View Full Version : Liberals who support the Second Amendment
It is not all that common, but there is a particular sort of Liberal who actually believes that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, part of the Bill of Rights and as such the RTKBA is an individual right. The Democratic Underground (open a beer and check it out some evening) has a whole gun section on their forum.
I get all my news thru Google News. It is the only 'paper' I read. Today a story popped up from the Daily Kos (yes I know) written by a Liberal who is appealing to other Libs to support the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment
Check it out. Also check out the comment page. Some of the comments may surprise you. Of course, some won't.
Here in PA we have a lot of "blue dog democrats", plenty of pro gun, some pro-life dems.
I came across the Democratic Underground by accident once. Just glancing at the URL name, I immediately hopped over to the 2nd Amendment / Firearms section, assuming I'd see the usual "guns are evil" arguments.
I was indeed surprised to see that the majority of them over there support the 2nd Amendment. A large amount of their posts seemed blue-dog in nature, only erring on the side of liberalism instead of full-blown whack-job crap. To be honest, for a minute I thought I was on a Republican / Conservative site (until I ventured outside of the firearms area anyways).
In general, that type of liberal doesn't provoke me, as anyone who can respect the 2nd Amendment for what it really is typically understands what the Constitution stands for and the subsequent rights that we have. With that type of liberal, I find myself more frequently saying "I can agree to disagree" rather than dismissing them entirely as defunct and uneducated.
Just my .02
RogerinTPA
07-10-10, 13:51
I was quite surprised that they wrote a pretty decent article. It was a good read...I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
woodandsteel
07-10-10, 14:32
I was quite surprised that they wrote a pretty decent article. It was a good read...I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
I'm shocked as well.
I actually clicked on the "DailyKos" website, and my computer survived the ordeal.
I still don't trust left thinking people to protect my rights. But, it was a good article. Hopefully it made a few people think.
I'm pretty "liberal" from the social perspective, depending on your interpretation of the idea. I know many like myself who also are avid shooters and supporters of ALL of the Bill of Rights. I think too many associate the idea of being liberal with a Washington Democrat; among many other things. It's a all a spectrum with gradients, not so clear cut and black and white. Not every person with a more liberal mindset is going to be a Diane Feinstein just like every conservative isn't going to be a Rush Limbaugh. Gross generalizations, dismissals, and prejudices do a disservice to both conservatives and liberals alike.
A "liberal" that calls himself pro-2A but turns around and votes for turds like Pelosi, Reid, Obamao, etc. ain't truly 2A or pro-gun - they delude themselves.
It is not all that common, but there is a particular sort of Liberal who actually believes that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, part of the Bill of Rights and as such the RTKBA is an individual right.
A true liberal thought about it fully, they would see there is no more true "liberal" cause then that of the basic human right of self defense. A few favorite liberal comments on the issue. Yes, there are a few who "get it" :cool:
Liberals Need Not Fear the Right to Bear Arms
Michael Helmeste
Published Thursday, June 7, 2007
Issue 137 / Volume 87
I’m a liberal. My voting record is largely Green Party and Democrat. I’m a strong environmentalist - I respect and treat all life equally. I think equal opportunity is a good concept, and I view our international policy with distaste.
I’m also a gun collector and strong proponent of the Second Amendment.
People have been misled to think that guns are a Republican thing. That’s unfortunate. Gun ownership is the most liberal thing I can imagine. It’s about keeping power in the hands of the people instead of being exclusively the tools of government and the rich. It’s about equality, letting an old woman defend herself as well as a bodybuilder. It’s about being able to protect not only the people that are important to us but the rest of our freedoms as well.
In an effort to garner votes, the Democrats have used guns as a scapegoat like the Republicans have used terror. They’ve created boogymen like “assault weapons” to convince constituents something is being done about the fundamentally human problem of violence. By banning guns, Democrats want you to believe something is being done to bring down crime. Do you know the definition of assault weapon? It’s not a machine gun. It’s a gun that has features like a grip that protrudes from the bottom or a bayonet lug. When’s the last time anyone was bayoneted? Another sensationalized item is hollow point ammo - bullets that flatten when they hit something. The police switched to hollow points because the alternative, round bullets, had a tendency to go straight through objects, ricochet and they also require a greater number of shots to stop attackers.
Guns aren’t even the most damaging method of killing. In the Happy Land Fire, a man killed 87 people with one dollar’s worth of gas. The record number of deaths at a school is held by a person with a bomb, not a gun. A nut job with a car in a crowded area can do more damage than a man with a bag full of guns. Where’s our gas licensing? Let’s ban cars. Americans understand cars; not many understand guns because they’re getting their information from a media that loves to sensationalize. You hear about one psychopath killer, but not about the thousands of people who were saved from being murdered or raped.
Guns are the best tools we as citizens have for defense. Not only has the Supreme Court ruled that police have no obligation to protect individuals, but it’s a physical impossibility for police to be there at all times. We shouldn’t rely on others for self-defense.
Guns also protect our freedoms. They ensure that, if necessary, the people have means to offer resistance to rogue authority. It wasn’t long ago that rogue police officers, after illegally disarming the citizenry, took advantage of Hurricane Katrina to steal much-needed food and supplies. A liberal should know that authority figures commit crimes every day. If we take physical power away from the people, what’s left to balance against governmental abuse? If we take guns away from the people, only criminals and the government will have them.
Banning guns to reduce violence is like playing Whac-A-Mole, remove one weapon and another will pop up. People have one less way to hurt each other out of billions. Unfortunately the unique benefits guns provide are gone, along with the lack of shootings, and there’s no replacing them.
It’s a citizen’s duty to vote with an informed understanding. Next time you see a gun control bill, don’t agree because it looks like common sense. Take the time to educate yourself on the terms, try substituting “gun” for “car” to remove an emotional bias. Place Second Amendment infringements in the context of better understood ones. Should we ban Ferraris because they’re too fast for normal citizens, or revolutionary texts because they’re too powerful? Go to a range and try out a gun. How could someone who’s never shot a gun dictate what types are and aren’t allowed?
Bearing arms is a constitutional right. It’s an empowerment of the citizenry that, like free speech, must be preserved for the most dire circumstances, lest we find it gone when we most need it. Let’s not define a freedom by its abuse, and let’s not give it up just because we don’t understand it.
Michael Helmeste is a UCSB staff member.
__________________________________
Guns are for liberals, too
By: Mike Eber
The Michigan Daily
University of Michigan
Posted: 11/26/07
If there is one issue that alienates me from my liberal counterparts, it's gun rights. So when the Supreme Court decided last week to hear its first Second Amendment case since the 1930s, and as the College Libertarians raffled off a gun voucher, I felt a bit alienated from other liberals. This experience has forced me to re-evaluate what it truly means to be a liberal.
I attribute my liberal leanings to my upbringing in a politically liberal home. Because of the ideology of my parents and older sister, I get plenty of heat for my beliefs about gun ownership. When I turned 21, my mother asked me if I was excited to finally drink legally on campus. I responded that I could really care less about joining my peers in the teeming, sweaty mess people call Rick's. For me, turning 21 was really exciting because I gained the right to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Michigan. I was met with the usual emotional response - comments that I was "sick" and would never be welcome in my mother's house if I chose to buy a gun.
As I wonder what led me to be the black sheep of my liberal family, I remember my middle-school social studies teacher, Mr. Jankowski. Mr. J, as we called him, sported a glass eye and a passion for civil liberties. I now realize Mr. J educated our class indirectly in the political philosophy of John Locke. While teaching lessons on the Bill of Rights, he would explain that this perceived necessity to bear arms is not only for self-defense but is also essential to preserve a democratic society. If a government does not fear an armed populace, then that government is not truly democratic, because it does not need to respect the electorate's authority.
Through our lessons, we learned that a democratic and civilian-controlled military is never to be taken for granted, which necessitates civilian armament. Gun ownership rights are, in fact, the first rights restricted when a democratic society turns for the worst. Weimar Germany was a free society that treated Jews better than most other places in Europe. Then Adolph Hitler came to power. As The New York Times reported in 1938, after Kristallnacht, Hitler declared an edict "forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon."
Consider our presidential election in 2000. Blatantly ignoring the will of Florida voters, the U.S. Supreme Court handed victory to Bush on a technicality. Liberals agreed that there was nothing more to do in appeal, but according to Locke, if a government is guilty of systematic abuse of its power, then citizens have a right install legitimate rule. Instead, liberals stood by willingly after the ruling, acting as if they had just lost a close football game.
We may not need a compelling reason to own a firearm other than the fact that an armed populace is necessary for the security of a free state. Anti-Patriot Act liberals should realize that if they cannot trust the government to respect the privacy of their phone calls or to grant proper due process, then they should probably not also assume the government can be trusted not to disarm its citizens in the name of public safety.
My liberal friends love to cite instances like the Virginia Tech shooting and violent crime statistics as emotional appeals to restrict gun rights. I have heard that guns are more lethal than knives and make society more dangerous rather than promoting general safety. I definitely concede this fact: In the best of all worlds, nobody would need to ensure for his or her own defense. Similarly, in this utopia, we would not need to bother with the constraints of due processes because the government would always be righteous.
Like Ben Franklin and all other liberals, I would not give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety. Weighing public safety against the liberty of gun ownership and establishing militia follow in the same vein. Many Americans scoff at the necessity of modern day minutemen, and I hope they will not be needed in our lifetime. However, preserving the Second Amendment is like having a good insurance policy: You may hate making the monthly payments, but you sure are glad you did when an inferno consumes your house.
ChicagoTex
07-10-10, 16:26
The conundrum is that we Pro-2A Progressives (which is not the same as Pro-2A Democrats anymore than a Pro-2A Conservative is a staunch Republican) aren't one-issue voters. We select our candidates over their stance on a wide range of issues and I'll admit that I will, and have in the past, vote for a politician with anti-gun inclinations in exchange for a proper perspective on economic and social issues.
I've noticed for some time that many conservatives tend to use Pro-2A and "Pro-Life" as deal-breaker issues and will refuse to vote for a candidate if the candidate isn't in line on them with those issues, the rest doesn't matter to these voters.
While I, myself, have my own deal-breaker positions, those aren't them, and are far less frequently issues for Democrats or Republicans alike.
ThirdWatcher
07-10-10, 16:40
I've never heard of the Democratic Underground before, but being pro-2A sounds more libertarian that liberal (in the context of the terms used today. I seem to remember something John Stossel wrote about how the term "liberal" used to describe what has now become "libertarian" ideals.
I've never heard of the Democratic Underground before, but being pro-2A sounds more libertarian that liberal (in the context of the terms used today. I seem to remember something John Stossel wrote about how the term "liberal" used to describe what has now become "libertarian" ideals.
You are very right on that aspect. The term used now to describe what liberalism was is 'Classical Liberalism'.
PrivateCitizen
07-10-10, 18:37
Anti-2A is a sure-fire way to get me to vote against you.
Support of the 2A does NOT mean I will vote for you.
Yes Reid, I'm looking at you …
There seem to be at least two types of "liberals" who are "pro-gun":
1. Those that are philosophical about it and simply recognize that there is a right to keep and bear arms. They are closer to "classical liberals." There are actually quite a few of these on liberal web forums like Democratic Underground.
2. Rural/Blue Dog democrats who grew up with guns and hunting. I tend to think of West Virginia, Ohio, Western PA, and similar places as having a lot of these. The problem is that many of them tend to be "Fudds" who simply want their hunting rifles left alone, and will throw the right to keep and bear arms generally under the bus in a heartbeat. They are not concerned with any "right" per se, but merely with their ability to own Fudd guns (even if that be by government "permission" rather than by right).
since the second amendment is currently the only right we're totally denied, i would sooner shoot myself in the foot than vote for a candidate that wasn't for the complete abolition of all federal gun laws.
and since i won't shoot myself in the foot either, suffice it to say i haven't voted in a while.
i don't even know what "liberal," "conservative," or even "libertarian" or other basically cliche'd words mean anymore. how can you be a "liberal" in the common, modern usage, and think you support the Constitution? i think you're simply having an identity problem- you're not a liberal.
if you think it's OK to legislate behavior, you're no "liberal." you're a utopianist (yes, i made that up).
---
being liberal used to be a good thing. it meant you wanted liberty above all- hence the term. but minds got confused, and these people then started legislating liberties- and for every liberty legislated, the majority lost freedoms. pretty soon it just became the standard MO- if you don't like something, make another law.
now liberals represent all those laws, and want more- liberty has been forgotten, now it's about utopia. liberty is attainable, and good. utopia is neither. their utopia is my oppression. but they don't care- they gained power through legislation in the last century, and so long as they're allowed, they'll do what they want.
liberals- please refute me.
variablebinary
07-10-10, 20:38
Dont let these devils chip away at your resolve for even a second.
Liberals know their dogma is shit with the majority of Americans, and want to take the sting out of being called "liberal"
These rat bastards would happily vote for elected officials that would love to take away your "high powered rifles"
Never trust a liberal. Never. Dont fall into this "classic liberal" vs neo liberal argument.
Liberalism is an absolute mental disorder no matter how you package it.
ChicagoTex I'd personally spurn the word progressivism because it entails "progress" toward statism, in other words "progressive" change toward statism as opposed to "revolutionary" change toward statism. Being a social liberal is one thing, being a "progressive" is something else entirely.
Many people may be classically liberal like JFK, but what we have to realize is that, ironically, JFK would probably be considered a "conservative" these days since liberalism has been usurped by leftism (e.g., in addition to being pro civil rights JFK was for lowering taxes and having a strong military, and I believe he was pro 2nd Amendment).
Anyway the idea of a bigger and more powerful State that takes care of us all, using policies of wealth re-distribution, read nanny state, entails a level of centrally controlled governmental power and a bureaucratic reality that is inherently antithetical to the level of personal liberties traditionally guaranteed by our Constitution. This is why the modern liberal, or neo-liberal, whom in fact has become a traditional leftist tends to want more power in the hands of the State (of who's power structure he either wants to be a part of, or at least take advantage of its doled out entitlements) and out of the hands of the People.
Less free speech rights and less 2nd amendment rights are then in line with making the individual smaller and the Government bigger, hence the inclination of the neo-liberals, aka leftists, toward squashing these rights, including 2nd amendment rights.
But for those of you that consider themselves liberal, fight the leftists in your own ranks with vigor, because you can't have it both ways. You can't vote for leftists like Pelosi, Reed, and Obama that want to dismantle key parts of our Constitutionally based Republic and Bill of Rights, in order to get more government entitlements and still declare that in fact you still support gun rights, and other elements of our Bill of Rights that are under attack.
Dont let these devils chip away at your resolve for even a second.
Liberals know their dogma is shit with the majority of Americans, and want to take the sting out of being called "liberal"
These rat bastards would happily vote for elected officials that would love to take away your "high powered rifles"
Never trust a liberal. Never. Dont fall into this "classic liberal" vs neo liberal argument.
Liberalism is an absolute mental disorder no matter how you package it.
F'kn A right brother. You can call em what you want: liberal, national socialist, progressive, neo-Marxist, Maoist, Greenpeacer... I call 'em sick turds and enemies of everything America stands for. I just use the word "zombies" because that is what they are, braindead.
...and I'll admit that I will, and have in the past, vote for a politician with anti-gun inclinations in exchange for a proper perspective on economic and social issues.
I just threw up in my mouth more than a little bit.
rickrock305
07-10-10, 21:35
if you think it's OK to legislate behavior, you're no "liberal." you're a utopianist (yes, i made that up).
every party or political movement is guilty of this.
variablebinary
07-10-10, 21:36
F'kn A right brother. You can call em what you want: liberal, national socialist, progressive, neo-Marxist, Maoist, Greenpeacer... I call 'em sick turds and enemies of everything America stands for. I just use the word "zombies" because that is what they are, braindead.
Liberals are always trying to repackage their nonsense into something more palatable. They are ashamed and few stand up and proudly say "I am a liberal"
Why?
Liberal is a dirty word. You may as well say you have AIDS. So now they call themselves progressives. However Glenn Beck ruined that for them, so now I am increasingly seeing terms like "true progressive", "classic progressive", to blur the line between liberalism and libertarianism.
Dont fall for it. Dont let them change the argument and control thought by controlling speech.
When in doubt, if you need a reminder, just think of this person
http://politicaldamage.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/pelosi-nancy-stare.jpg
When in doubt, if you need a reminder, just think of this person
Who me?
http://www.missourah.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/pelosi_skeletor.png
ChicagoTex
07-11-10, 00:28
Dont let these devils chip away at your resolve for even a second.
Liberals know their dogma is shit with the majority of Americans, and want to take the sting out of being called "liberal"
These rat bastards would happily vote for elected officials that would love to take away your "high powered rifles"
Never trust a liberal. Never. Dont fall into this "classic liberal" vs neo liberal argument.
Liberalism is an absolute mental disorder no matter how you package it.
F'kn A right brother. You can call em what you want: liberal, national socialist, progressive, neo-Marxist, Maoist, Greenpeacer... I call 'em sick turds and enemies of everything America stands for. I just use the word "zombies" because that is what they are, braindead.
Boy, I'm sure glad we could have a mature, reasonable, and civil discussion about this without resorting to pigeonholing and ad hominem attacks. Oh wait... :rolleyes:
ChicagoTex I'd personally spurn the word progressivism because it entails "progress" toward statism, in other words "progressive" change toward statism as opposed to "revolutionary" change toward statism. Being a social liberal is one thing, being a "progressive" is something else entirely.
You've used an awful lot of words to say absolutely nothing except that you personally associate the word "progressive" with "statism" rather than recognizing it for the word it simply is. A progressive is simply someone who looks at the way things have been done, the way things are done, and looks to do something better and greater. In short, a progressive doesn't think the answer to today's problems is to rewind to 1776.
Moving on, there are a lot of folks here making that the argument that people who support people who are willing to compromise on the right to keep and bear arms (or any other right enumerated in the current Constitution) ultimately aren't supporting the Constitution. This is absolutely true, and people who argue otherwise ARE deluding themselves.
...
No, I haven't just argued myself into a box. I simply don't recognize the current U.S. Constitution as having anything to do, in and of itself, with what should or shouldn't be true today.
So many political arguments center around whether or not a certain idea is constitutional - this is flawed thinking to me. Political arguments should be based on whether or not a certain idea is right and appropriate for the people it serves at the time it serves them. Our national history of amending the Constitution has already proven this argument to be true.
I support the right to keep and bear arms because I view it as a fundamental human right, not because it's in the constitution; but I won't support it at the expense of all else. Most (if not all) Pro-RKBA Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/What Have You feel the same way.
ChicagoTex
07-11-10, 00:31
Another point that's been oversold in this thread:
All liberals aren't Pelosi, Reid, Obama any more than All conservatives are W. Bush, Palin, Wilson. Keep posting goofy Pelosi pics if you want, but know that there is absolutely no cogent point behind them.
lethal dose
07-11-10, 00:45
As much as I dislike him, gov strickland in Ohio has always been very pro gun. He is currently looking to pass legislation allowing ccw in establishments where alcohol can be consumed. About time.
ThirdWatcher
07-11-10, 01:58
I simply don't recognize the current U.S. Constitution as having anything to do, in and of itself, with what should or shouldn't be true today.
I'm afraid I gotta part company here. IMHO, the US Constitution is the foundation on which this country is based on.
ChicagoTex
07-11-10, 02:18
IMHO, the US Constitution is the foundation on which this country is based on.
Is it the Constitution itself, or it's content?
When you refer to the Constitution, to which version do you refer? The original Articles of the Confederation? The original ratified draft of the second United States Constitution? As of 1789? The Current one? Something in between?
Is there no part of the Constitution you'd like to see tweaked, changed, removed, or added?
The big problem with "liberals" is they can't seem to make the connection between all the BS regulations they complain about when they go to buy a gun, and their desire to "prevent the wrong people from buying them." To some degree it's their belief in their right to keep and bear arms... other people possibly not so much. This is the same problem that develops with their other social engineering legislation. Not only is it illegal, it doesn't even work as advertised. TSA screening anyone?
Aside from the usual hard core overt communists/statists, best as I can tell the "no guns in this house" mentality among people under 45 was buried under the rubble of the World Trade Center or washed away by Katrina. Nobody who works for a living, or wants to work for a living believes that when the chips are down the cavalry will be coming over the horizon. The government can't even plug a hole.
I simply don't recognize the current U.S. Constitution as having anything to do, in and of itself, with what should or shouldn't be true today.
I hope you are kidding, or that I somehow misread this. There isn't going to be any "rational" or "mature" discussion if this is the foundation of your beliefs.
Anti-2A is a sure-fire way to get me to vote against you.
Support of the 2A does NOT mean I will vote for you.
Well said and ditto for me.
Is it the Constitution itself, or it's content?
When you refer to the Constitution, to which version do you refer? The original Articles of the Confederation? The original ratified draft of the second United States Constitution? As of 1789? The Current one? Something in between?
Is there no part of the Constitution you'd like to see tweaked, changed, removed, or added?
The one that currently exists.
This isn't hard. You're making ridiculous, post-modern, "nothing is as it seems" bullshit arguments.
If you don't like something in there, you don't pretend it doesn't exist. You amend it.
F'kn A right brother. You can call em what you want: liberal, national socialist, progressive, neo-Marxist, Maoist, Greenpeacer... I call 'em sick turds and enemies of everything America stands for. I just use the word "zombies" because that is what they are, braindead.
+1. They are the cancer that is destroying this Country from the inside out. Quite rapidly I might add.
Another poster said that he may have, in the past voted for anti-2A candidates...Not me. As a matter of fact, I am the polar opposite. I vote for candidates soley on their 2A stance. I will vote pro-2A every day of the week and twice on Sundays. In my eyes, the 2nd Amendment is the very cornerstone of our freedom. Without it, we the people are just unarmed subjects who are the perfect victims for a tyrannical regime. Sheesh, come to think of it, we are all just one step above that right now (we get to own some, not all, of the guns we like).
As for someone not recognizing the Constitution in its "un-molested" form...your kidding...right? Its that very Constitution that "allows" you to think in such an illogical manner. When I hear statements like that , I shutter to think how far the IQ has dropped on the average American. Quite alarming indeed. The Government indoctrination centers...oops, I mean public schools are doing their jobs effectively as evident by such statements. To say that the Constitution should be perverted "to fit the times" shows an utter lack of knowledge of the contents and the Founding Fathers intent . Heres a clue....Some principles are TIMELESS.
I simply don't recognize the current U.S. Constitution as having anything to do, in and of itself, with what should or shouldn't be true today.
:confused:
.
I support the right to keep and bear arms because I view it as a fundamental human right, not because it's in the constitution;
I see it as a Basic Human Right the 2A recognizes as such and protects, made prior, via the Declaration that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
One of those unalienable Rights is that of the right of self defense, be it from tyranny or criminals or foreign aggression.
Boy, I'm sure glad we could have a mature, reasonable, and civil discussion about this without resorting to pigeonholing and ad hominem attacks. Oh wait... :rolleyes:
Right. I don't mince words with Leftist Zombies. You are what you are and I will gladly call you on it.
A progressive is simply someone who looks at the way things have been done, the way things are done, and looks to do something better and greater.
And that is the problem with you zombies. You can't leave well enough alone. You think you can come along every few years and reinvent the wheel. You learn nothing from history. You quite simply, are braindead.
Moving on, there are a lot of folks here making that the argument that people who support people who are willing to compromise on the right to keep and bear arms (or any other right enumerated in the current Constitution) ultimately aren't supporting the Constitution. This is absolutely true, and people who argue otherwise ARE deluding themselves.
...
No, I haven't just argued myself into a box.
Actually, yes you did.
I simply don't recognize the current U.S. Constitution as having anything to do, in and of itself, with what should or shouldn't be true today.
And that sentiment right there makes you and your ilk, the most dangerous creatures on Earth. While you may be a gentleman, your philosophy sucks donkey balls.
I support the right to keep and bear arms because I view it as a fundamental human right, not because it's in the constitution; but I won't support it at the expense of all else. Most (if not all) Pro-RKBA Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/What Have You feel the same way.
Then you don't support it at all. You are correct in that the Constitution doesn't "give" us the RTKBA, God does. It one of those unalienable rights that is discussed in the Declaration of Independence, meaning that Man does not give us those rights, they come from a higher power. The Constitution just lays it out in ink and makes it Law.
Your pathetic philosophy begs the question: Just what do you support at the expense of all else??
Declaration of Independence, meaning that Man does not give us those rights, they come from a higher power.
There's no higher power required. If by some magic wand, it was discovered there is no "higher" power, would the right revert back to man's law? No, The Rights are that of Natural/Fundamental Rights that are "self evident" and require no higher powers/gods, etc. to justify or explain it.
Basic/Fundamental Human Rights require no higher authorities. I'm not religious and I hold those truths as self evident.
There's no higher power required. If by some magic wand, it was discovered there is no "higher" power, would the right revert back to man's law? No, The Rights are that of Natural/Fundamental Rights that are "self evident" and require no higher powers/gods, etc. to justify or explain it.
Basic/Fundamental Human Rights require no higher authorities. I'm not religious and I hold those truths as self evident.
Will, lets not get into a religious argument. You can call it a Natural Law or I can say "coming from a higher power". Who cares? The bottom line is that they are unalienable - they existed before man and they exist without man. They just simply ARE.
The bottom line is this: NO MAN can authorize whether the right to 2A exists or not. NO MAN gives another the right to defend himself from criminal acts or political tyranny. And certainly NO F'KN ZOMBIE can do what MAN cannot.
Dont let these devils chip away at your resolve for even a second.
Liberals know their dogma is shit with the majority of Americans, and want to take the sting out of being called "liberal"
These rat bastards would happily vote for elected officials that would love to take away your "high powered rifles"
Never trust a liberal. Never. Dont fall into this "classic liberal" vs neo liberal argument.
Liberalism is an absolute mental disorder no matter how you package it.
I also say never trust "Conservatives", either. The only ones I respect are the "Constitutionalists". ;)
The one that currently exists.
This isn't hard. You're making ridiculous, post-modern, "nothing is as it seems" bullshit arguments.
If you don't like something in there, you don't pretend it doesn't exist. You amend it.
Thank you.
Will, lets not get into a religious argument. You can call it a Natural Law or I can say "coming from a higher power". Who cares?
I think it's an important distinction. By using the God/Higher power position, you (1) alienate non religious people (2) you give "ammo" to those who attempt to paint the issue as a "Right wing religious" thing (4) you allow religion to enter an issue where none is required to grasp the importance of the topic as it applies to humanity.
Any time one claims "God gave them a Right" you simple play into the anti human rights/anti gun types who associate the issue with "religious nuts who think God told them they could have guns" and so forth. That gives a place to hide from the truth, and if I have learned one thing about anti gun/anti human rights types, you give them any place to hide, they will take it.
Anti gun/anti human rights/anti 2A types make the immediate association of pro 2A people to religion, and that's their out to ignore the topic altogether in my view.
The bottom line is that they are unalienable - they existed before man and they exist without man. They just simply ARE.
Exactly! :D
The bottom line is this: NO MAN can authorize whether the right to 2A exists or not. NO MAN gives another the right to defend himself from criminal acts or political tyranny.
Agreed! There is no Right more basic, more fundamental, then the right to self defense. Without everyone recognizing that, we are doomed to repeat history over and over.
A progressive is simply someone who looks at the way things have been done, the way things are done, and looks to do something better and greater. In short, a progressive doesn't think the answer to today's problems is to rewind to 1776.While I think that this statement is true, in that that is how progressives see themselves, the great irony is that all too often the ideas that a progressive think are so great and new have already been tried and failed in the past. Aside from technology the old saying of there is nothing new under the sun, truly applies.
I simply don't recognize the current U.S. Constitution as having anything to do, in and of itself, with what should or shouldn't be true today.
So many political arguments center around whether or not a certain idea is constitutional - this is flawed thinking to me. Political arguments should be based on whether or not a certain idea is right and appropriate for the people it serves at the time it serves them. Our national history of amending the Constitution has already proven this argument to be true.
This is a truly terrifying statement. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the constitution, the reasoning behind it and how our system of government is supposed to run. Now as far our history of amendments, many of them have not improved anything, and have indeed made things worse. But I would venture to guess that you like so many others don't even understand what it is that we as a nation had and what we have lost.
rickrock305
07-11-10, 10:18
Liberals, conservatives, they're all cut from the same cloth. Don't kid yourself, the politicians are in it for themselves. Their wealth and power. Not for you and I or the country or our rights or the constitution or anything else. This little partisan bickering between left and right only serves to distract us from the real problem and thereby helps them rob us blind, taking away our rights, our money, our benefits, etc.
The idea that the left has of the right and vice versa has been manufactured by politicians and media in this effort to further divide us as a nation. Because as a divided nation we are more easily conquered by those who desire more power and wealth. The truth is that most of us are quite closer to each other in our beliefs and quite closer to the center than any of these pundits would like to admit. The enemy is not liberals or conservatives, the enemy is the politicians who are running this country into the ground. And it matters not what party they come from, they are ALL out of control and drunk with power.
RogerinTPA
07-11-10, 10:19
Anti-2A is a sure-fire way to get me to vote against you.
Support of the 2A does NOT mean I will vote for you.
Yes Reid, I'm looking at you …
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
I've never heard of the Democratic Underground before, but being pro-2A sounds more libertarian that liberal (in the context of the terms used today. I seem to remember something John Stossel wrote about how the term "liberal" used to describe what has now become "libertarian" ideals.
Indeed. In conversation I will call myself a "classic liberal" some times just to see peoples reactions. Then I explain to them that a "classic liberal" is what Jefferson was...some one who thought the rights of the individual and their need for freedom to pursue their own destiny transcend the desires of the government and governmental interference. In other words Jefferson would be now classified as a "libertarian", some one who isn't a part of the "freedom for me but not for thee" mindset. But some where along the line the political description became synonymous with the leftists.
Now liberals are trying to shift their moniker towards "Progressives". I have to ask progressive in what manner? What is their end goal? What I do know is that back in the dinosaur days "progressives" were labeled as those who wanted to move towards a socialistic government. I do find that someone who wants a socialistic government to be incongruous with support for all of the rights in the constitution and especially the 2nd amendment for the simple fact that by its very nature a socialist government needs to exert more, not less, control over the every day lives of citizens (AKA the nanny state). The last things a Socialist government can tolerate is a citizenry that can and will step up to the government.
I think many modern liberals are 1) trying to have their cake and eat it too 2) too afraid to call themselves Libertarian or 3) want the democratic party to go back to the pre LBJ days and would be described as Blue Dog Democrats. The latter two I can understand. I think the main political bent of the these two isn't necessarily for higher government spending and tax rates so much as they are less pro big business and more pro common man (in their view). Again I think the difference between a Blue Dog and a Libertarian is small and it rolls back into #2.
So yes though I do not agree with their party affiliation I can understand some of the liberals who are also pro 2nd Amendment.
A progressive is simply someone who looks at the way things have been done, the way things are done, and looks to do something better and greater.That is a disingenuous way to describe a progressive. Progressives by their very nature and the legislation they desire are simply statists. Looking at the way things have been done, the way things are done, and considering if there is a better way of doing things are simply the hallmarks of a thinking individual. For instance take a tax rates. A libertarian may look at tax rates and see that by lowering them it will in the end increase productivity and government revenues. Or that individual may look at government laws that attempt to legislate morality, realizing that they are abridgment of personal freedoms and attempt to change them. They may recognize that all the programs since "The Great Society" have actually done more harm to the poor and minorities and know that there is a better way.
Never trust a liberal. Never. Dont fall into this "classic liberal" vs neo liberal argument.
No, I'm sorry, but you apparently haven't studied any of this.
I am a "classical liberal" in most respects, which is roughly equivalent to a libertarian. It puts me nowhere close to what is currently called "liberal." 90% of the current federal govt shouldn't even exist as far as I'm concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Don't get caught up on the word "liberal" or its variations or any other fuzzy terms of convenience. Just look at the persons positions and actions.
Another point that's been oversold in this thread:
All liberals aren't Pelosi, Reid, Obama any more than All conservatives are W. Bush, Palin, Wilson. Keep posting goofy Pelosi pics if you want, but know that there is absolutely no cogent point behind them.
Actually, Bush et. al. are not Conservatives. They are neo-cons with emphasis on the "con." Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are conservatives. And when you see Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader agreeing on some very key issues you have to stop and ask, "What's 'really' going on?"
At this point the whole right-left/liberal-conservative paradigm may no longer serve a descriptive purpose. Increasingly, these memes only serve as a form of new-speak-stop-think designed to stir up the rabble. What we need to ask instead is what will this person/law/program actually do in practice. Will these things empower and aggrandize the individual or the State? Perhaps we need to think in terms of Individualists vs. Statists?
Also, we need to ensure we are protecting the interests of actual flesh and blood individuals. We have had a very sorry history of Crony Capitalism where corporations and the State conspire against the best interests of We The People.
ChicagoTex
07-11-10, 12:26
“Every generation needs a new revolution.” - Thomas Jefferson
If you don't like something in there, you don't pretend it doesn't exist. You amend it.
And in so doing demonstrate that the Constitution is flawed and/or incomplete. Yes, thankfully the current Constitution of the United States affords powerful provisions for it's own revision, demonstrating that the proverbial founding fathers INTENDED for it to be updated and revised as the nation had need.
Or am I seriously expected to believe that this 20th variant of the Supreme Law of the Land is the infallible one?
But I would venture to guess that you like so many others don't even understand what it is that we as a nation had and what we have lost.
And I'm the one being accused of vague bullshit? Enlighten me on what we as a nation had and lost that I'm apparently not lamenting properly?
Look, I'm not saying the U.S. Constitution is a useless piece of crap. In fact, for the most part, I feel the current U.S. Constitution has the majority of correct modern governing pinned down. What I'm saying is that the value of the Constitution is not in it's tradition, but in it's fundamental content while recognizing that it is not (and cannot) be completely ideal and all-inclusive due to the limitations of human imagination. Because of this, I am simply arguing that NO idea should be immediately accepted or dismissed based on whether or not it's constitutional, but evaluated on it's own merits in the society it serves.
Is it really so blatantly offensive to you folks to embrace or reject ideas based on their intrinsic value and practicality, rather than what tradition they are or aren't attached to?
And that sentiment right there makes you and your ilk, the most dangerous creatures on Earth.
That's flattering of you to say, but I really don't see how. Free thinking is the highest expression of humanity (some might argue, even divine), it is unlikely to be our undoing.
Then you don't support [the right to keep and bear arms] at all. You are correct in that the Constitution doesn't "give" us the RTKBA, God does. It one of those unalienable rights that is discussed in the Declaration of Independence, meaning that Man does not give us those rights, they come from a higher power. The Constitution just lays it out in ink and makes it Law.
You may have a point there. It's pretty double-standardish of me to claim RKBA as an inalienable right and then declare that I'm willing to compromise it. You'd think I'd be more defensive of something I viewed as intrinsic...
I guess at this point it would be more accurate to say that I believe in the legal justification of self-defense up to and including deadly force where necessary, but haven't yet made a final decision or commitment on whether or not I view firearms as an absolutely necessary component of that right.
It is certainly something I will think on.
And in so doing demonstrate that the Constitution is flawed and/or incomplete. Yes, thankfully the current Constitution of the United States affords powerful provisions for it's own revision, demonstrating that the proverbial founding fathers INTENDED for it to be updated and revised as the nation had need.
Or am I seriously expected to believe that this 20th variant of the Supreme Law of the Land is the infallible one?
Of course not. The point that many of your progressive friends don't get: it's fine if you think things should be different, but until you do amend it, it's the supreme law of the land. The city in your screenname (among many others) don't give a shit about the Constitution or what it means.
And I'm the one being accused of vague bullshit? Enlighten me on what we as a nation had and lost that I'm apparently not lamenting properly?
Look, I'm not saying the U.S. Constitution is a useless piece of crap. In fact, for the most part, I feel the current U.S. Constitution has the majority of correct modern governing pinned down. What I'm saying is that the value of the Constitution is not in it's tradition, but in it's fundamental content while recognizing that it is not (and cannot) be completely ideal and all-inclusive due to the limitations of human imagination. Because of this, I am simply arguing that NO idea should be immediately accepted or dismissed based on whether or not it's constitutional, but evaluated on it's own merits in the society it serves.
Sorry, but in the context of legislation that should be the first bullet point on the agenda. If something is unconstitutional, there is no authority to do it until it isn't unconstitutional.
You may have a point there. It's pretty double-standardish of me to claim RKBA as an inalienable right and then declare that I'm willing to compromise it. You'd think I'd be more defensive of something I viewed as intrinsic...
I guess at this point it would be more accurate to say that I believe in the legal justification of self-defense up to and including deadly force where necessary, but haven't yet made a final decision or commitment on whether or not I view firearms as an absolutely necessary component of that right.
It is certainly something I will think on.
Can't say I'm surprised. The philosophy that the individual is subordinate to the state (which it seems most progressives hold) doesn't play too nicely with private firearm ownership.
ChicagoTex
07-11-10, 12:48
Of course not. The point that many of your progressive friends don't get: it's fine if you think things should be different, but until you do amend it, it's the supreme law of the land. The city in your screenname (among many others) don't give a shit about the Constitution or what it means.
I never argued otherwise. Laws are laws, and laws are real, and we live under the rule of law. I'm not pretending the laws don't exist, just arguing where future law and policy should be sourced from.
Sorry, but in the context of legislation that should be the first bullet point on the agenda. If something is unconstitutional, there is no authority to do it until it isn't unconstitutional.
I can agree with that as a viable mechanism. Unfortuanately most government officials are unwilling to pursue the necessary constitutional amendments to make good law or policy viable - it is this that I object to.
The philosophy that the individual is subordinate to the state (which it seems most progressives hold) doesn't play too nicely with private firearm ownership.
The individual IS subordinate to the state, the rule of law doesn't function otherwise and anarchy ensues. This is the basis of ALL governments.
I agree with those that define progressives as statists, because, despite some people's (e.g. ChicagoTex) idealized definition of what a progressive is (a clever forward thinking individual thinking about improving society), in fact progressives are, in my way of seeing things, just Fabian socialists. That is, socialists that want to bring socialism by gradual and insidious change, in other words through "progress" instead of through revolution.
Despite the fact that progress sounds like something we need, historically, political progressivism has been a gradual, progressive, socio-political move toward a big government nanny state, i.e. socialism. Now if you want that sort of thing, well, I think that you've invested in a corrupt political paradigm that destroys individual rights for the sake of group rights. Group rights is another code word for Big State with lots of power coupled with Small individual with little to no individual power. Now having grown up in a communist country I find the Big Governement/Small Individual paradigm to be an absolute curse on humanity as history has shown that it produces a less prosperous, more corrupt society.
So to me the litmus test for a politician is if he supports and promotes liberty. So apropos the 2nd amendment, I may not vote for you just because you support the 2nd amendment, but if you don't support it, I see you as being inherently against liberty and as having a corrupt mind that is incapable of representing free men in government.
And yes, call it Natural Law, God, or Gaia, unalienable rights must be attributed as coming from a "higher power" because then they are inviolable by Man. If "rights" come from Government, then Government can take such rights away, an intolerable situation.
One of the principal problems is that progressives really seem to have too high an opinion of their mental prowess and too much self esteem, and perhaps too much time on their hands and despite the fact that many are just government bureaucratic hacks that couldn't run a taco stand successfully, or fans thereof, they BELIEVE that they are brilliant enough to have the right answer for you, me, and everybody, when in fact their socio-political views are derived from a deep psychological need to create Utopia on earth, consequences be damned. I think of it as Kamikaze Utopianism.
Humanity has always fallen into terrible hardship and even genocide when a group of self described "intellectuals" holding "politically correct" views of "compassion" succumb in fact to a most un-intellectual emotionally driven phase I type of thinking (i.e. they don't think of the secondary effects and consequences of their actions), decide that they know how to fix society and align it on a "correct" path of "social justice" collectivism by using centrally controlled and enforced collectivist policies that "correctly" re-distributes the wealth of society. History shows that this ends in decreased individual freedoms and bankruptcy at best, and Left Wing/Liberal Fascism at worse (think Mussolini, and even Woodrow Wilson).
So yes, that old tattered passe Constitution is indeed a barrier against progressivism and statism that would squash the individual and his rights for the sake of collective rights and their definition of democracy where the "people" have rights, but the individual has none.
The individual IS subordinate to the state, the rule of law doesn't function otherwise and anarchy ensues. This is the basis of ALL governments.
That's not true, the U.S. government was to be for the people, by the people. An individual must accept the laws as devised by our society, which is arranged as a Constitutionally based Republic steeped in democratic ideals, but the individual under our system has unalienable rights that are not subject to a subordination to any state. As soon as you see yourself as a ward of the state, as being subordinate to the State, as a monolithic power entity, you've lost the plot me thinks.
ChicagoTex
07-11-10, 13:57
That's not true, the U.S. government was to be for the people, by the people. An individual must accept the laws as devised by our society, which is arranged as a Constitutionally based Republic steeped in democratic ideals, but the individual under our system has unalienable rights that are not subject to a subordination to any state. As soon as you see yourself as a ward of the state, as being subordinate to the State, as a monolithic power entity, you've lost the plot me thinks.
I think we're getting bogged a little bit with semantics.
In America, the will of the People is (or at least is supposed to be) the State, it is not some monolithic external power enitity to which I, or anyone else (with the exception, perhaps, of foster care minors and convicted felons serving time) am a ward.
No, I'm sorry, but you apparently haven't studied any of this.
I am a "classical liberal" in most respects, which is roughly equivalent to a libertarian. It puts me nowhere close to what is currently called "liberal." 90% of the current federal govt shouldn't even exist as far as I'm concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Don't get caught up on the word "liberal" or its variations or any other fuzzy terms of convenience. Just look at the persons positions and actions.
+1
Actually, Bush et. al. are not Conservatives. They are neo-cons with emphasis on the "con." Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are conservatives.
Point of Order, Ron Paul is a RINO. His true colors are Libertarian which are a far cry from a conservative. I think that is great for the most part. The only part that disappoints me is that he cant run in that part and have a snow balls chance in hell of being elected.
The individual IS subordinate to the state, the rule of law doesn't function otherwise and anarchy ensues. This is the basis of ALL governments.
That's not true, the U.S. government was to be for the people, by the people. An individual must accept the laws as devised by our society, which is arranged as a Constitutionally based Republic steeped in democratic ideals, but the individual under our system has unalienable rights that are not subject to a subordination to any state. As soon as you see yourself as a ward of the state, as being subordinate to the State, as a monolithic power entity, you've lost the plot me thinks.
To take it a step further, from whom does the government gain its power? From the consent of the people. That is why the state is subordinate to the individual who acts in concert with other individuals to state what is and what isn't acceptable behavior on the part of the government. The people retain the right to change government as they see fit and to force government to follow the laws that have been already established. The government in turn is charged with executing the will of the people and fulfilling its other constitutionally mandated functions.
ChicagoTex
07-11-10, 15:27
To take it a step further, from whom does the government gain its power? From the consent of the people. That is why the state is subordinate to the individual who acts in concert with other individuals to state what is and what isn't acceptable behavior on the part of the government. The people retain the right to change government as they see fit and to force government to follow the laws that have been already established. The government in turn is charged with executing the will of the people and fulfilling its other constitutionally mandated functions.
Pretty much exactly what I was going for. Well put.
"I simply don't recognize the current U.S. Constitution as having anything to do, in and of itself, with what should or shouldn't be true today.
I support the right to keep and bear arms because I view it as a fundamental human right, not because it's in the constitution; but I won't support it at the expense of all else. Most (if not all) Pro-RKBA Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/What Have You feel the same way.
http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv19/Mjolnir_photos/silly/Prince_reaction.gif
The Constitution for these united States of America is all that stands between us and this "New World Order". It's the foundation (along with the Articles of Confederation - as you mentioned, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence). It's not perfect but without it you are left to the caprices of Internationalists.
Belmont31R
07-11-10, 15:43
+1
Point of Order, Ron Paul is a RINO. His true colors are Libertarian which are a far cry from a conservative. I think that is great for the most part. The only part that disappoints me is that he cant run in that part and have a snow balls chance in hell of being elected.
To take it a step further, from whom does the government gain its power? From the consent of the people. That is why the state is subordinate to the individual who acts in concert with other individuals to state what is and what isn't acceptable behavior on the part of the government. The people retain the right to change government as they see fit and to force government to follow the laws that have been already established. The government in turn is charged with executing the will of the people and fulfilling its other constitutionally mandated functions.
RP is his own breed.
Libertarian is further right than a conservative.
Conservative is a double edged sword because most conservatives believe in their own little perfect world others should adhere to. The South is filled with "Blue Laws" for instance, and there are lots of religious conservatives who vote based on religion not a persons independent values. You see it in people like Glenn Beck who loved Romney because they share the same religion. For many of these people going to the same church trumps a persons political beliefs.
Consent of the governed requires the governed to be more powerful than the governors. That is barely possible today because a good half of the population relies on the gov to put food on the table, and we simply don't have the weaponry to do anything about it. Gov has setup a situation where half the people would starve to death without them, and the other half doesn't have the means to take back their consent.
RP is his own breed.
Libertarian is further right than a conservative.
Conservative is a double edged sword because most conservatives believe in their own little perfect world others should adhere to. The South is filled with "Blue Laws" for instance, and there are lots of religious conservatives who vote based on religion not a persons independent values. You see it in people like Glenn Beck who loved Romney because they share the same religion. For many of these people going to the same church trumps a persons political beliefs.
Consent of the governed requires the governed to be more powerful than the governors. That is barely possible today because a good half of the population relies on the gov to put food on the table, and we simply don't have the weaponry to do anything about it. Gov has setup a situation where half the people would starve to death without them, and the other half doesn't have the means to take back their consent.
Great points, Belmont!
ChicagoTex
07-11-10, 15:51
Consent of the governed requires the governed to be more powerful than the governors. That is barely possible today because a good half of the population relies on the gov to put food on the table, and we simply don't have the weaponry to do anything about it. Gov has setup a situation where half the people would starve to death without them, and the other half doesn't have the means to take back their consent.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you claiming that 50% of the population of the USA is dependent on Welfare, or what? :confused:
Either way, both halves can take back their consent as soon as they are willing to a.) roll out and vote, ALL of them, and b.) actually educate themselves about their candidates, rather than voting along party, religious, or whatever-the-TV-told-them-to-lines.
We need a revolution of wisdom and knowledge, not weapons and bloodshed.
... both halves can take back their consent as soon as they are willing to a.) roll out and vote, ALL of them, and b.) actually educate themselves about their candidates, rather than voting along party, religious, or whatever-the-TV-told-them-to-lines.
We need a revolution of wisdom and knowledge, not weapons and bloodshed.
Amen to that! But they then need to FOLLOW THROUGH; voting (even if it's educated) and going back to sleep is no good.
Belmont31R
07-11-10, 16:00
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you claiming that 50% of the population of the USA is dependent on Welfare, or what? :confused:
Either way, both halves can take back their consent as soon as they are willing to a.) roll out and vote, ALL of them, and b.) actually educate themselves about their candidates, rather than voting along party, religious, or whatever-the-TV-told-them-to-lines.
We need a revolution of wisdom and knowledge, not weapons and bloodshed.
Add up all the people on welfare, food stamp, local/state/fed workers, military, teachers, cops, firefighters, retired on SS, etc, and the number is quite high. All the people on gov medical care, etc.
What I'm saying is that through progressive initiatives we now have a society where a huge percentage of the population would be against gov cut backs because it might be their dinner you are taking away, their pension, their new car with their pay raise, their monthly check, etc. The number grows every year.
Sometimes the only way to correct that is through bloodshed. Our FF did it becuase they had no other choice. What are we going to do when WE have no other choice? Look at the deficits these days. Most states are over budget, the feds are 1.5 TRILLION + over budget. Who's dinner and check are you going to take away? No one wants "their" money taken away. The voting bloc is corrupted because the gov has setup so many people to rely on them. Obama is spending money like its going out of style to force more people to rely on gov for their food.
Go be a candidate that says you want to take away SS, health care, and reduce gov workers by half. You wont even get 10% of the votes. For sure no democrats, and there are plenty of faux conservatives who would vote for a RINO or dem before you to ensure their piece of the pie is secure. Who wants to pay tens of thousands into SS their whole life just to have someone take it away?
ThirdWatcher
07-11-10, 16:01
Is it the Constitution itself, or it's content?
As a LEO, I work with the Bill of Rights (the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th specifically) on a daily basis. These amendments give us the spirit of the law. :)
Pretty much exactly what I was going for. Well put.
But yet you stated"
The individual IS subordinate to the state
I said the state is subordinate to the individual. The two statements are worlds apart. What you said is at the core of the progressive/ statist / socialist. What I said is at the core of the classic liberal / libertarian.
RP is his own breed.
Libertarian is further right than a conservative.
Conservative is a double edged sword because most conservatives believe in their own little perfect world others should adhere to. The South is filled with "Blue Laws" for instance, and there are lots of religious conservatives who vote based on religion not a persons independent values. You see it in people like Glenn Beck who loved Romney because they share the same religion. For many of these people going to the same church trumps a persons political beliefs.
Consent of the governed requires the governed to be more powerful than the governors. That is barely possible today because a good half of the population relies on the gov to put food on the table, and we simply don't have the weaponry to do anything about it. Gov has setup a situation where half the people would starve to death without them, and the other half doesn't have the means to take back their consent.
How so are libertarians more more to the right? I'm serious when I say that and not trying to troll. As you said it RP is his own breed, but he is the best representative of Libertarian beliefs out there. Conservatives as they make up the Republican party today are a different shade of the democrats and that is about it. Both parties want to control behavior to match up with their beliefs that they are the one true way. Libertarians on the other hand believe that is a decision for the individual to make. Libertarianism is less hawkish on National Defense than the current Republicans / Conservatives. I mean how many of them would be willing to stop with our interventionist policies? None of the current republicans would even think about legalizing certain drugs or understanding the 14th amendment and how it applies to everyone (AKA "Gay Marriage"). That is what irks the hell out of both the left and the right. Libertarians believe in the supremacy of the individual while at the same time telling government it has no place in private affairs and that freedom and equality apply to every law abiding citizen, not just the ones that they happen to agree with.
But yet you stated"
I said the state is subordinate to the individual. The two statements are worlds apart. What you said is at the core of the progressive/ statist / socialist. What I said is at the core of the classic liberal / libertarian.
How so are libertarians more more to the right? I'm serious when I say that and not trying to troll. As you said it RP is his own breed, but he is the best representative of Libertarian beliefs out there. Conservatives as they make up the Republican party today are a different shade of the democrats and that is about it. Both parties want to control behavior to match up with their beliefs that they are the one true way. Libertarians on the other hand believe that is a decision for the individual to make. Libertarianism is less hawkish on National Defense than the current Republicans / Conservatives. I mean how many of them would be willing to stop with our interventionist policies? None of the current republicans would even think about legalizing certain drugs or understanding the 14th amendment and how it applies to everyone (AKA "Gay Marriage"). That is what irks the hell out of both the left and the right. Libertarians believe in the supremacy of the individual while at the same time telling government it has no place in private affairs and that freedom and equality apply to every law abiding citizen, not just the ones that they happen to agree with.
If you are talking about a spectrum with statism at one end and individualism at the other, then libertarians would be to the right of most self-labeled conservatives.
If you are talking about a spectrum with statism at one end and individualism at the other, then libertarians would be to the right of most self-labeled conservatives.
yes... THE political spectrum puts totalitarianism at 0 on the left, and anarchy at 100 on the right. all political systems, and all politically-minded people, fit somewhere in between, and usually in the form of a parallel line, rather than a point. Republicans and Democrats are generally placed somewhere close to 50, with overlapping parallels.
ChicagoTex
07-11-10, 16:30
I said the state is subordinate to the individual. The two statements are worlds apart. What you said is at the core of the progressive/ statist / socialist. What I said is at the core of the classic liberal / libertarian.
I also said that for the purposes of argument in America, the State IS the people.
Basically I'm saying we're all subject to the rule of law, which is administered by the government, which is in service of the People collectively, to whom we are subordinate.
Belmont31R
07-11-10, 16:31
But yet you stated"
I said the state is subordinate to the individual. The two statements are worlds apart. What you said is at the core of the progressive/ statist / socialist. What I said is at the core of the classic liberal / libertarian.
How so are libertarians more more to the right? I'm serious when I say that and not trying to troll. As you said it RP is his own breed, but he is the best representative of Libertarian beliefs out there. Conservatives as they make up the Republican party today are a different shade of the democrats and that is about it. Both parties want to control behavior to match up with their beliefs that they are the one true way. Libertarians on the other hand believe that is a decision for the individual to make. Libertarianism is less hawkish on National Defense than the current Republicans / Conservatives. I mean how many of them would be willing to stop with our interventionist policies? None of the current republicans would even think about legalizing certain drugs or understanding the 14th amendment and how it applies to everyone (AKA "Gay Marriage"). That is what irks the hell out of both the left and the right. Libertarians believe in the supremacy of the individual while at the same time telling government it has no place in private affairs and that freedom and equality apply to every law abiding citizen, not just the ones that they happen to agree with.
Many conservatives push for Blue Laws just as much as progressives push for entitlement spending.
The point being both progressives and conservatives, in general, push for their own nanny state laws. Gay marriage, and firearms laws being two prime examples. Go ask a "conservative" if gays should be able to marry and get a marriage license the same as they (he) and their wife did. Nine times out of ten the answer will be no.
True libertarians, like many of our FF, do not believe in classes of people or nanny state laws which todays progressives and conservatives have a positive opinion on but in thier own particular flavor.
I personally don't care if gays get married, people smoke pot, or if they own FA belt fed guns. The injustice ONLY occurs when you infringe on someone elses rights. Just like, in my own case, Im sure emails and phone conversations have been "listened in on" between my dad and I since he works in the KSA, and I don't agree with denying people rights because they are not US citizens.
I also said that for the purposes of argument in America, the State IS the people.
Basically I'm saying we're all subject to the rule of law, which is administered by the government, which is in service of the People collectively, to whom we are subordinate.
I may be missing the mark here and be offering a slight non-sequitur, because you many not be thinking along this context, but be careful not to fall into the classical statist trap of believing that rights apply, or should apply, only to the "collective" and not to the individual.
Socialist/communist propaganda in the country I grew up in taught us young communist pioneers that "the people" had all sorts of collective rights, such as the right of food, shelter, education, and health care, and that the communist government was mandated by both political creed and law to provide these things (sure these things quickly became totally substandard and rationed because the government tried to run a politically mandated economy which went against human nature and became totally bankrupt, but hey, it was "free" and we had all of these "rights" :rolleyes:). So we had all of these collective [highly substandard, and rationed] rights, yet the individual had no rights of property, free speech, free political expression, or private enterprise or trade with other individuals, and little to no rights of self-determination, including no right to travel unimpeded outside the country, because such things were seen as being against "the Collective Good" (nice catch huh?).
So you can essentially have a police state that gives its individual citizens almost no individual rights, yet that is able to declare that its people, as a collective, have all of these wonderful rights and guarantees.
So when I hear "in the service of the People collectively to whom we are subordinate" I get a little nervous and reflexively want to start enumerating all of the individual rights we have guaranteed to us by our Constitution, because especially in the context of the American form of government collective rights means nothing without individual rights.
So I think the emphasis ought to be placed on the rights of individuals and not on how the individual must be subordinate to the collective. Now sometimes these individuals build coalitions (I still can't bring myself to use the word "collectives" as it has a very bad connotation to me) and act in common self interest, and sometimes they down right compete against each other, and our Constitutionally based laws act as a rule book that determines lawful interaction, or play if you will, but this is a far cry from individuals becoming subordinate to any sort of monolithic collective.
Just another quick exemplary story. Communist governments mandated that farms be run in collectives. Individual farm property was seized from individuals and nationalized by the government and coalesced into these collectives. Now these farms belonged to the "People", but if you as an individual wanted to sell even one item of what you produced, on what used to be your farm, for individual profit, or even if you simply gave it away to someone in charity, you were charged as stealing from the "People", i.e. the State. This was one of the most serious crimes that a person can do, and punishment could be extremely harsh, and even punishable by death.
So I'm not interested in collective rights or the collective will of the People. I am interested only in individual rights and in a well arbitrated (by elected Governmental agencies using Constitutional principles as a guide) field of interaction between such individuals, acting ethically, toward their own socio-economic and/or spiritual improvement.
And one last word regarding the collective will of the People, and I promise I'll zip it:
It seems to me that the concept of the uniform collective will of the People is a statist, if not marxist, myth. There may be a simple or a super majority of votes for any given issue, but the only way to streamline the will of the People into one total holistic doctrine, that represents a totally unified field of ideas, is by using Dictatorial Governmental Force. So to those fans of almighty and sacrosanct Collective Unity out there, who's wonderful doctrine of Communal Unity shall we have our Government canonize and enforce? Obama's? Pelosi's? A fascist righwinger's? A fascist leftwinger's? Yours? Mine?
sorry that last bit was a tad melodramatic :D
Cagemonkey
07-11-10, 18:35
Well said Vlad. I wish more people with your experience living in the socialist/progressive utopia would speak out to the misinformed living here.
I am proud to be a true American. I believe in all of the Constitution, meaning I'm liberal by the actual definition of the word. I'm also socially liberal. And, I'm a proud gun owner.
Freedom is a pretty progressive concept. And believe it or not desegregation happened because of "liberal" ideas. Same with the weekend you enjoy so much. The lack of slavery. Women's right to vote. Separation of Church and State. And so on, and on, and on, and on.
You see it in people like Glenn Beck who loved Romney because they share the same religion.
Oooopsie! Another Glenn Beck non-listener making a false assumption.
Originally Posted by ChicagoTex
I support the right to keep and bear arms because I view it as a fundamental human right, not because it's in the constitution; but I won't support it at the expense of all else. Most (if not all) Pro-RKBA Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/What Have You feel the same way.
Again I ask you, what DO you support at the expense of all else?
variablebinary
07-12-10, 06:25
Liberals are not to be trusted.
They will use all types of chicanery to hide what they really are, because they know, like we know, that they are disgusting and if they exposed their true head, they would be rejected by the majority.
You allow yourself to be confused, and twisted by their games, and this is what you'll get.
http://markrileymedia.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/sonia_sotomayor.jpg
http://legalplanet.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/elena-kagan.jpg
http://prvegas.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/bill_clinton3.jpg
http://www.h-net.org/~energy/roundtables/barack-obama-2.jpg
http://politicaldamage.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/pelosi-nancy-stare.jpg
http://thewiddershins.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/harry-reid.jpg
The more of them there are in office, the greater the chance of
http://www.seoconsultants.com/just-say-no/images/no-guns-480.gif
ChicagoTex
07-12-10, 08:16
Again I ask you, what DO you support at the expense of all else?
That should be clear by now: the ability of the people to govern themselves fully, and without arbitrary restriction, whatever form that may take.
If that should produce a situation intolerable to my soul. I will gladly move on, proud of the fact that I was part of a nation willing to take it's great experiment all the way. It'd sure beat the hell out of languishing about wondering what could have been...
GermanSynergy
07-12-10, 13:35
variablebinary has nailed it:
The vast majority of libs want us to get complacent, and they are using this as a battlefield tactic, so we lower our guard. Don't let the charade fool you. Their end game remains the same.
I don't know why anyone should be surprised unless they can only think in black and white. Read your NRA materials. Many Democratic party politicians get great ratings and a very large number of NRA members are also registered Democrats. It does not help gun owner rights to try to pigeonhole people and separate them. Most of my viewpoints are pretty liberal. My views on the need for universal healthcare have no connection to my views on gun rights for example. I like Obama except I think he has catered to the right too much. I think Fox news is a crock of shit. I spent most of my life in the Marine Corps until I was medically discharged due to combat injuries. I know many people like me with similar backgrounds that consider themselves liberals yet support gun rights. If you can't deal with thats its your issue and you need to broaden your horizons.
Demonizing liberals like variablebinary has done with his juvenile comments is just foolish and sounds like the kind of garbage Glenn Beck spews. Don't like it? Too bad. Learn history. Think for yourself.
I don't know why anyone should be surprised unless they can only think in black and white. Read your NRA materials. Many Democratic party politicians get great ratings and a very large number of NRA members are also registered Democrats. It does not help gun owner rights to try to pigeonhole people and separate them. Most of my viewpoints are pretty liberal. My views on the need for universal healthcare have no connection to my views on gun rights for example. I like Obama except I think he has catered to the right too much. I think Fox news is a crock of shit. I spent most of my life in the Marine Corps until I was medically discharged due to combat injuries. I know many people like me with similar backgrounds that consider themselves liberals yet support gun rights. If you can't deal with thats its your issue and you need to broaden your horizons.
Demonizing liberals like variablebinary has done with his juvenile comments is just foolish and sounds like the kind of garbage Glenn Beck spews. Don't like it? Too bad. Learn history. Think for yourself.
You're kind of like the pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you say???
It's okay for your beliefs to be accepted, but you cannot accept and show tolerance for those that disagree with you it appears by your statements? You wonder why those of your ilk get labeled the way they do. It's do as I say and not as I do right???
People shouldn't have to show tolerance to intolerant attitudes!!!
Belmont31R
07-13-10, 11:20
Oooopsie! Another Glenn Beck non-listener making a false assumption.
I watch Glenn Beck 3-4 days a week.
There is no logical reason for him to have supported Romney other than their shared religion.
Remember Romney started this mandatory state run HC BS, and signed an AWB into law. Now Romney is trying to play the conservative card.....:rolleyes:
variablebinary
07-13-10, 11:27
I watch Glenn Beck 3-4 days a week.
There is no logical reason for him to have supported Romney other than their shared religion.
Remember Romney started this mandatory state run HC BS, and signed an AWB into law. Now Romney is trying to play the conservative card.....:rolleyes:
I think many people believe Ronmey is the better administrator even though they might have issues with some of the policies he signed into law.
Out of the last crop of contenders, I would have taken Romney over McCain if that is who it came down to.
I like Obama except I think he has catered to the right too much. I think Fox news is a crock of shit. I spent most of my life in the Marine Corps until I was medically discharged due to combat injuries. I know many people like me with similar backgrounds that consider themselves liberals yet support gun rights. If you can't deal with thats its your issue and you need to broaden your horizons.
Demonizing liberals like variablebinary has done with his juvenile comments is just foolish and sounds like the kind of garbage Glenn Beck spews. Don't like it? Too bad. Learn history. Think for yourself.
With all due respect, there is so much cognitive dissonance here I am a little stunned. But we'd have to get too much into politics outside the realm of gun control. But saying that Obama has catered to the right is stunningly beyond the realms of reality. Look at his administration that is chock full of left wing/socialists/Maoists. Look at his agenda which is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, governmental power grab in the history of the U.S. Health Care Reform (which I think in the version that the Democrats rammed through is an abomination of law) was failing not because he was catering to the right but because his own Dems were balking at the prospect of such a gigantic move toward socialism and centralized governmental control. If he'd have his way we'd have extremely strict Gun Control (look at Chicago). He wants to prosecute terrorists as common criminals. He is for that other abomination of law "Cap and Trade", that's failed miserably in Europe by the way and is a total sham, he was for the State taking over GM, and key aspects of our banking industry. The only thing he disturbed the political left over concerned some of his war policies.
Now you may like Obama, and all of his leftist policies, and that is your prerogative, but saying that he caters to the right too much is stunningly outside the realms of reality. I mean if he goes any further left he'll be ready to accept the baton from Hugo Chavez.
Lastly I thank you very much for your service.
Belmont31R
07-13-10, 11:57
I think many people believe Ronmey is the better administrator even though they might have issues with some of the policies he signed into law.
Out of the last crop of contenders, I would have taken Romney over McCain if that is who it came down to.
They are both liberals who just haven't come to grips with it yet.
I would stay home before I ever voted for a douche that signs AWB's into law, and brings about state mandatory HC. I don't care how slick that two faced douche talks or how good of an "administrator" he is.
Remember it was just 2-3 years ago McCain was pushing for amnesty, and what has he done in all these years in the senate? McCain is only coming across somewhat conservative now because its his election year. In 2011 he'll go back to the Senate being his typical liberal self.
These people will sell us out as the first chance....:mad:
variablebinary
07-13-10, 12:37
They are both liberals who just haven't come to grips with it yet.
I would stay home before I ever voted for a douche that signs AWB's into law, and brings about state mandatory HC. I don't care how slick that two faced douche talks or how good of an "administrator" he is.
Remember it was just 2-3 years ago McCain was pushing for amnesty, and what has he done in all these years in the senate? McCain is only coming across somewhat conservative now because its his election year. In 2011 he'll go back to the Senate being his typical liberal self.
These people will sell us out as the first chance....:mad:
I don't disagree. However the one area that concerns me is the high court.
I would rather take my chances with a Romney appointee than the "wise Latina" or the she-male
ForTehNguyen
07-13-10, 12:42
nominating Romney as republican candidate in 2012 will just ensure Barry gets elected again.
saw this on another forum. Sorry for the length but its worth reading.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment
variablebinary
07-13-10, 12:48
nominating Romney as republican candidate in 2012 will just ensure Barry gets elected again.
saw this on another forum. Sorry for the length but its worth reading.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment
It is highly unlikely that Obama is losing the next election irrespective of who runs on the GOP side.
And I doubt Romney is going to lock up the nomination. Mormons dont play well in the south.
The future of politics in the near future is going to be a novelty contest. The odds of any old school white male politician unseating Obama is slim. We'll see, but dont bet your mortgage payment against Obama.
RancidSumo
07-13-10, 14:19
...
No, I haven't just argued myself into a box. I simply don't recognize the current U.S. Constitution as having anything to do, in and of itself, with what should or shouldn't be true today.
...
It seems you and I are in the very small minority here. While I am guessing I disagree with you on most every issue other than guns, I can agree with this statement. Most of the BoR is correct but as soon as we start getting into the creation of actual government powers everything goes wrong.
I am a libertarian and follow the Austrian school on economic issues so I simply do not support any government at all. It is my belief that every function a government serves can be better executed by private industry so I disagree with Articles 1-7 (although there really isn't anything wrong with 5-7 except that in order to operate they must have a government so they are bad by default) and all the amendments other than 1, 2, parts of 3-7, 8, and 13 (part 1).
RancidSumo
07-13-10, 14:27
The individual IS subordinate to the state, the rule of law doesn't function otherwise and anarchy ensues. This is the basis of ALL governments.
The bolded part I agree with. Unfortunately you decided to preface it with that nonsense about it being a bad thing and needing to be subordinate to the State to avoid it.
thopkins22
07-13-10, 14:34
How so are libertarians more more to the right? I'm serious when I say that and not trying to troll. As you said it RP is his own breed, but he is the best representative of Libertarian beliefs out there. Conservatives as they make up the Republican party today are a different shade of the democrats and that is about it. Both parties want to control behavior to match up with their beliefs that they are the one true way. Libertarians on the other hand believe that is a decision for the individual to make. Libertarianism is less hawkish on National Defense than the current Republicans / Conservatives. I mean how many of them would be willing to stop with our interventionist policies? None of the current republicans would even think about legalizing certain drugs or understanding the 14th amendment and how it applies to everyone (AKA "Gay Marriage"). That is what irks the hell out of both the left and the right. Libertarians believe in the supremacy of the individual while at the same time telling government it has no place in private affairs and that freedom and equality apply to every law abiding citizen, not just the ones that they happen to agree with.
Extreme Left=Total Government
Extreme Right=Zero Government
It's not that difficult. Libertarians aren't really as far to the right as you can go...that is anarchy. Libertarians(most of them anyway,) are minarchist. A government is needed to enforce contracts, to prevent me from infringing on your life and liberty, and to provide for the common defense. End of story.
The "hawkish" foreign policy you're talking about isn't right wing at all. You can either believe that it's vital for the national defense and falls under providing for the common defense, or you can believe that it's Wilsonian. The police the world/spread democracy and freedom stuff originated on the extreme left.
ForTehNguyen
07-13-10, 15:48
I don't get why people think libertarians hate govt. They hate big govt. There's a big difference.
RancidSumo
07-13-10, 15:59
I hate all government but I'm a small l libertarian, that is important to note. Not Libertarian Party, more like Rothbard libertarianism.
justin_247
07-15-10, 05:45
The conundrum is that we Pro-2A Progressives (which is not the same as Pro-2A Democrats anymore than a Pro-2A Conservative is a staunch Republican) aren't one-issue voters. We select our candidates over their stance on a wide range of issues and I'll admit that I will, and have in the past, vote for a politician with anti-gun inclinations in exchange for a proper perspective on economic and social issues.
READ: "The Constitution is subordinate to my own non-Constitutional concerns."
I simply don't recognize the current U.S. Constitution as having anything to do, in and of itself, with what should or shouldn't be true today.
READ: "I don't care about Constitutional rights if they get in the way of my socialist agenda."
You may have a point there. It's pretty double-standardish of me to claim RKBA as an inalienable right and then declare that I'm willing to compromise it. You'd think I'd be more defensive of something I viewed as intrinsic...
READ: "The RTKBA is subordinate to my socialist agenda and I will gladly compromise it if need be. It's just not that important to me."
We need a revolution of wisdom and knowledge, not weapons and bloodshed.
READ: "We need to instill class consciousness."
I will gladly move on, proud of the fact that I was part of a nation willing to take it's great experiment all the way. It'd sure beat the hell out of languishing about wondering what could have been...
READ: "I have never read Jean-Francois Revel or attempted to educate myself about the fallacies of utopianism."
FYI - For those who are curious, Revel famously stated, "Utopia is not under the slightest obligation to produce results: its sole function is to allow its devotees to condemn what exists in the name of what does not." Thus, ChicagoTex's anguish about having to daydream "about wondering what could have been."
The worst thing about modern liberals/progressives [/whatever they want to call themselves at any one time in order to attract votes] is that they simply don't realize just how much they've been influenced by Gramsci-inspired socialists who conducted a "march through the institutions" and have successfully mainstreamed what were once radical ideas. The Frankfurt School theory hits upon this, but I think this whole series of events is best explained in Roger Kimball's book, "The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America."
There are other sources of this takeover of American liberalism, as well. Fred Siegel, himself a lapsed "New Democrat" of the Bill Clinton / Joseph Lieberman mold, wrote a great article about this in Telos. I encourage all those interested to check it out:
"Taking Communism away from the Communists: The Origins of Modern American Liberalism" (http://www.telospress.com/main/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=305)
montanadave
07-15-10, 05:51
For those who might be interested, the cover article in Harper's magazine (August 2010) presents a self-proclaimed liberal's account of obtaining a concealed carry permit in Colorado and carrying a personal firearm (Happiness is a Worn Gun: My Concealed Weapon and Me by Dan Baum).
Here's the link: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/08/0083063
While there are portions of the article I took exception to, by and large I felt it was a fairly balanced. I am curious to see what sorts of letters to the editor this story will generate, as I'm going to go out on a limb here (but I think it's a pretty stout one) and predict the average subscriber to Harper's is unlikely to have it sitting next to their copy of American Rifleman on the coffee table.
ChicagoTex
07-15-10, 11:23
READ: "The Constitution is subordinate to my own non-Constitutional concerns."
Correction, The Constitution is subordinate to OUR non-Constitutional concerns.
READ: "I don't care about Constitutional rights if they get in the way of my socialist agenda."
Rights are rights, that they are in the Constitution or not means nothing. As many here have agreed, human rights are not GIVEN by the Constitution, but IMBUED by God/Nature/The-Wandering-Cosmos
READ: "The RTKBA is subordinate to my socialist agenda and I will gladly compromise it if need be. It's just not that important to me."
Correction again, The Right to Keep and Bear Guns MAY be subordinate to OUR non-Constitutional agenda. It may not be that important to me, but what difference does it make as I'm just one of some 300,000,000 or so citizens?
READ: "We need to instill class consciousness."
For someone who's trying to attack me from a premise of "I've read more anti-Utopian books than you, nyeh." this is pretty freaking laughable.
READ: "I have never read Jean-Francois Revel or attempted to educate myself about the fallacies of utopianism."
See above.
My goal is not to create a Utopia (which is impossible), and my leanings aren't entirely socialist in tone (for example, I'd like to see a flat-out abolishments of The Eminent Domain clause, or at least the current interpretation the federal government is using to steal people's homes with unfair compensation so they can enhance their commercial tax base). My goal is simply to create something better than this (and WE CAN do better than a slightly modified versions of a 200+ year old document).
If I were the grand master ruler of the planet, gun ownership would never be threatened. But I'm not, and under the current system I have to place my votes based on the people who I believe to be the wisest and most likely to accomplish more positives for myself and the country around me.
So given that it's my vote and:
1.) I don't think the Constitution should be used to limit the people's ability to govern themselves and
2.) there are things are I personally prize higher than gun ownership (most of all the right of the people to govern themselves without the Constitution being used as a weapon against them)...
Yeah, gun ownership might be threatened. If only there were some way to revise the current representation so I wasn't forced to choose between two schools of thought... oh wait, that would be unconstitutional :(:mad:
thopkins22
07-15-10, 15:18
Correction again, The Right to Keep and Bear Guns MAY be subordinate to OUR non-Constitutional agenda. It may not be that important to me, but what difference does it make as I'm just one of some 300,000,000 or so citizens?
That's the beauty of a republic. What matters to you is VERY important.
Democracy by itself isn't that cool. It's purely mob rule.
I don't know where this quote came from but it's quite pertinent. "Democracy is three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is an armed lamb contesting the vote."
The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I suppose you're opposed to that(like so many other Americans today.)
Any agenda that requires my right to defend myself from criminals and tyrannical government to take a backseat, is not an agenda that has any place in a free society. Then again, I'm beginning to question how many Americans actually have any desire to live in a free society.
believe that's a B Franklin quote. the original Crip.
variablebinary
07-15-10, 15:36
We can learn a lot from women when it comes to issues like this.
Women know when they are being told a bunch of bullshit just because someone wants to screw them in the back of the car.
That's liberals today. They know if they spoke straight up on what they want, it would be 1776 in the streets.
So what do they do? They use subterfuge, and mind games to make you think they are something they really aren't.
As long as they, liberals, think the 2nd is optional, or a poker chip in play at the political games table, they are not to be trusted.
How many of these so called 2nd Amendment friendly liberals would have voted against the Healthcare bill if it contained a ban on assault weapons for the sake of public safety?
Trust them if you want to, but once you get screwed in the ass, and there is another AWB ban or an anti-2nd SCOTUS ruling, you need to shut your dirty suck because you will have no right to complain.
ChicagoTex
07-15-10, 21:20
That's the beauty of a republic. What matters to you is VERY important.
Democracy by itself isn't that cool. It's purely mob rule.
The Republic we have today is purely 2 mobs alternating rule, both of which are so consumed with screwing over the other mob that the needs of the people (majority or minority) largely go ignored.
I'd personally like to see some constiutional revision on this front, most particularly, I'd like to see parliamentary representation in the legislature, rather than the current winner-take-all system.
But, of course, that's not constitutional, and so we come back around...
thopkins22
07-15-10, 21:24
The Republic we have today is purely 2 mobs alternating rule, both of which are so consumed with screwing over the other mob that the needs of the people (majority or minority) largely go ignored.
Totally agree on that.
Is it the Constitution itself, or it's content?
When you refer to the Constitution, to which version do you refer? The original Articles of the Confederation? The original ratified draft of the second United States Constitution? As of 1789? The Current one? Something in between?
Is there no part of the Constitution you'd like to see tweaked, changed, removed, or added?
This reeks of hair splitting. Very revealing, IMO.
ThirdWatcher
07-16-10, 00:07
I hate all government but I'm a small l libertarian, that is important to note. Not Libertarian Party, more like Rothbard libertarianism.
I don't mean to get too far off the path here, but not being a political creature I had never heard of Murray Rothbard until I read your post. Thank you for your insight. :)
I know many Dems that are progun, but very antiblack gun. I know many that would vote to get rid of handguns and ARs and be happy wth shotguns only that are very active shooters. Frustrating:confused:
I watch Glenn Beck 3-4 days a week.
There is no logical reason for him to have supported Romney other than their shared religion.
Remember Romney started this mandatory state run HC BS, and signed an AWB into law. Now Romney is trying to play the conservative card.....:rolleyes:
I stand corrected vis a vis your Beck watching habits. But perhaps your memory fails you. I do not recall Beck ever signing off on Romney. I do recall him having a lot of "issues" with Romney and so stated - primarily his flipflopping on guns, abortion and government controlled healthcare. I'll dig up the vids if you want.
That should be clear by now: the ability of the people to govern themselves fully, and without arbitrary restriction, whatever form that may take.
So you are down with mob rule. Nice.
They are both liberals who just haven't come to grips with it yet.
I would stay home before I ever voted for a douche that signs AWB's into law, and brings about state mandatory HC. I don't care how slick that two faced douche talks or how good of an "administrator" he is.
Remember it was just 2-3 years ago McCain was pushing for amnesty, and what has he done in all these years in the senate? McCain is only coming across somewhat conservative now because its his election year. In 2011 he'll go back to the Senate being his typical liberal self.
These people will sell us out as the first chance....:mad:
This ^!!!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.