Liberals With Guns ???

[FalArAk]

Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional intrusion of federal authority, Dildo bans? WTF? AWBs? WTF? Library records accessed by the FBI WTF? Warrantless phone tapping? WTF?

To me, the policies above represent totalitarian measures which drastically increase government authority without constitutional authority.


What part of that do you disagree with?

Nothing.

The fact that you voted for and campaigned for a Socialist sickens me.

What gets me is that you seem to hate .gov intrusion,but you voted for a president that is going to expand the .gov to unseen levels,look at the economic hand out plan.

I despise both political parties and I hate McCain,I just hate Obama more.

 

[calsdad]

I'm a woman and I'm a liberal. I also love our guns and our 2A rights. BUT... when I come to these forums and read the consistent 'liberal' bashing and some of the hyperbole I feel distinctly unwelcome here. I've met lots of people on this forum, who are the sweetest, nicest people I could wish to meet. The people at my gun club are with very rare exceptions also the nicest, sweetest people you could meet.

What we all share is our commitment to 2A and our love of guns. But sometimes I wonder if being pro-2A isn't "good enough" for some folks here.

Well maybe I can shed some light on that since I am most likely one of the people you may have seen "liberal bashing".

The way I see it is this: Liberals and Democrats are the ones who have far and away been most responsible for taking away my rights and burdening me with the massive taxes that I now pay. They are the ones who have consistently voted for and have the philosophical belief that big government is good government.

I have seen the reasons why this belief is NOT true over and over again in my life in job related, personal, and historical contexts.

Therefore I have come to the conclusion that liberals in general and the Democratic party in particular are largely responsible for making my life worse - not better, and they have also demonstrably been dragging this country towards socialism over time. Which also has ample historical evidence to show that it is not a good way to order society.

Why do liberals and Democrats constantly argue that govt. force is good as long as it is forcing me to do something that is "good for me" - or "good for society"?.

Don't get me wrong - I think the Republicans pretty much suck too. Largely because they have become just the Democratic Lite party.

I do not believe that liberals in general think out their positions well. I do not think that liberals in general respect my freedom to live my life as I choose - as long as I do not harm other people.

Liberals assume me to be guilty before proven innocent on many fronts - this is why they invariably resort to laws that reflect that belief.

Quite frankly the only reason I own guns is because I believe that this country is slowing creeping towards the day the 2nd amendment was put in place to allow us to prepare for. And liberals are largely responsible for dragging us there.

If this country was a freer country along the lines that libertarians hope for - I might have never bothered to own guns. I would spend my time and money on creative pursuits and on helping other people. Therefore you could say that liberals are their own worst enemies as far as gun ownership goes.

The recent Obama panic gun buying spree is just another incidence of this.

 

[calsdad]

Even though my wife has been whining about this thread I wasn't going to respond. -Until this little bit of foolishness. Tell ya what tough guy, I served this country proudly (USAF 1981-1985) -Not that that should make any difference, as last time I checked, serving in the military was a voluntary thing and not required to be a citizen (though it's too bad, Heinlein had it right).

You have a caricature of people based on God only knows what (Limbaugh et al I presume) that bears no relation to reality. I have a commitment to the constitution. which mean no federal interference in states rights, which includes btw, Roe vs, Wade, which while I agree with the sentiment, has no basis in constitutional principles. Nor do I support federal curriculum standards, gun control, or many other kinds of federal intrusions that don't have constitutional mandates.

YOU, on the other hand, don't appear to support constitutional principles at all.



Therefore people who disagree with you should be silenced? To me, Bush and Co. along with all the Dems who supported nastiness like the Patriot Act are the real villains. Where were you when such totalitarian measures were put in place? Oh, that's right, you were SILENT. Wake up. Authoritarian measures can come from ANY side of the political spectrum. A "liberal" at least in my thinking, should be against ALL such measures, irregardless of the political party proposing them. Dildo bans? WTF? AWBs? WTF? Library records accessed by the FBI WTF? Warrantless phone tapping? WTF?

If those are "liberal" positions I'll proudly wear the label. To me, the policies above represent totalitarian measures which drastically increase government authority without constitutional authority.

Obama? Yep, I voted for the guy. I campaigned for the guy and make no apologies for it. We can disagree all we want on whether the policies he will propose re best for the country. God knows I'll oppose him on many issues, which I knew before I voted.

On the other hand, Mccain represented other positions, equally as odious, equally as repressive, without a shadow of the credibility or intelligence represented by the Obama campaign.

Maybe you're right, maybe I'm wrong. But to accuse me and people like me of trying to undermine the country or being against America is not conservative. It's fascistic and authoritarian.

There were a number of people here on this forum who thought (and still think) that McCain sucked and that the Republican party has just become another party of big government. They might not be screwing you in the same way the Democrats are - but they are screwing you nonetheless.

My basic position on this is: Leave me the hell alone. When I commit a crime - prosectute me (under the law) - and I will serve my sentence if convicted. Democrats seem to have a long history of trying to legislate morality. And they delve into EVERY single stinking area of our lives - to the point that it is literally impossible for the average person to live their lives without breaking some law on a daily basis.

The federal register is 10's of thousands of pages.

This is an insane philosophy and an insane way to run a supposedly free country. And the Republicans have just hopped on the bandwagon that has been hauled by the Democrats for a long time.

It is time for both parties to go in my opinion. Unfortunately they are so entrenched it is going to take a lot of pain to make that change. And that pain is what we are now going thru as a country. It is my sincere hope that we have massive failure in Washington and that Obama destroys the Democrats the same way Bush destroyed the Republicans. Maybe then we can have a true party of freedom arise and we can start dismantling much of the big govt. BS that has been built up in this country over the last 100 years or more.

I do not see it happening any other way - there are powerful interests - on BOTH sides that want to see status quo and will fight for it. None of this is in MY best interest. Therefore to prevent further pain to me and my interests long term - if it takes political collapse and economic pain now to set things right - I say: so be it.

 

[namedpipes]

. . . My basic position on this is: Leave me the hell alone . . . if it takes political collapse and economic pain now to set things right - I say: so be it.

+1

I think things are too broken to fix.

 

[jobowker]

I'm a woman and I'm a liberal. I also love our guns and our 2A rights. BUT... when I come to these forums and read the consistent 'liberal' bashing and some of the hyperbole I feel distinctly unwelcome here. I've met lots of people on this forum, who are the sweetest, nicest people I could wish to meet. The people at my gun club are with very rare exceptions also the nicest, sweetest people you could meet.

What we all share is our commitment to 2A and our love of guns. But sometimes I wonder if being pro-2A isn't "good enough" for some folks here.

It's good enough for me. If it wasn't, then I would be no better than people on the opposing view.

Outside of chat boards & talk radio, there are few places for conservatives to rant and as a result, people have become a bit intolerant. I am not condoning it, but trying to explain it. What some people don't realize is that it makes more sense to get a lib to understand pro-2a, as opposing to trying to completely convert them.

People on both sides have to realize that the media has forced us to polarize. There are a large portion of people right in the middle, whose ideals are very close. They might not line up 100% but will still agree on many items.

Now take that moderate group and put a line right down the middle, splitting them in half. Now the ones on the left are identified with the left wing loonies, the ones on the right are identified with the right wing nut jobs, but in reality, both large groups are actually closer to each other than they are to their respective political parties.

Please stay - you are one of the few who can empathize when I go look at (ie tolerate) the Huffington Post.

 

[Pilgrim]

Liberalism is in practice, Irrational.

"I refuse to believe that so many people are blind idiots. If they are, we're f***ed no matter what they believe."

If you refuse to believe that, then you are blind….and we are f'kd and I don't believe there's anything that can be done to fix it short of revolt.

I think things are too broken to fix.

me too.

"If a person's logic is so flawed, then they should be easy to convince."

You've never argued with a true liberal have you?



I've never met yet a liberal who will acknowledge that they are actually socialists or communists. That's total irrational blindness on their parts.


Is the 2a issue enough to override every other issue?

Yes, because how a politician feels about the 2A, shows you how he feels about the people he represents. And without the 2a, we will not have the country that the Constitution defines…not that we have now, but what is left will totally disappear.

 

[RKG]

I'm a woman and I'm a liberal. I also love our guns and our 2A rights. BUT... when I come to these forums and read the consistent 'liberal' bashing and some of the hyperbole I feel distinctly unwelcome here. I've met lots of people on this forum, who are the sweetest, nicest people I could wish to meet. The people at my gun club are with very rare exceptions also the nicest, sweetest people you could meet.

What we all share is our commitment to 2A and our love of guns. But sometimes I wonder if being pro-2A isn't "good enough" for some folks here.

If you are a true liberal, and if you can nonetheless isolate the liberal paternalistic belief that the government knows best and should dictate to the individual when the question is whether the individual can be trusted to be armed, then you are an atypical liberal.

 

[sig shooter]

it is the truth that a man that does not trust the common man with arms cannot be trusted him self and should be seen as a enemy. I made a liberal even admit to me that he does not believe in economic freedom and the free market. The destruction of the free market that we have today is pure socialism.

 

[Admin]

it is the truth that a man that does not trust the common man with arms cannot be trusted him self and should be seen as a enemy.

That is they way I see it. There is a lot to be said about someone who doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment or that someone has the right to protect themselves.

 

[sig shooter]

Any man that says humans do not have a right to defend themselves is a gutless coward that would run like a pansy at the slightest sign of trouble.

 

[clinotus]

That is they way I see it. There is a lot to be said about someone who doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment or that someone has the right to protect themselves.

I think it goes full circle to people who rely on the government for everything from food, to shelter, to protection. I hate to say people are becoming drones, but with the lacking ability to do just those things without government teat..seems to be rare in todays times.

 

[sig shooter]

I personally see the fruits of liberals in my daily travels. Men don't Carry pocket knives any more and do not know how change a tire. they don't know how to grow food in a garden out back or how to tie knots. Guys my age could not even tell me the difference between a striper and a bluefish. The American people have become slaves to the government by welfare and this new helpless culture.

 

[terraformer]

According to the IRS dollar for dollar the top 1% pay about the same amount as the bottom 95%. so that means that the top 5% are sending more dollars to the gov than the other 95%. So who bears a disproportionate amount of the tax burden?

By that very link, the top 5% are only paying 60% of the nations tax burden and the top 1% only share 40% of the tax burden.

 

[PaulD]

By that very link, the top 5% are only paying 60% of the nations tax burden and the top 1% only share 40% of the tax burden.

It also doesn't paint the whole picture. The more important question, in my mind, is what % of income (from any source) do the rich pay vs. the middle class.

Clearly the absurdly complicated income tax code favors those who can afford tax lawyers and teams of accountants. Further, Mr. Rich himself, Warren Buffet has stated he pays a lower percentage than his secretary.

 

[drgrant]

I'm a woman and I'm a liberal. I also love our guns and our 2A rights. BUT... when I come to these forums and read the consistent 'liberal' bashing and some of the hyperbole I feel distinctly unwelcome here.

I suppose it depends on how you define yourself as a "liberal".

If you're a true Liberal, I'm kind of surprised that you'd feel unwelcome, considering that many here favor less government intervention in ALL aspects of our lives, not just gun laws.

On the other hand, if you're into the whole "socialist authoritarian" thing, then it's a little easier to understand.... a lot of folks here have an incredible amount of disdain for these individuals, for obvious reasons.

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

I suppose it depends on how you define yourself as a "liberal".

If you're a true Liberal, I'm kind of surprised that you'd feel unwelcome, considering that many here favor less government intervention in ALL aspects of our lives, not just gun laws.

On the other hand, if you're into the whole "socialist authoritarian" thing, then it's a little easier to understand.... a lot of folks here have an incredible amount of disdain for these individuals, for obvious reasons.

-Mike

Hence why labels and party identification is so dishonest and inadequate. If one identifies as liberal, and people here bash liberals, then there is little incentive to go into what that term means to anyone. In other words, everyone assumes their meaning of liberal is the one being used by the other guy. I bet it is not. So instead of bashing liberals, neo-cons, etc, bash a stated policy, not some abstract label designed to manipulate us and divide us.

ETA:

Too many people are separated by the two party systems. The us vs. them mentality. The simple fact is that we are all Americans with a similar belief. Small Government, Individual Freedom, the Right to Defend Yourself and personal responsiblity.

Apparently I can't give you rep points right now but I would for this statement. So true.

 

[EddieCoyle]

By that very link, the top 5% are only paying 60% of the nations tax burden and the top 1% only share 40% of the tax burden.

Only? I hope to God you're being sarcastic.

 

[terraformer]

Only? I hope to God you're being sarcastic.

I was being factual and pointing out that erebus' regurgitating of talking points didn't even match the supposed evidence he was pointing too. I wasn't weighing in on the merits but having friends in one of those tax brackets, I can tell you there are ways to hide income that are 100% legal but completely immoral. I suspect if the analysis was done comparing effective v. real tax rates, the results would be different. In addition, there are other sources of taxation that apply very differently between economic classes and solely focusing on income tax is a very lopsided and misleading exercise. One needs to take everyone's tax burden across overlapping governments and then compare for a real picture. But having never done the analysis myself, nor having never seen one I trust to be unbiased, I will leave it to others to debate on the merits and stick to pointing out logical fallacies and factual errors.

 

[director13]

What we all share is our commitment to 2A and our love of guns. But sometimes I wonder if being pro-2A isn't "good enough" for some folks here.

Yes, that.

 

[Mikey]

Voting for Obama is hardly a commitment to the 2A.

 

[ARowley]

Thank you for a civil response, you didn't jump in with name calling and Ad Hominem attacks. Now, let me address your points:

• I'm a strident supporter of the 2nd amendment. The only restrictions I am at all ok with on 2A rights are 1. restricting violent felons and those who've been adjudicated mentally ill from owning firearms. And 2. I draw the line for what's ok to possess as a civilian at things that can blow up your neighborhood by you being an idiot. aka explosives, grenades, and the like. That's it.
  
• I'm not in favor of tax increases. In fact, I'd like to see taxes decrease for the middle class, working class, and the poor. As it stands I think they bear a disproportionate amount of the tax burden in this country.
  
• I'd like to see the government stop disregarding the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and especially the 10th amendment!
  
• Who said anything about being soft on criminals? Violent criminals? Lock them up and throw away the key.

As for taxes perhaps a little more digging is needed...

The top 10% of wage earners in this country pay (in 2004) 68% of all the federal tax bill. The bottom 50% of wage earners which is classified as anyone making less than 32K a year pay 3% of the total taxes to the federal government.

I have read the constitution over and over and couldn't point to anything that the government has done to infringe on any of those amendments, if you are willing to be much more specific then perhaps we can discuss it further.

 

[terraformer]

As for taxes perhaps a little more digging is needed...

The top 10% of wage earners in this country pay (in 2004) 68% of all the federal tax bill. The bottom 50% of wage earners which is classified as anyone making less than 32K a year pay 3% of the total taxes to the federal government.

Two points I would make about this. One, I would take the income numbers with a grain of salt. Those numbers are AGI and that is fungible for people with lots of money. Basically people make corporations out of themselves and hide income through excessive use of "business expenses".

Second, if you want to see why populist messages resonate, half of the workers in this country make less than $32K a year. Granted, there are part timers, etc but think about that, if you assume half of the bottom half (25% of the total number of wage earners) are part timers, that means 25% of the population is working full time for less than $32K a year. I doubt the schlub making $33K is jumping for joy.

 

[Admin]

Two points I would make about this. One, I would take the income numbers with a grain of salt. Those numbers are AGI and that is fungible for people with lots of money. Basically people make corporations out of themselves and hide income through excessive use of "business expenses".

Second, if you want to see why populist messages resonate, half of the workers in this country make less than $32K a year. Granted, there are part timers, etc but think about that, if you assume half of the bottom half (25% of the total number of wage earners) are part timers, that means 25% of the population is working full time for less than $32K a year. I doubt the schlub making $33K is jumping for joy.

I am missing what ever point you are trying to make here.

 

[terraformer]

I am missing what ever point you are trying to make here.

A: The spread between income and tax burden may be lower. ie; percentage of tax burden and percentage of income may be closer to each other than the graph portends.

B: One has to ask themselves if the part of the population making less than $32K are lazy and unworthy or if the system is setup to screw them. Either because they are illegals*, their wages are depressed because of illegals (NB: I didn't say immigrants), they are competing with people in the slums of New Dehli with a guy whose boss and whose government could give a shit less if he dies on the job (and they regularly do) so the american worker is protected by laws dictating basic human decency on the job (not saying there aren't completely f'd up and inane requirements that could be axed though) isn't even able to compare apples to apples so the company outsource to oranges to beat the system.

*Yes, illegals invariably pay taxes and their incomes are counted because the businesses that employ them want their tax deduction so there are false SS numbers used and where a real one is used, citizens are forced to prove they didn't make the income they supposedly did.

 

[goofycj7]

A: The spread between income and tax burden may be lower. ie; percentage of tax burden and percentage of income may be closer to each other than the graph portends.

B: One has to ask themselves if the part of the population making less than $32K are lazy and unworthy or if the system is setup to screw them. Either because they are illegals*, their wages are depressed because of illegals (NB: I didn't say immigrants), they are competing with people in the slums of New Dehli with a guy whose boss and whose government could give a shit less if he dies on the job (and they regularly do) so the american worker is protected by laws dictating basic human decency on the job (not saying there aren't completely f'd up and inane requirements that could be axed though) isn't even able to compare apples to apples so the company outsource to oranges to beat the system.

*Yes, illegals invariably pay taxes and their incomes are counted because the businesses that employ them want their tax deduction so there are false SS numbers used and where a real one is used, citizens are forced to prove they didn't make the income they supposedly did.

I agree, while numbers don't lie the people who use them certainly can and leave out additional taxes.

THis chart is likely showing federal income taxes only. Not al the additional taxes we forget about or do not see. Such as sales tax, property tax, state income tax, gas tax, excise tax, restaurant taxes, taxes on imported goods, and the list goes on and on...
Not that the rich do not pay more in taxes then the poor, but it is probably not be as much as this graph shows.
We all pay a heck of a lot more in taxes then anyone realizes.

 

[PaulD]

You guys probably don't like his politics but it's hard to argue he's lying with his main point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

 

[FlexibleDogma]

Since this has gone from "Liberals own guns!" to "US tax code!" I'd like to throw one in a tangentially related point:

The only ways that I know of to convert someone to your way of thinking are to either be able to explain your views in a way that they can understand and are willing to listen to OR to overwhelm them with facts until you mange to prove them wrong. Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks on the internet pick the second method, and since there is a ton of data both for and against any given topic on the same internet that method tends not to work so well.

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of Americans do not identify strongly with their chosen party. Yes, the average Joe who calls himself a liberal probably votes Democrat, but I doubt he likes everything about the party. The only reason he votes Democrat is because he thinks their are really only 2 parties to pick from, and he identifies with the Democrats a little more the the Republicans. If you could talk to Joe about how gun control is ineffective, take him out shooting at a range, you could probably change any misconceptions he has had about 2A and gun control. You're not going to convince everyone, but if you get enough liberal voters to change their mind on gun control then it might no longer be a major item on the Democrat's agenda. (Plus, if you can get enough voters telling their Senators how they do NOT want more gun control laws, the odds of a bill making through that house of Congress would hopefully be shifted in our odds.)

If divide and conquer has worked as well as some think it has for liberals then there is no reason the 2A rights crowd couldn't adopt it for our goals as well. But if people are going to start off their conversation with the barely left-of-center Democrat about how they are all a bunch of socialists and how stupid every one who has ever voted Democrat is, you'll never change their mind.

 

[Admin]

I would be happy with a flat tax. You can't argue that a flat tax isn't fair.

 

[Pilgrim]

Buffett said he thought Democrats would do a better job in evening out the field for those who had drawn the unlucky tickets in life.

Income redistribution.

 

[Admin]

Buffett said he thought Democrats would do a better job in evening out the field for those who had drawn the unlucky tickets in life.

What exactly is "drawing an unlucky ticket in life"????????

I am so sick of this "I'm entitled to the American Dream" bullshit.

THIS IS WHY I HATE F-ING LIBERALS!!!!!!!!!