like I said somewhere, one million (reportedly) gun owners in Mas. and that state has some of the worst gun laws in the country.
Click to expand...

Ted? Yeah, he's a Senator, so the whole state gets to vote for/against him.

Here's my dilemma with voting (for anyone, these days): If I vote for the RKBA, I'll end up voting against repro choice. If I vote for repro choice, I'll vote against the RKBA. And please don't ask me to choose issues. So no matter what, if I vote for a major party person, I'll sacrifice something that I really care about.

I've contemplated voting Libertarian, and I think I have once or twice. But I'm not really a Libertarian, the tax thing (which, as I understand it, is pretty core to being a Libertarian) always gets me.

There may be a million gun owners in the state, but they're probably spread out in various districts and little New England towns and whatnot. And they're far, FAR outnumbered by the anti's.
 
What's a "liberal"? Are they what a non-liberal decides they are, or what they call themselves?

The very idea that one party platform contains all the truths in running a society is the most moribund and ridiculous notion that plagues politics.

Would you deny the effectiveness of the New Deal? Would "trickle down economics" have prevented starvation in the '30s?

As it stands, both parties like to uphold certain rights and ignore others. Almost every two party election is the devil's choice. While I don't always agree with them, I'd much rather choose between a McCain or a Fiengold than a Gingrich or a Shummer.
 
The only reason that more folks don't run for office is that they can't stand the annal exam that the "free press" subjects them to. We ALL have a skeleton or two don't we? :D Still, it's the best game in town!
 
And here I thought it was because the only people that can afford campaign costs were too busy with the jobs that made them rich.
 
The phrase 'liberal' has come to represent the demonization of everything non-republican, leaving no room for anyone who does not toe the party line.
Click to expand...
Other than the partisan reference I think you're pretty much right but that idea is wrong I suspect.

Need to elaborate further. Dating back to the 1950's classical liberalism has been deconstucted and rebuilt in the form of 'establishment liberalism' also known as 'progressivism'. Liberalism has come to mean the institutionalized agenda of those persons who have sought to set forth a specific secular/humanist/internationalist/collectivist worldview and political agenda designed to remove our ideals of constitutional government which derive from Lockean concepts of Natural Law.

It is not a matter of Republicans nor Democrats. As one third party presidential cantidate who was removed from the race via assassination attempt in the 1960's used to say, "There's not a dime's worth of difference."


With this in mind, Liberals have not problem at all with arming some people. But they believe that civil rights derive from the collective need flowing from the need of the State rather than via divine right flowing naturally to the people. This is not a modern concept at all, but its root goes all the way back to Hamilton and other like minded persons following the revolution.

As far as I can tell from my reading Washington and Jefferson both believed in natural law and the natural rights of man, coupled with the natural responsibility to protect the nation. Our RKBA is based in large part on Washington's experiance at Valley Forge, with his problems getting untrained soldiers to work together so they could win a few battles.

OTOH modern liberalism, or if you will progressivism, is based in large parts on the diffiiculty socialist thinkers going back to the Wobblies, the Marxists, the Communists, the Fabians et cetera have had eliminating our firm conviction that each and every one of us is endoewd by their Creator with certain inalianble rights...

My 2 centavos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top