Q, it goes to show that we must be careful when using the words "liberal", "conservative", or any other label for that matter, because different people attach different meanings to them. For example, most "traditional liberals" would flat out contradict your assertion that you are a liberal (as you claimed). They would argue that no true "liberal" would support any kind of gun ownership.
BTW, let me say "YES. We want your support!" We want the support of anyone who believe in firearms freedoms.
Back to the subject: Many of us on TFL might be "liberal" when it comes to civil liberties (i.e. Bill of Rights freedoms), including myself (someone who nearly always votes Repub.- lesser of two evils). The problem is that "traditional liberals" are incredibly hypocritical. They are in fact "selective civil libertarians". On the one hand, they promote 1st and 4th amendment rights, and due process and equal protections to minorities, women, etc. (as do I), but then they not only ignore the 2nd and 10th amendment, they actively undermine them, which is why I hate them. I would vote Dem in a New York instant if they would simply have the balls to protect the 2nd and 10th amendment. I'm closely aligned with Dems in several categories of issues, and diametrically opposed to them in others. So, to the extent that you are using "liberal" to approximate "Democrat ideology at its extremes", then I think you are being oversimplistic. Dems and Repubs must be coalitions of vastly varying "types" in order to survive as a party in a two-party system. If you as a self-proclaimed "liberal" are the type that goes against traditional liberalism on RKBA, but with them on every other issue, then perhaps it's not too much of a stretch to call yourself a liberal. The point I'm trying to make is: Realize that there are severe shortcomings of any strict idealogy in a two-party system - this is an inherent flaw in such a system - there is virtually no chance that either one of the two parties will represent YOU (whoever you are) on every issue.
The problem with voting Dem for Pres in particular is that the office of Pres appoints the federal judges, who will be the real arbiters of our 2nd am rights (the legislative battles are so incredibly UNimportant, relative to Supreme Court appointments, that it's ridiculous - we need to start realizing this and lobbying NRA and GOA to put MUCH MUCH more of their budget into court battles than into legislative battles - legislation comes and goes; one court precedent can wipe out a whole host of past and future infringements on 2nd am, and provide a building block to more; winning a legislative battle is a much smaller building block; regardless of how much moronic legislation you can defeat this year, you can bet the farm that the same exact stuff will crop up next year by Feinstein, et al, or your respective gun-hating state rep).
You know, Democrat talking heads have this way of using elusive double-speak to convince a large portion of the public that "Dems are for the environment, Repubs are not; Dems are for the children, Repubs are not; Dems are for Education, Repubs are not". Well, of course it's hogwash. EVERYONE'S FOR THE CHILDREN. EVERYONE'S FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. EVERYONE'S FOR EDUCATION. It's just that Repubs think (usually correctly IMO) that what they're doing will help the children more; what they're doing will help education more (e.g. cutting federal spending on education ABSOLUTELY out of the budget; instead, letting the states keep their money so the states can provide a better bang for the buch to educate the kids). It really chaps my hide, because the Dems appeal is so simplistic, it works on the uneducated and uninformed, but the Dem pols know damn good and well their ideas are crap next to the Repubs most of the time. Although not politics, take as an analogy the endless appeals on TV to send "just .70 a day" to feed the children. I think we could all agree that most liberals think this is a good idea (prob a bad example, because conservatives would say private charity is indeed the way to handle this type of problem, but nevertheles...). Now, let's really analyze it: If one truly has compassion for the suffering there [insert third world country here] (as I do), then one will attempt to END THE SUFFERING, not PROLONG the suffering, right? So what would end the suffering? The answer is BIRTH CONTROL. Feeding the children and medicating them will have the effect of prolonging the suffering, because this will allow the children to survive long enough to procreate, multiplying the problem (their economy and/or natual resource simply cannot support the number of people living there). So, if the Sally Struthers' of the world would guarantee me that 3/4 of my money would go to birth control efforts, and 1/4 to feeding, etc., then I would be the first to give. But the "liberals" are so short-sighted, they would apparently rather increase the total amount of suffering for the short-term gain of decreasing the existing children's suffering. Haze me if I'm wrong, but most of the time, Democrats just aren't thinking it through - gun control is no exception. Of course, I hate Repubs, too, because they are constantly promoting the War on Drugs/Fed LE budgets, increased military spending (my God, how big of a military do we need?), tort reform (read "taking the very last shred of power held by citizens from them - the jury system"), campaign reform (so that only rich people can effectively run for office; any poor person with good ideas must incessantly fund-raise $1000 a pop instead of doing our business when they're in office), state-sponsored Christianity, tax breaks for the very rich, the list goes on.
OK, I rode that horse long enough.... This is neither here nor there, but I saw a bumper sticker: "Mean People Kick Ass". Also, a "Jesus Fish" sprouting legs, and reading "Darwin" within.
[This message has been edited by Exiled And Addicted (edited February 22, 1999).]
