POLITICS - liberals and guns

[plattski]

Here is some food for thought that might provoke an interesting discussion: I am a total lefty and I love guns and hunting. More than that, I have a lot of lefty friends who both hunt and own guns. Is that okay with you guys? I see a lot of liberal-bashing on this page and others like it, but I think mostly it is because liberal-bashers know as little about lefties as most lefties know about God-fearing gun owners, and that most of the trash-talking on both sides is done by the most wild-eyed and narrow-minded. I will readily admit that I know a bunch of greenies that are bone-heads living in a latte-addled, soy-induced delerium in the big city. That doesn't make them any less American though, does it?

[Old Ironsights]

Define "lefty".

I'm a "liberal" in the Small L, "classical" sense... which today makes me a Libertarian who largely votes Republocrat.

Junior, OTOH and IMO, a classical small L liberal with a few more socialist leanings so he votes Democrat.

A "lefty" in my experience is NOT a liberal in the classical sense, but rather a socalist idealouge with facist tendencies. I have never met a true "lefty" who believes in the private ownership of firearms. Ever. Anywhere. Likewise I have never met a true "lefty" who will tolerate ANY expression of opinion other than the official "progressive, 'Government Uber Alles' " party line. Ever. Anywhere.

As far as the Bonehead Latte suckers who live in the Cities? They don't know or care where their food comes from. AFAIC anyone who considers the food-producing parts of America to be just "flyover" country with no culture or cultural value are NOT "good Americans." They are stuck up Urban Prats who would be just as at home in Stockholm, Moscow or London as Seattle.

(Note that I essentially live in Chicago, so I too see these people every day...)

[BruceB]

There are exceptions to every rule. While you may be a "lefty" with guns, there also conservative "antis" too. The current crop of lefties, Klinton, Osama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, et al are Socialists of the Soviet kind. Their party believes in total civilian disarmament in order to gain total control over every aspect of our daily lives. Support for them or their party only furthers their Soviet agenda.

[Dewight]

We don't care which side of the rifle you stand on when you shoot.

[Old Ironsights]

We don't care which side of the rifle you stand on when you shoot.

Unless it's a Flinter, then we hwant to have a camera ready for when you catch your hat on fire...

[BlaineCGarverakaTubbyTuba]

Here is some food for thought that might provoke an interesting discussion: I am a total lefty and I love guns and hunting. More than that, I have a lot of lefty friends who both hunt and own guns. Is that okay with you guys? I see a lot of liberal-bashing on this page and others like it, but I think mostly it is because liberal-bashers know as little about lefties as most lefties know about God-fearing gun owners, and that most of the trash-talking on both sides is done by the most wild-eyed and narrow-minded. I will readily admit that I know a bunch of greenies that are bone-heads living in a latte-addled, soy-induced delerium in the big city. That doesn't make them any less American though, does it?

I value your right to vote as you see fit, but like I've said to other Democrate shooters, you're voting for people that will vote away your guns every chance they get. There are a couple Democratic planks I would agree to, but I can't make it past the anti-gun stand their platform always takes.

[Old Savage]

Here is the short answer - Lefties vote for the people who vote for guncontrol and would take all your guns if they could.

[Hobie]

We welcome all levergunners here. We also adhere to certain rules of conduct. "Bashing" doesn't occur.

[Andrew]

We don't care which side of the rifle you stand on when you shoot.

Unless it's a Flinter, then we hwant to have a camera ready for when you catch your hat on fire...

+1

[plattski]

I appreciate all your replies. It is true that the term "lefty," besides referring to my brother the southpaw, describes Socialists and other discredited fundamentalist political sects, who toe their party line regardless of what makes sense. I think there's too many line-toers out in the world today and I like how this list has folks from different walks of life. In some ways me and my friends are really Libertarians but without the anti-tax fervor: I oppose government and corporate intrusion into my personal business, but I believe global warming is real and think there is a role for taxation to create a more equitable society. The irony about the anti-tax movement is that most anti-tax people either would or do benefit significantly from tax-funded government programs (Social Security, health care, roads, fire and police, public schools) and it is really the rich and corporations who stand to benefit from tax cuts. At any rate, here in Montana being a Democrat and Republican means less than some places because most people are pragmatists with a Libertarian leaning. That's why we've got pro-gun Democrats in most state-level political offices.

[Junior]

That's why we've got pro-gun Democrats in most state-level political offices.

I'll drink to that.

[Old Ironsights]

Not to get too deeply into the taxation argument, but if you do not understand that taxing Corporations is taxing Consumers - and worse, taxing consumers who can least afford that tax, then your education in basic economics is woefully lacking.

To everyone but the Wage Earner, Taxes are simply an Expense which must be offset by higher prices. Period. When prices go up, it's the poor Wage Earner schlub... the "working man" who has to pay for it. No matter how you swing it, the working Man pays the Corporation's Taxes. Period.

In some States and Locals, you are quite correct that you (and Junior) and a few other States/Places have, and generally MUST have "pro gun" individual politicans - and in those places the nature of politics is such that those politicians must also be Democrats.

OTOH, in places like where I live, the while Pols must still be Dems to get elected, whether or not they are Anti or Pro gun is immaterial.

There are other places that one must be both Democrat AND Anti gun.

The closer you get to Chicago (and away from the farm) the more Anti Gun you MUST be... if you are a Democrat.

Those Republicans (and Libertarians) who choose to fight the Losing Battle at election time are consistantly Pro Gun... even in Chicago... but they aren't going to win anyway.

The sad and simple fact is, there are and will be more Anti-Gun Urban Democrats controlling the Democrat party than there will ever be Pro Gun Rural Democrats. There simply isn't the number of voters in Rural America to swing the ballance of the Democrat party power structure into the Pro 2nd Amendment camp.

That's not to say there aren't Anti 2nd Amendment Pols and Anti 2nd Amendment Appeasers in the Republocrats - hell, just look at Rudy and Mitt (who are now both expediently "pro"... ) But at least the Republocrat Platform is no less Pro Gun than the NRA...

[Ysabel Kid]

... and think there is a role for taxation to create a more equitable society.

So, you don't believe in liberty? All taxation is is the theft of one's labor. If I walk up to you, stick a gun in your face, and demand money, what is it called? Regardless of what I do with the money - even if I give it all to charity, it is theft. When the state does it, under threat of imprisonment or worse, it is "taxation". No difference.

Don't get me wrong, unlike big "L" Libertarians, I do agree that a certain amount of taxation is needed for a civilized society - within our Constititional bounds. That taxation would not be progressive - each would pay the same amount or same percentage. This would fund the Constitutional role of the federal government. States could then set their own tax policies, and compete with one another for citizens, as people would move to the states that best represented their personal needs and beliefs. Big "L" Liberals/Leftists (another distinction without a difference) won't ever allow this, as their social-welfare policy only works when it is mandatory - i.e., it takes away one's individual liberties.

I'm so liberal I'm a conservative. My definition of conservative is one trying to "conserve" the Constitution, our freedoms, and the institutions that have made us the beacon of freedom for 231 years...

[Caco]

Yep-- Like prolife democrates or straight family democrats.
The term denial comes to mind. Shure we have bad rep, but with the dem party platfom and the dominating enforcing leadership-- depending on your state government to protect you or get the right supreme court judges is denial
Dave

[handirifle]

It really burns me to hear people say we need taxation for an equitable society. Friend, that is socialism, plain and simple, and it neither works nor is healthy for the very people it claims to serve. The only ones it helps are those that CONTROL the socialist system.

Do a little look at history, it's really true.

I am doing fine now in my income level, thank you, but I have not always been here. BUT when I was only making $50 a week at each of my two jobs, for a grand total of $100 a week, it caused me to realize I needed to do something to get myself up ABOVE this standard of living. waht I didn't do was ask for welfare, or the government to give me handouts to make me equal in income to my bosses.

If everyone wants to be equal, then get educated (yes even poor people can go to college, the government DOES pay for it) make themselves a more marketable item and in the process actually make more money, and raise their standard of living.

When they do, they'll see why we get so upset everytime some yahoo thinks we need to raise taxes to help those that won't help themselves.

This is not the case for 100% of the poor, by any means, but I'm certain the majority will fit this category.

[Junior]

It would help OUR efforts at less gun control if the national Democratic leadership understood just how many of their fellow Democrats are pro-gun. They don't and won't understand it until more Democrats become like me and openly express their pro-gun sentiments. That will not happen until guys like some here stop seeing all Democrats as their enemy. There's several Democrats and plain ol' liberals on this forum other than myself. They don't say a word because some of you guys would jump on them with both feet.

Anytime you call a fellow patriotic, pro-gun American "anti-American" or an "enemy" or tell him he's going straight to h-e-double-L all because he's a Democrat, you have helped the anti-gun cause.

[k8bor]

I agree with you Junior, everyone has become completely partisan for no other reason than pure politics. Sadly politicians have become completely one-sided regardless of what makes sense. Truly a sad state of affairs.
Things would get way better if politicians would become reasonably "middle-of-the-road" regarding the main issues and save the partisan arguements for the less important or forward looking legislation. Such is just not in vogue, now, however.

de k8bor

dave

[C. Cash]

First, welcome! I say more power to you if your voting for a pro-gun Democrat(there are other issues which are important to me personally, but to each his own). But to vote for a Democratic candidate on a national level who WILL support gun control and appoint people who are overtly anti 2nd ammendment? Am I missing something????????

[Ysabel Kid]

I agree with you Junior, everyone has become completely partisan for no other reason than pure politics. Sadly politicians have become completely one-sided regardless of what makes sense. Truly a sad state of affairs.
Things would get way better if politicians would become reasonably "middle-of-the-road" regarding the main issues and save the partisan arguements for the less important or forward looking legislation. Such is just not in vogue, now, however.

de k8bor

dave

I beg to differ. First, I see nothing wrong with passionate support of one's beliefs. Second, "middle-of-the-road" compromises have got us some terrible laws on the books. Case in point would be almost all the gun laws since the turn of the last century.

Junior has an excellent point. I may disagree with positions, but should never let those differences become personal attacks. When (won't say if - I know I've been bad in the past) I have done so, I need to take a step back and apologize. To any where I have crossed that line, I am truly sorry.

[plattski]

The older I get the less certain I am of the opinions I've developed over my life. This is one difference between fundamentalists and agnostics (religious, 2nd amendment, taxation or otherwise): fundamentalists are able to hold firm to their core beliefs regardless of new information or thoughtful persuasion, while agnostics tend to reconsider when presented with new evidence or an effective argument. I am in the latter category these days after spending 30-odd years in the former. I agree that government is massive and too-often inept (or worse), that taxes are a surrogate for a system that lets people take care of themselves and each other on a voluntary basis, and that politicians usually do what it takes to get elected rather than hold firm to their beliefs (and rarely do they really share their beliefs).

Who has a solution? I've not heard a good proposal for how to maintain a functioning civil society without government and taxation, now that we've hit about 300 million Americans (not to mention all those non-Americans). I don't give a rat's a** if people want to own military weapons for their own entertainment, even though I think you are kidding yourselves when you claim that you form a well-regulated militia capable of offsetting the power of an oppressive federal government. When Bush comes for you backed by the awesome power of his federal army of private contractors he will stick all those pea shooters right in your ear (think Ruby Ridge and Waco). I find it ironic that Bush has done more to expand government than any President since Roosevelt, and at the same time undermined our personal freedoms with his surveillance society and fear-mongering. All hail! Everyone resents forking over their hard-earned dollars for some aspect of government. I am happy to chip in for children's health care, public education, national parks and the military, but I personally can't stand funding Bush's war and SAIC's business plan (and Star Wars? Give me a break! Talk about welfare for aerospace companies).

So what is the answer? I know it sounds naive but I think it comes down to local politics and acceptance of a diversity of opinion. If we can't open our minds to other people's dearly held opinions, and soften our hearts toward other people's need, then we are toast. I think the ultimate problem is fundamentalists of all stripes, political, economic and religious!

[Old Savage]

Frequently what you - the general you - think is new information and thoughtful persuasion isn't. Kill the unborn but keep dreadful killers alive. Not seeing any truth there.

[Junior]

OS, we were politely discussing liberals and guns, not abortion.

[C. Cash]

So what is the answer? I know it sounds naive but I think it comes down to local politics and acceptance of a diversity of opinion. If we can't open our minds to other people's dearly held opinions, and soften our hearts toward other people's need, then we are toast. I think the ultimate problem is fundamentalists of all stripes, political, economic and religious!

Isn't it a contradiction to talk about accepting a diversity of opinion, yet at the same time exclude the opinion of the Right Wing and those who hold firm to their Judeo/Christian values? It is hard to stay on topic here as there is no where to go with being proud to be a liberal and also valuing your second amendment rights. The two ideas quickly diverge if reality comes into play.

[Old Ironsights]

The older I get the less certain I am of the opinions I've developed over my life.

Not me... I've always been a Strict Constructionist Classic liberal/libertarian.

This is one difference between fundamentalists and agnostics (religious, 2nd amendment, taxation or otherwise): fundamentalists are able to hold firm to their core beliefs regardless of new information or thoughtful persuasion, while agnostics tend to reconsider when presented with new evidence or an effective argument. I am in the latter category these days after spending 30-odd years in the former.

Sorry. Can't agree with you there. I readily admit to being a Fundamentalist on RKBA 2nd Amendment... that's because RIGHTS are preexisting, i.e. exist before the interference of Government or Religion (often one and the same thing). The Exestential Right of Self Defense cannot be legitimately denied or restricted. By anyone. Anywhere. For any reason. To deny or to limit the Exestential Right of Self Defense, including the possession/use of firearms, is to presume to dictate the Exestential Worth of Soverign Individuals. That's where Genocide comes from.

I agree that government is massive and too-often inept (or worse), that taxes are a surrogate for a system that lets people take care of themselves and each other on a voluntary basis, and that politicians usually do what it takes to get elected rather than hold firm to their beliefs (and rarely do they really share their beliefs).

No disagreement at all.

Who has a solution? I've not heard a good proposal for how to maintain a functioning civil society without government and taxation, now that we've hit about 300 million Americans (not to mention all those non-Americans).

Many here disagree with me, but for personal edification you might begin here Read them all before you judge.

I don't give a rat's a** if people want to own military weapons for their own entertainment, even though I think you are kidding yourselves when you claim that you form a well-regulated militia capable of offsetting the power of an oppressive federal government.

And yet, the VC gave, and the Insurgents are giving us fits(ish).

Unless, of course, you are willing to consider the US Government more willing to carpet bomb Topeka than Hanoi/Baghdad...

When Bush comes for you backed by the awesome power of his federal army of private contractors he will stick all those pea shooters right in your ear (think Ruby Ridge and Waco).

Those were Clinton/Reno Debacles...

I find it ironic that Bush has done more to expand government than any President since Roosevelt,

Debatable. You don't think the EcoState Gore wouldn't have been bigger? But AFAIC ANY increase is too much.

and at the same time undermined our personal freedoms with his surveillance society and fear-mongering.

Largely overinflated by the press, but again, ANY tampering of the Rights of US CITIZENS (wiretapping of foreign calls if even one party is a non-citizen doesn't count - for hopefully obvious reason. Should I be able to call Mr. Putin with impunity?)

All hail!

Hyperbole.

Everyone resents forking over their hard-earned dollars for some aspect of government. I am happy to chip in for children's health care, public education, national parks and the military, but I personally can't stand funding Bush's war and SAIC's business plan (and Star Wars? Give me a break! Talk about welfare for aerospace companies).

So what is the answer?

The answer is to NOT tax for anything but, at the most, the Military. My measly income would be worth 8x what it is now if I wasn paying my taxes as well as A PORTION OF ALL OF THE TAXES OF EVERY BUSINESS/CORPORATION I DO BUSINESS WITH. Without Taxation I would be able to PAY for schools, Toll Roads, Parks and Healthcare. (The order listed is significant... think about it.)

I know it sounds naive but I think it comes down to local politics and acceptance of a diversity of opinion. If we can't open our minds to other people's dearly held opinions, and soften our hearts toward other people's need, then we are toast.

Sorry, fallacious thinking. There are people who want to kill/enslave me. I will NOT accept their "diversity of opinion".

As for "softening out hearts toward other people's need" - the US already has the most generous INDIVIDUAL contribution to Global Need/Charity than ANY other industrialized nation. It doesn't need to be stolen from them at gunpoint. (Don't believe the "gunpoint" bit? Try not paying your taxes sometime...)

Increase EVERYONE's real income by 800% and see how that number jumps.

I think the ultimate problem is fundamentalists of all stripes, political, economic and religious!

Rubbish. I agree only to the extent od Subjective Realities such as specific branches of Organzed Religion.

Economics is debatable, but Authoritarian Socialisim has failed everywhere it has been tried... Not even the Early Christians survived it.

But Freedom is not negotiable. It PreExists.

[Junior]

... that's because RIGHTS are preexisting, i.e. exist before the interference of Government or Religion (often one and the same thing). The Exestential Right of Self Defense cannot be legitimately denied or restricted. By anyone. Anywhere. For any reason. To deny or to limit the Exestential Right of Self Defense, including the possession/use of firearms, is to presume to dictate the Exestential Worth of Soverign Individuals. That's where Genocide comes from.

OI, please explain that in English. You lost me.

[Old Ironsights]

... that's because RIGHTS are preexisting, i.e. exist before the interference of Government or Religion (often one and the same thing). The Exestential Right of Self Defense cannot be legitimately denied or restricted. By anyone. Anywhere. For any reason. To deny or to limit the Exestential Right of Self Defense, including the possession/use of firearms, is to presume to dictate the Exestential Worth of Soverign Individuals. That's where Genocide comes from.

OI, please explain that in English. You lost me.

Your Right to protect your Existence (i.e. Right to Self Defense) exists by the simple fact OF your existence.

Even a BunnyRat has the Right to Defend its life.

Humans, are Tool Makers. We do not have "Tooth & Claw", we have Steel & Cunning.

Firearms are simply the Tool-manifestation of the Human "Claw".

To deny or to restrict the ownership/possession of the Tools of Self Defense (note I did NOT say WMDs or Crew Served Weapons...) denies the RIGHT to self defense. It says "Your Life is Worth Less than that of a base Animal" (just ask PETA). Whenever ANYONE says your life is not worth defending, that it is worth less, it can, and eventually usually does, start taking Life at will.

The Native Americans were Worth Less than the wwestward colonials.

The Blacks were Worth Less than the Whites.

The Jews were/are Worth Less than everyone else. Just ask every Facist since 3761 (Jewish calendar).

You cannot deny or restrict the TOOLS of self defense without denying/restricting the RIGHT of self defense.

That is why Gun Control - by anyone, and especially when it is part of a Platform - is so Pernicious... and Racist.

[AJMD429]

I am happy to chip in for children's health care, public education, national parks and the military...

Don't lump THOSE together! The Military is the only original and legitimate function the federal government should be taxing for. I am 'left' enough to think the environment is also something the federal government COULD (if it managed to do it legitimately, which it so far has NOT) address (it has instead politicized and trivialized and basically used smoke and mirrors to fool naive 'environmentalists' to vote Democrat). On the OTHER hand, the 'health care' and 'education' are NOT functions of the federal government, nor should they be. I've worked within both, and the ONLY time the poor get quality services is when the free market is left to function without government interference. Government, or any other type of large, bureaucratic, consensus (and bribe, and special-interest) driven entity, simply is not suited to providing a quality product or service in a competitive and efficient manner. Of ALL things, education and health care are too important to ruin by giving the 'masses' some sort of token service, determined by a bunch of pointy-headed big city slickers who doubtless have their own dogs in the race, and will doubtless send their own family to private schools and private health providers.
If you want POOR quality health care, and want it to be OVERLY EXPENSIVE, do more of what we've done to health care in the past 30 years - bureaucratize it, and involve more layers of administration so that the payment is not directly from the provider to the recipient. In a society where we all buy food and gasoline costing many times what ordinary basic health care costs, there is no legitimate role for any outsiders in the financial transactions. If you wreck your car, or your house is hit by a tornado, you involve your insurance, and if you have cancer or a heart attack, involve health insurance, but NOT for day to day maintenance and items which could be SO inexpensive if you didn't rely on a socialized healthcare system. Believe me, I've seen it decline, and I am convinced that the only reason our health care is getting more expensive, and less consumer-oriented, is that the patient is no longer the customer (who is 'always right'), the doctor works for the insurance company, because THAT is who pays him/her. When that 'insurance company' is not just regulated by the government, but IS the government, your health care will have the efficiency of the license branch, the safety of the public school, and the quality will be forever gone. Same for education.

[Old Ironsights]

Good one AJMD

[Hobie]

OS, we were politely discussing liberals and guns, not abortion.

Junior,

I think the talk has already digressed from guns...

[AmBraCol]

I think the talk has already digressed from guns...

Topic drift! What topic drift? Isn't any topic worthy of discussing also worthy of drifting a bit?

[Hobie]

I think the talk has already digressed from guns...

Topic drift! What topic drift? Isn't any topic worthy of discussing also worthy of drifting a bit?

You haven't seen me try a "correction"!

Frankly, I don't think you can separate one opinion from the other whether it is blindly held as part of a group loyalty or a reasoned response based on a premise which is part and parcel of a core belief.

Junior and I had this discussion vis-a-vis Dems and anti-gun folks. We've no pro-gun Dems up here. We did have one, Virgil Goode, but he could see his party abandoning him (as it abandoned Lieberman) so he switched to independent. However well he did in retaining his seat, he couldn't represent his constituents as well without going one way or the other so he went on the rest of the way to the Republican side. His core beliefs haven't changed but his party affiliation has. From where I sit, I see only Dems who are anti-gun ownership.

However, I see a lot of correlation between the views held on this topic and others among those who reason based on their core beliefs. Those people consistently hold basically similar views on other subjects such as abortion, parental rights, taxation, property rights, illegal immigration and use of the military. So, I've just been watching the show...

[Old Savage]

OK then Junior, let's get back on topic - why do you think that Democrats are good for gun ownership and use?

[sanchez]

plattski, just so's you don't think you're alone ... you're not.

I'm a hard core gun lover; been shooting one kind of firearm or another since I was six. I come from a family of career soldiers ... all liberals, by the way; most see liberty and liberal as inseperable elements of citizenship and see dogma as just that ... frozen dicta that lodge in the mind and soul, unshakeable by new information or expansion of insight. If you love liberty, you may not love, but you must honor it's inclusions. America has much more to do with interaction of philosophical tensions to produce a composite result, than rigid adherence to self serving, nebulous edicts put forth supposedly as principle.

I'm also a Jeffersonian Democrat. As such, over time his writings seem to gain greater wisdom as mine slowly expands:
"He who knows best knows how little he knows",

"How much pain they've cost us, the evils which have never happened"

and most pertinent to this discussion for me, "I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend".

The tone set by some here could intimidate or just put off some who are not as dictatorial in their outlook; I'm not one of those, but I'd rather be a part of a community that pursues expansiion and productivity more vigorously than exclusion.

Let me know if that's what we're talking about here.

And for those who aren't completely isolated from Democratic politics and platforms ... it's become very important to those of us in this fold that we will neither support or permit for long any who dispute our arms rights; most of the Dems have much more of a fight on their hands to preserve the basics of democracy and society, than focusing on denying gun rights; if they waver from that, we'll whack em politically.

[Junior]

OK then Junior, let's get back on topic - why do you think that Democrats are good for gun ownership and use?

That isn't what I said. What I said was, there's many pro-gun Democrats who keep their mouths shut on forums like this due to bashing by right wing members. A person who calls me anti-American or a traitor because I vote Democrat is the real anti-American.

[sanchez]

What Junior Said

[plattski]

Sanchez, I appreciate a voice in support of individual rights and personal freedoms. Not to say that what everyone here has offered is anything less than a free exchange of ideas, but I do see a tendency to condemn ideas or behavior that diverges from the dearly held personal notions of some writers.

My point about fundamentalism is simple - it is one thing to know exactly how you feel about an issue, but it is another to dictate to someone else how they should feel. I think this applies across the board, so when someone says we should scrap the 2nd Amendment I think they go too far. The courts are pretty clear (esp. after the DC gun law case) that we as Americans retain the right to keep and bear arms. I personally don't have a need to own sophisticated military weapons since I use guns to hunt for food and I support our excellent military and police to keep order, but I won't begrudge others that pleasure.

The thing many of you fear is that other Americans want to restrict gun ownership, because they believe that guns are funamentally dangerous (even evil). They so BELIEVE they are right that they're willing to infringe on our rights, so we need to fight in the political arena to protect our rights. What about those Americans (some of you doubtless included) who fundamentally believe that women should not be allowed to have abortions? Who says you are right and that you should dictate to others? The Bible? Who wrote the Bible? I don't hold the Bible higher than our Constitution or state and federal laws. Who else says no to abortion? A majority of Americans? No, a very aggressive minority (like the anti-gun crowd). My point is that too many people in this world think they are the only ones with Truth on their side. What do you think of the wild-eyed Muslim kid who kills in the name of his god? He certainly believes he is right, but we disagree.

I wish it were possible to have two parallel societies in America - one for people who can bear paying their taxes for health care, education, police protecion, environmental protection, the military, worker safety, etc., and another for those who don't think they should pay and who say let the free market rule and survival of the fittest. Keep the two groups apart and see what happens, see who has a better quality of life. All these laws exist in response to some need that was strong enough to motivate our elected representatives to step in - wage laws, worker safety, health and environmental protection, protections for speech and personal behavior. There is a lot of nostalgia for the old days, but back in the old days when the working man wasn't getting crushed under the wheels he was blowing up railroads and mines in this country because he was so irate. Now conservatives complain how OSHA and labor unions are disadvantaging American business.

I guess I'm just about out of steam. I appreciate hearing other folks' opinions on the broad range of issues raised here. I sure wish there was some way to get American conservatives to be a little bit kinder and more generous toward other people without having to twist their arms. Bush's compassionate conservatism never did get off the ground (too much baggage on board from the first class passengers). At least we agree on the right to keep and bear arms. Thanks boys.

[BruceB]

OK then Junior, let's get back on topic - why do you think that Democrats are good for gun ownership and use?

That isn't what I said. What I said was, there's many pro-gun Democrats who keep their mouths shut on forums like this due to bashing by right wing members. A person who calls me anti-American or a traitor because I vote Democrat is the real anti-American.

Why didn't you answer the question Old Savage asked you, Junior?
You have repeatedly stated you will vote for Hillary Clinton. Why do you believe she and her adminitration, or any Democrat administration/government, will be "good for gun ownership and use"?

[Hobie]

I guess I'm just about out of steam. I appreciate hearing other folks' opinions on the broad range of issues raised here. I sure wish there was some way to get American conservatives to be a little bit kinder and more generous toward other people without having to twist their arms. Bush's compassionate conservatism never did get off the ground (too much baggage on board from the first class passengers). At least we agree on the right to keep and bear arms. Thanks boys.

Now THAT's disingenuous bashing. It is so similar to the condescending way that Hillary called Gen. Petraeus a liar. You sound as if you're being reasonable but you just equated me with a dog/wife/child abuser.

"Thanks boys." If you are an adult you are one among many. Some would interpret that as a sly put-down.

[AmBraCol]

What about those Americans (some of you doubtless included) who fundamentally believe that women should not be allowed to have abortions? Who says you are right and that you should dictate to others?

The whole "right to an abortion" deal is based on the premise that a woman's choice to kill the baby within her affects no one else. It's "her right to privacy" and "her right to choose". Now, if a woman wants to be sexually promiscuous that's her choice. If she chooses to not use a method of preventing pregnancy that is her choice. However, what needs to be taken into consideration are the rights of the unborn person that she allowed to be conceived. Speaking strictly from a scientific standpoint, no religion involved at all, the life of the child begins at conception. The moment that child is conceived (the ovum becomes a blastocycst [sp]) a new DNA code is generated. It is separate from the mother's DNA and the father's DNA although there are similarities - they are after all related. But the child has his own DNA from the git go.

Now, folks used to allow the father of the household the say so over the life of any and every being within his household. It was not uncommon for a child to be abandoned at birth - and this still happens in places, most notably "One Child China" and especially if the child is a girl. However, that practice has NOT been part of our culture nor anything like it - until the woman got the OK to do the same - only prior to birth.

If it were a case of only the woman's body, that'd be OK. But when you start dictating that one can end the life of another merely on a whim, that opens the door to all kinds of evil. That very attitude lead Terry Schiavo to be starved and dehydrated to death - something we don't even inflict upon the rapists, murders and other such scum.

I support a woman's control over her own body. But NOT over the life of a being she allowed to be conceived. To do so would be to allow the greatest tyranny against the most helpless of our society.

Presented respectfully this lovely October day...

[AmBraCol]

I guess I'm just about out of steam. I appreciate hearing other folks' opinions on the broad range of issues raised here. I sure wish there was some way to get American conservatives to be a little bit kinder and more generous toward other people without having to twist their arms. Bush's compassionate conservatism never did get off the ground (too much baggage on board from the first class passengers). At least we agree on the right to keep and bear arms. Thanks boys.

Now, if US liberals would be generous WITH THEIR OWN FINANCES, maybe we'd be getting somewhere. There's fewer greater tyrannies than that in which one is OBLIGATED to help someone - and especially someone who does not deserve it. US conservatives are VERY generous to causes they believe in, but providing crack to addicts on welfare is not something most of us would support. Your statement highlighted above shows a misunderstanding of the issue. It's not about being generous - it's about appropriating other people's wealth to be generous with. My family has greatly benefited from the generosity of the very conservatives you are bashing - but on a private level, not through government coercion or obligation. We've also witnessed many such instances of generosity - on a personal level.

I saw a study a while back that compared "liberal" vs "conservative" private giving. The conservatives far outshine the liberals in private giving. it's the obligated, mismanaged government redistribution of wealth that we oppose.

Respectfully submitted this fine October day...

[Junior]

>I support a woman's control over her own body. But NOT over the life of a being she allowed to be conceived. To do so would be to allow the greatest tyranny against the most helpless of our society.

The anti-gun real agenda is to eliminate all guns, right? You have no problem seeing that, right? Well, the anti-abortion real agenda is to eliminate all abortions. It doesn't matter if the fetus will or is killing the mother. The fetus must survive. I don't know about you, but a fetus is less important than my daughter or granddaughter.

OS, a Hillary Clinton administration would be no less gun-friendly than a Rudy Giuliano administration. A Hillary Clinton administration would also stop this country's slide toward a right wing dictatorship, which is where we're headed without major change, IMO.

Understand something: one of the first moves of a right wing dictatorship/one party system would be to eliminate private firearms ownership.

[C. Cash]

Sanchez, I appreciate a voice in support of individual rights and personal freedoms. Not to say that what everyone here has offered is anything less than a free exchange of ideas, but I do see a tendency to condemn ideas or behavior that diverges from the dearly held personal notions of some writers.

My point about fundamentalism is simple - it is one thing to know exactly how you feel about an issue, but it is another to dictate to someone else how they should feel. I think this applies across the board, so when someone says we should scrap the 2nd Amendment I think they go too far. The courts are pretty clear (esp. after the DC gun law case) that we as Americans retain the right to keep and bear arms. I personally don't have a need to own sophisticated military weapons since I use guns to hunt for food and I support our excellent military and police to keep order, but I won't begrudge others that pleasure.

The thing many of you fear is that other Americans want to restrict gun ownership, because they believe that guns are funamentally dangerous (even evil). They so BELIEVE they are right that they're willing to infringe on our rights, so we need to fight in the political arena to protect our rights. What about those Americans (some of you doubtless included) who fundamentally believe that women should not be allowed to have abortions? Who says you are right and that you should dictate to others? The Bible? Who wrote the Bible? I don't hold the Bible higher than our Constitution or state and federal laws. Who else says no to abortion? A majority of Americans? No, a very aggressive minority (like the anti-gun crowd). My point is that too many people in this world think they are the only ones with Truth on their side. What do you think of the wild-eyed Muslim kid who kills in the name of his god? He certainly believes he is right, but we disagree.

I wish it were possible to have two parallel societies in America - one for people who can bear paying their taxes for health care, education, police protecion, environmental protection, the military, worker safety, etc., and another for those who don't think they should pay and who say let the free market rule and survival of the fittest. Keep the two groups apart and see what happens, see who has a better quality of life. All these laws exist in response to some need that was strong enough to motivate our elected representatives to step in - wage laws, worker safety, health and environmental protection, protections for speech and personal behavior. There is a lot of nostalgia for the old days, but back in the old days when the working man wasn't getting crushed under the wheels he was blowing up railroads and mines in this country because he was so irate. Now conservatives complain how OSHA and labor unions are disadvantaging American business.

I guess I'm just about out of steam. I appreciate hearing other folks' opinions on the broad range of issues raised here. I sure wish there was some way to get American conservatives to be a little bit kinder and more generous toward other people without having to twist their arms. Bush's compassionate conservatism never did get off the ground (too much baggage on board from the first class passengers). At least we agree on the right to keep and bear arms. Thanks boys.

You brought up a very controversial subject that you probably knew was gonna make some fur fly. So now you gotta own it brother! No insult to your person is intended . We're just talking ideas right? That's what free men do!

I don't agree with the lumping together of all "Fundamentalists". Many Muslim Fundamentalists support the killing of innocent people to get their point across. Though not without their own problems, the vast majority of Christian "Fundamentalists" don't harm or forcefully coerce anyone to their view, but instead vote, speak their minds, and live peaceably side by side with their Muslim, Jewish, Asian, Black...etc neighbors, almost without exception. They are by far the largest contributors to charities worldwide and often leave their homes to help others in other countries who are quite different culturally and racially, often at peril of their lives. Historically, "Fundamentalist" Christians have brought about many of the things that we hold so dear in the Western world: the end of Slavery here and abroad, humanitarian organizations(the Red Cross for example), hey the vast majority of Early Americans who set up our personal freedoms would have been considered Fundamentalists too as they believed strongly in the truth of the Bible; even sufferage was heavily influenced by the idea of the worth of all people in God's eyes(based on that same pesky Bible). The right to life for the unborn comes from these same notions. So, to say that these right wingers are a bunch of meanies and need to go away is not really being fair or historically accurate. Conversely, the darkest times in human history have been brought about when men got confused about what right and wrong really were. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin...all were examples of mankind throwing off the existing Judeo/Christian mindset of the worth of each human individual/soul and replacing it with their own twisted version of "truth". The ends justified the means to them and they were only too glad to say "There are no real rules, morally". The question is, will we learn from history?

[BruceB]

Junior, pay close attention. The question to you is:
Why do you think that Democrats are good for gun ownership and use?
Are you afraid to answer that question? You've danced around it twice now.

[Junior]

Junior, pay close attention. The question to you is:
Why do you think that Democrats are good for gun ownership and use?
Are you afraid to answer that question? You've danced around it twice now.

IMO, some Democrats are no worse for gun ownership than some Republicans. I can't be more clear than that--for the 3rd time, I think. Republicans are taking this country toward a right wing dictatorship, IMO. Understand? I'll say it again: Republicans are taking this country toward a right wing dictatorship.

[Old Savage]

Junior,

This right wing dictatoship is nonsense. Clinton was the closest thing you saw to that. When you have as in calif with Davis democrats in both houses and in the Gov., they will ram through any gun contol that comes up including banning guns that were never made. If you have Republicans they will stop it. What is this liberal blindness and creation of fairy tales.

[Old Ironsights]

Junior, pay close attention. The question to you is:
Why do you think that Democrats are good for gun ownership and use?
Are you afraid to answer that question? You've danced around it twice now.

IMO, some Democrats are no worse for gun ownership than some Republicans. I can't be more clear than that--for the 3rd time, I think. Republicans are taking this country toward a right wing dictatorship, IMO. Understand? I'll say it again: Republicans are taking this country toward a right wing dictatorship.

IMO, it's a collaborative effort.

For all intents and purposes, we already have a "one party system" - or else the Democans - who have a Voting Majority in Congress - would have been actually able to do all those things they claimed they were going to do in order to get elected, and the Republocrats would have not actually INCREASED spending & the overall size of government.

The PROBLEM is GOVERNMENT. Doesn't matter who's "in charge" because the problem lies in having people "in charge" in the first place.

Neither "side" believes individuals are capable of living their own lives without Nanny Government sticking its nose in. Doesn't matter what issue, some know-it-all self righteous authoritarian want's you to do it THEIR way.

Meh.

But it's amazing to me how people on the "left" consider Bush to be the epitome of incompetents, yet simultaneously believe that he's leading the charge for a Dictatorship. Somthing just doesn't jibe there. What's keeping the Democrats from stoping him?

Could it be that they are all part of the same Machine creating the problem?

Naaah.

[BruceB]

Junior, pay close attention. The question to you is:
Why do you think that Democrats are good for gun ownership and use?
Are you afraid to answer that question? You've danced around it twice now.

IMO, some Democrats are no worse for gun ownership than some Republicans. I can't be more clear than that--for the 3rd time, I think. Republicans are taking this country toward a right wing dictatorship, IMO. Understand? I'll say it again: Republicans are taking this country toward a right wing dictatorship.

Third evasion. Let me help you. Complete this sentence: "I think the Democrats are good for gun ownership and use because___________________________."

Whether Republicans or anybody else are better, worse, or the same is not the question. The question is why you think the Democrats are good for gun ownership and use.

[Junior]

Junior, pay close attention. The question to you is:
Why do you think that Democrats are good for gun ownership and use?
Are you afraid to answer that question? You've danced around it twice now.

IMO, some Democrats are no worse for gun ownership than some Republicans. I can't be more clear than that--for the 3rd time, I think. Republicans are taking this country toward a right wing dictatorship, IMO. Understand? I'll say it again: Republicans are taking this country toward a right wing dictatorship.

Third evasion. Let me help you. Complete this sentence: "I think the Democrats are good for gun ownership and use because___________________________."

Whether Republicans or anybody else are better, worse, or the same is not the question. The question is why you think the Democrats are good for gun ownership and use.

Why don't you finish this one: "I'm harassing Junior because ___________________."

[C. Cash]

I don't know of any of my Right Wing Evangelical brethren who would do anything but oppose such a measure to the death. It goes against any and all notions of free will which as anyone knows is oppressive and morally wrong. Christians will vote for what they believe to be right, but will not put up with forceful coercion of anyone.

[BruceB]

Junior, pay close attention. The question to you is:
Why do you think that Democrats are good for gun ownership and use?
Are you afraid to answer that question? You've danced around it twice now.

IMO, some Democrats are no worse for gun ownership than some Republicans. I can't be more clear than that--for the 3rd time, I think. Republicans are taking this country toward a right wing dictatorship, IMO. Understand? I'll say it again: Republicans are taking this country toward a right wing dictatorship.

Third evasion. Let me help you. Complete this sentence: "I think the Democrats are good for gun ownership and use because___________________________."

Whether Republicans or anybody else are better, worse, or the same is not the question. The question is why you think the Democrats are good for gun ownership and use.

Why don't you finish this one: "I'm harassing Junior because ___________________."

"I'm pressing Junior because he won't give us a straight answer to the question put to him."