Pro-RKBA liberals?

Why do the liberals always have turn a gun issue into a gay rights problem.
Redworm, what is your total obssesion wih gay marriage any way, and why do you keep shoving it in our faces.

If your so concerned about males sodomizing each other then either start a separate thread or join a gay forum!

Now, can we get back to liberal gun thinking, PLEASE?
 
Why do the liberals always have turn a gun issue into a gay rights problem.
Redworm, what is your total obssesion wih gay marriage any way, and why do you keep shoving it in our faces.

If your so concerned about males sodomizing each other then either start a separate thread or join a gay forum!

Now, can we get back to liberal gun thinking, PLEASE?
Click to expand...
Because gay rights - like women rights, black rights, hispanic rights, etc - are an extension of human rights and if the second amendment isn't being exercised in the protection of human rights and human life then it is utterly useless.

Again, those that care so much about having guns but want to control the lives of others do not care about freedom and liberty, they would simply prefer to be the oppressors rather than the oppressed. Every time an ultra social conservative complains about the evil liberals trying to take guns away to control the people I'm going to remind that ultra social conservative that he wants his guns for that very same purpose.
 
Why do the liberals always have turn a gun issue into a gay rights problem.
Redworm, what is your total obssesion wih gay marriage any way, and why do you keep shoving it in our faces.

If your so concerned about males sodomizing each other then either start a separate thread or join a gay forum!

Now, can we get back to liberal gun thinking, PLEASE?
Click to expand...
+1 +1 +1:D
Because gay rights - like women rights, black rights, hispanic rights, etc - are an extension of human rights
Click to expand...
And the right to protect one's self and family is also a human right - a human right the Democrat/leftist/socialist politicians have no problem trying to destroy.
 
The problem is, conservatives aren't so conservative any more. The Republican party has taken on way too many of the attributes of their supposed opponents. The choice we are being offered today is socialism or "socialism lite."
Click to expand...

Now just a second. Are you trying to tell me that you have aligned yourself with the Party of the Big Corporation and are then surprised when their great success gives control of the many to the few at the top?
 
Why do the liberals always have turn a gun issue into a gay rights problem.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you trace the quotation correctly, it was a conservative advocate who brought gay issues into the debate within this thread. I merely noted the irony inherent in his comment.

Two legs good, four legs bad ...

PS - My bad, it is in the first post too. Oh well, win some, lose some.
 
The Democrats will trade our safety and our right to protect ourselves for more power and control for their political elite.
Click to expand...

The Democrats want power and control for a political elite. The Republicans do not want power and control for a political elite? Twist-ed.
 
Now just a second. Are you trying to tell me that you have aligned yourself with the Party of the Big Corporation and are then surprised when their great success gives control of the many to the few at the top?
Click to expand...
Did I say that?? No. If you think it would be any different with John Kerry or Hillary Clinton in the White House, you are delusional. They would just give control to a different group.
 
Why the big concern over what's going on in somebody else's pants?
Click to expand...


Because they can't control what's going on in there!!!!!!!!!!!




Wait for it ...


Wait for it ...



:D :p :D :p :D

(my apologies, that was just wrong)
 
Steel, you just hit my delima. I view all human rights as essential, be they the right for gay people to not be second class citizens or for people to have a right to self defense. So what's someone like me supposed to, not vote? I tend to vote for Democrats but by no large percentage.

Redworm makes a good point. I've really gotten upset watching the Republican party tell me what I can watch, where I can travel, where I can have a 'free speech zone' (I thought the whole country was one), who I can spend my life with, and so on. I think that's very detrimental. At the same time, I get really pissed when another politican tells me that I can't enjoy my hobby because it will somehow make me violent.

I initially mentioned gays because I do believe they have a better understanding than the standard liberal on this issue. They understand being looked down upon and they definatly understand self defense. I know plenty gays and about a third of them have had some pretty good training in either martial arts or other weapons, and most of the rest are perfectly ok with carrying a weapon. The limp wristed lisping stereotype covers maybe 15% of gay guys, most are pretty inconspicious. This is off the point though, but I thought you should know why I even brought it up.

Oh, and I only brought out the neo-con label after I got compared to a Muslim terrorist :P You know, the fact is that I'm probably more center of the road then I care to admit. We're quite a polarized society now, aren't we?
 
Steel, you just hit my delima.
Click to expand...
It's not just your dilemma Night - it's everybody's dilemma. It seems that the (D)'s support some rights, the (R)'s support others and We The People have to choose, which creates polarization.

Why the (D)'s and (R)'s can't both support ALL of the Bill of Rights is a mystery to me; it makes no sense.

It's the old battle between citizens (who want freedom) vs. politicians (who want control), not so much a battle between (D)'s and (R)'s.
 
Why the (D)'s and (R)'s can't both support ALL of the Bill of Rights is a mystery to me; it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I say. And why I think we need to revamp the system to get some third parties in with a fighting chance. The two parties have gotten so complacent that they know that no matter WHAT they do they're only one of two choices.. one will win no matter what. That's gotta change. I don't think we'll see much improvement until it does. Question is how the hell do we manage that sort of change without screwing is up even more. I think good ol grassroots might stand a chance, but who knows.

EDIT:

Seriously, think about it. If tomorrow the GOP platform added "We want to kill one in two baby boys by bashing their skull in with an ice pick" and the Democratic one said "We strive to feed one in two baby girls to a tiger" one of the parties would still win with our system. It's pretty lousy if you ask me. It's like saying you're going to rape a man and giving him the choice of lubricants (a bit explicit of an example I know)
 
Last edited:
Redworm makes a good point. I've really gotten upset watching the Republican party tell me what I can watch, where I can travel, where I can have a 'free speech zone' (I thought the whole country was one), who I can spend my life with, and so on.
Click to expand...
You can spend your life with anyone you want, that's not the point. The problem is subverting the meaning and application of the law by changing the definition of a word in an effort to get in on the corrupt Ponzi scheme of Social Security.

Just about everything else can be constructed with durable powers of attorney, trusts, and other legal mechanisms.
 
You may not have said those exact words. But you DID say these:

The choice we are being offered today is socialism or "socialism lite."
Click to expand...

Even when I was a kid the Republican party was the party of Big Business. When republicans blather on about the crappiness of tort lawyers and support caps on malpractice claims, they are supporting big business over the little guy.

You wanted Big Business. Now you got it. Not only are the Republicans pro-big-business, but the Democrats have to be too, in order to get any funding. Big Business and the UN go together. Big Business and outsourcing go together. Big Business and the import of cheap labor (legal or not) go together.

Socialism's controls work mostly on business. Republicans have arranged it so that corporations do pretty much what they want. And they want you. They want you poor so you'll work cheap. They want you scared of Mohammed so you won't ask questions like "what did you learn when you read the USA Patriot act just before you voted for it?" And they want your guns.
 
I wish there were more than two ****ty choices, but I have to take the one that smells the least rotten until the system changes...
Click to expand...
If discontented voters hold on to this belief, nothing will change. The idea that if you wait long enough "until the system changes" is the very reason the system is not changing.

No third party, fourth party, or other, will become strong enough to be a contender.

What issues are most important to you? You'll never find a candidate, let alone and entire party who has the same view as you with regard to all topics.

With WI politics, and having just lost our latest attempt for concealed carry legislation passage, I will most likely -- no definitely -- vote based on one issue. Take a guess.

If people would focus more on individual issues, rather than aligning themselves with a propagandized portrayal of a party's philosophy, this country might actually make some progress.
 
Conservatives USED to be about "limited Government". Real conservatives still are.

Liberals USED to be about "Human Rights". Real liberals still are.

Politicians are ALWAYS about "Power". The "Liberal" founding fathers knew about Human rights and knew that owning firearms was necessary to live in a free state; that is, a state of freedom.

Gun Owners in America also know something about "Power". They possess and control it through their ownership and "self-control" of their firearms. Criminal acts used with firearms allow "Politicians" to "Do Something" about "Crime" which incrementally chips away at law-abiding citizens "legal ownersip" of firearms and also just happens to give them (Pols) some "more" power over said gun owners. Something that the original, liberal founding fathers expressly wrote into the Constitution required for ratification by the States as forbidden.

One party has led the charge on this type of legislation and has also identified itself as the "liberal" party, tho' the other party, historically more "conservative" is not also without it's moments of stupidity in regards to firearm legislation or executive order.

And so it goes. Pot calls kettle black, when both are the same color in some regards.

But it's all about POWER, SELF CONTROL v. Governmental CONTROL and meddlin' in things that shouldn't be meddled with.

My father was a yellow-dog Democrat who loved his firearms and disliked (to use a mild term) all things Republican as the R's were all about BIG BUSINESS who, traditionally, stomped on the rights and welfare of "THE PEOPLE" in order to make obscene amounts of money, workers be damned. He was a UNION man, blue collar worker and ALL of his fellow union workers that I met and knew, owned firearms, could shoot them quite well and were disgusted by the government's stance in '68.

They were not liberal.

But they WERE Democrats.

A government SHOULD protect Human Rights instead of building more Power to use against it's citizens. Neither party today can be counted on to do anything except strive for office, thus more power, thus more money in their pockets/coffers.

Limited Government is Dead. The real and only true check and balance left, unfortunately, is an armed citizenry... who is asleep at the wheel or afraid to ruffle governmental feathers.

Besides, even if said feathers were ruffled... who or what would replace that which now governs?
 
Pro-RKBA liberals are the exception, not the rule. Individual firearm ownership conflicts with something in the basic, deep-seated, socialistic outlook of modern liberalism.

There are liberal gunowners, just as there are anti-gun conservatives. Without delving too deeply into the numerous and various flaws of each of the parties in existance, I'll just say that every single one - yes, even yours - have their problems.

The two major parties and their associated philosophies each have certain issues for which they tend to be supportive of greater restrictions and certain issues for which they tend to support greater liberty. For those who associate themselves with modern liberalism, firearm ownership is (on a party level) an issue where the majority support and work at enacting greater restrictions. Thus, most advocates of gun ownership find themselves commonly opposed to self-proclaimed liberals. When a liberal shows up and says "Hey, I like guns too!" the supporters of RKBA notice a basic conflict.

Saying "I'm a liberal but I like guns," is a lot like saying "I'm a neo-con but I like a small government." It may be true, but your tribe is dragging you full-tilt in the opposite direction.
 
A government SHOULD protect Human Rights instead of building more Power to use against it's citizens. Neither party today can be counted on to do anything except strive for office, thus more power, thus more money in their pockets/coffers.

Limited Government is Dead. The real and only true check and balance left, unfortunately, is an armed citizenry... who is asleep at the wheel or afraid to ruffle governmental feathers.
Click to expand...
Roger that!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top