Not all liberals are anti-gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Helmetcase

New member
Some of us recognize a few important facts:
  • Gun Control hurts us politically
  • It's a morally bankrupt position that entails preventing working class folk from defending themselves
  • It's a complete pragmatic failure
  • It only encourages criminality amongst felons, and only truly penalizes ordinary law abiding citizens
  • The state deciding who can and can't defend themselves is creeping fascism

If you're interested in following my lobbying efforts here in Maryland, and my efforts to reform the progressive, moderate, liberal, and Democratic schools of thought from within, I invite you to visit and write your thoughts on my new blog.

Pro Gun Progressives.
 
Welcome to The Firing Line, Helmetcase. :)

It is difficult for many gun owners (who are conservatives for the most part) to accept the fact that we have allies in different, and often unexpected, camps. For me, where a politician stands on the Second Amendment is a litmus test for his attitude toward Liberty in general. As you well know, most liberals talk a good game on liberty, but when it comes to firearms they do an about face (take the ACLU... please). Thank you for doing your part to spread the word among progressive ranks.

-Dave
 
I still think there is a difference between "Liberals" and "Democrats".

Liberals hate guns and hate individual liberty.

Democrats may want more welfare for the poor at the expense of the rich, but it's because they haven't got it in them to let people fail. The big difference between Reps and Dems is that Reps believe that failure is a learning catalyst and needs to occur. Democrats do believe in the bill of rights and want all americans to enjoy them to their fullest extent.

Liberals want misery spread equally.
 
"It's a morally bankrupt position that entails preventing working class folk from defending themselves"

While I agree with your position, including the statement above, I don't understand why a distinction is made between the working class and all others. I have never viewed gun control as a class struggle, but rather misguided (or maybe actually stupid) people implementing laws that don't work.

Tim
 
Thanks Bluesman, been happy to have stumbled upon this place. I've seen a lot of folks in my day have a lot to say but come up short when it comes to taking action, and my goal is to have a running record of what you can accomplish when you actually pick up the phone and call your Senators, Delegates, etc. I look forward to the new legislative session, and getting my nicest suits on and playing Lobbyist. My mission in life is to reverse the tendency for libs and progressives to support personal liberty on some issues but fall down and act stupid when it comes to the most important liberty of all--keeping oneself safe from harm.

Anyone having recommendations on a place to get business cards, stickers, bumperstickers, etc for my cause, please email me at admin@progunprogressive.com.

Tim, while I agree that guns are equally important to all classes, the point I'm trying to make is that gun control hurts the working and middle classes a lot more. The people it ostensibly protects are the people it hurts the most!!!

redhawk, I think you have it backwards. My definition of liberalism is love of personal liberty and the freedom to make personal choices, and I simply want to extend that freedom from some important social issues (sexuality, religion, political affiliation, etc) to what I think is the most important social issue of all--self defense. True liberalism is having an open mind and respecting the choices others make; it's the Democrats who have sold out liberalism in favor of creeping fascism in the name of political gain.

Anyway, anyone having ideas is encouraged to contribute. Maryland area folk, I know that the Maryland Shall Issue folks are having a meeting tonight at Arundel Mills that I can't make...but it's worth checking out.
 
I would have to mildly disagree that a progun position is necessarily correlated with a pro-liberty point of view. I think you have to pick your 'liberties' carefully when you say that. Social conservatives can be very, very controlling on many dimensions. I shudder to mention them as not to start a flame war.

The use of 'conservative' is too broad a term anyway. I know folks who consider themselves consider on some matters but don't buy into a great deal of social conservatism. They might be better noted as libertarian - with a small 'l'.

It is easy for some conservatives to look at the RKBA to be a fundamental liberty but against personal freedom as in sexuality, be very controlling on free speech issues, to want something that almost looks like a state sanctioned religion and the like.

The ACLU has a blind spot on the 2nd Amend. Is that much different from the blind spots that social conservatives have on putting religion in the schools or on issues or sexuality?

As I said in something I wrote in my sig article below - the 2nd is a cause that should the cause of 'liberals' or 'conservatives'.

There is no difference in my mind from a flag burning amendment or an extreme PC speech code. However, do the proponents of each see the issue of liberty in each - no, they do not. They just rave.

As one moves to extremes of the left or right, you get tyranny.
 
Good point, Glen.

I see politics as a 4-pointed spectrum rather than 2-pointed (Left-Right).

You basically have an x axis and a y axis. The x represents the Left/Right dimension (democrat = -10, republican = +10), and the y measures the statist/individualist dimension (statist = -10, individualist = +10).

For example, John McCain would get a +4 on the republican axis, and a -1 on the statist axis. John Kyle would get a +6 on the republican axis, and a +4 on the individualist axis. Barbera Boxer would get a -6 on the democrat axis and a -7 on the statist axis. Adolf Hitler would get a +3 on the republican axis and a -10 on the statist axis.

I tend to favor the candidates that endorse individualist perspectives that affirm the rights of the one over the tyranny of the many. As long as the minority cannot rule the majority, and the majority cannot gang-mob the minority, everything seems to be fine for me.

To me, the word "liberal" implies a -4,-4 coordinate on that political map, or further south and left.
 
Adolf Hitler would get a +3 on the republican axis
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I learn something new every day. I never knew that ol' Adolf was a Republican.

And I suppose, in the same vein, Saddam Hussein would get a plus rating on the Democrat axis. :rolleyes:

Anyway, welcome to TFL! I wish you the best of luck w/ MoveOn.org, the DNC, the ACLU, and other groups concerning their respective views of firearms, self-defense, and the 2nd Amendment. I look forward to reading more posts. :)
 
I never knew that ol' Adolf was a Republican.
Click to expand...

He sure wasn't a communist/socialist/democrat/leftist whatever... He believed in private industry and individual achievement, he just also happened to believe in genocide, statist/fascist conquest and other undesireable traits.
 
Helmetcase----Not all liberals are anti-gun


You're right----it's officially 99.99%:p
You're not that far away--we can still salvage you. We Conservatives will forgive you in time:D
 
My point is that I don't think that you can classify Adolf as a Republican, or Saddam as a Democrat. :D That type of statement is irrelevant concerning the issue of being a pro-gun liberal -- am I right?
 
I have to put up with being called a liberal almost every day simply because I believe george bush is an evil script reader for his globalist handlers, and because I want the falsely named "patriot" act to expire, and because I am against the war on Americans possessing certain drugs, and because I wanted Kerry to win to restore divided government (and hopefully gridlock), and because I voted for Badnarik, and because I can't stand Limbaugh ever since he was bought off with huge contracts and started (he didn't always) bashing those who speak of high level government conspiracy, and because I can't stand the neo cons who are afraid to explain (or as in the case of most bush supporters, don't know) exactly what a "neo" conservative even is, **takes breath**, and because I consider the republicans traitors to the constitution (and their base) who are easily as dangerous as when the democRATS had one party rule, and because I refuse to submit to the false "left versus right, conservative versus liberal" controlled "debate."

 
Helmutcase

Not all liberals are anti-gun
Click to expand...

There is nothing you can say, or do, that would convince me that a reasonable person can be a liberal leftist...

Nothing!

Therefore, you being a reasonable person, CONVINCES me that you have a misconception of what a leftist liberal stands for.

You, are no Liberal.
 
Gun Control hurts us politically
Click to expand...
There it is, the real reason.

Too bad that once elected, any "pro-gun" feelings will be "forgotten" (or was a lie to begin with) on the march towards socialism. The liberal/left has put way too much political and ideological effort into gun-grabbing to ever be trusted with such an important issue, look at the blatent lies told by Kerry to try to fool gun owners.

The liberal/left will be lieing through their teeth the coming election season, don't fall for it. Once in power they will neuter the gun owners that cost them the last two elections, count on it.
 
My point is that I don't think that you can classify Adolf as a Republican, or Saddam as a Democrat. That type of statement is irrelevant concerning the issue of being a pro-gun liberal -- am I right?
Click to expand...

My point is that a liberal cannot be pro-gun. Liberals by nature are statists. They abhorr individual accountability, because it undermines all communal-social agendas they work towards. Some democrats are truly just misguided and still fight for individual rights and respect the bill of rights.

All liberals are statists, and as such fear an armed populace and view it as an unruly, ill-mannered mob. A very small number of Democrats do not fit that mould.

My point with hitler is that Statists can be left-or-right wingers. But it is increasingly difficult for a leftist to be pro-individual rights. They either have to come more to the right, or give up some of their individualized beliefs and go more left. You can't get both out of a leftist.
 
pointer said:
There is nothing you can say, or do, that would convince me that a reasonable person can be a liberal leftist...

Nothing!

Therefore, you being a reasonable person, CONVINCES me that you have a misconception of what a leftist liberal stands for.

You, are no Liberal.
Click to expand...


+1 pointer

Exactly. When you look at the NONSENSICAL nature of the policies and programs that leftist liberals advocate and support and defend, you can see clearly that a rational reasonable person couldn't possibly be a leftist liberal.

How can one observe the utter failure of gun control, or welfare statism, and believe in leftist programs?

You would have to be either a liar or a fool, or engage in the worst kind of doublethink.


-azurefly
 
Rebar said:
"Gun Control hurts us politically"


There it is, the real reason.
Click to expand...


+1 Rebar!

You're absolutely right.

To shy away, as a "leader," from what you truly believe simply because you know and fear that it will set the voters against you is COWARDICE and DUPLICITY.

We have seen democraps run for office toting a double-barrel, going on fake duck hunts, and proclaiming, "I'm pro-Second Amendment." :barf:
(Do they really believe we are fooled?!)

I noticed that it was the FIRST item on the list of facts that Helmetcase posted. Hmmm...

Keep an eye out, as you said, for democraps in 2006 and 2008 posing as pro-gun when they are utterly lying about it, and plan to attempt to ban guns over and over as they have done before.

They have not admitted that gun control is a failure.
They have admitted that PUBLICALLY ADMITTING YOU SUPPORT GUN CONTROL is a failure.

HUGE difference.

And that's why they are pretending to distance themselves from the policy of gun control. They know that if they make voters forget long enough to get themselves into office, they can go right back to attempting to get guns banned.



-azurefly
 
Well there is a difference between 'Liberal' in the way political parties have twisted it into and liberal. A true liberal is more about individual rights, what we now call libertarian. Private gun ownership is all about individual rights.
 
Well, I guess I learn something new every day. I never knew that ol' Adolf was a Republican.
Click to expand...

Actually, he came to power as a socialist...

The Nazi Party was aka, the "Nationalist Socialist Party"... :rolleyes:

Typical of leftist liberals... he subsequently became a fascist dictator...

South America and the Caribbean are repleat with examples of this switch-hitting as in Fidel Castro, a Communist Dictator who uses fascist methods of controlling the prolatariat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top