There's some hope for our liberal friends.

[jdubois]

Ok, so I'm still reading and enjoying that huge, huge discussion over there and I got to this one...

"The founding fathers meant well with that nice little check and balance there, but they couldn't anticipate how useless that stuff would be against the state."

*facepalm*

 

[terraformer]

I am supposed to be working but...
Here is a good one:

Me too. I'm quite left-wing on all issues except gun control. The way I see it the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, but the National Guard wasn't created until 1903. So, from 1791 to 1903, the people had an individual right? Afterwords it became a collective right? Nah.

Protested all war since Vietnam. Progressive as they come. Also own several dozen weapons, hold concealed carry license and am NRA life menmber. Never could understand the manufactured left-right divide about guns.

And I hope this isn't sarcastic:

I may argue with the first and second thoughts of yours but wow, man, you got me with 3:
What--- we MUST eat food provided to us through the supermarket? You should be able to get it yourself.
I think you are completely right about this. I've never considered this side of the coin and I'm so surprised with my small mindedness.
I'm gonna have to reconsider my anti-gun ownership arguments..

This group needs to be seen together.

eXcommunicate 3 points 4 hours ago[-]
I am another Liberal who is not pro-gun control. There are a lot of us, actually.

chimx 5 points 7 hours ago[-]
I am very progressive and very pro-gun ownership. An armed civilian population is the best defense against political tyranny, which is why it is in our constitution.

jayskew 4 points 6 hours ago[-]
My Prius has an Obama sticker on it. I own a shotgun and a rifle and hunt deer.

cazbot 5 points 8 hours ago[-]
I'm liberal and progressive and vehemently pro-gun ownership.

 

[Raoul Duke]

I am supposed to be working but...
Here is a good one:

Never could understand the manufactured left-right divide about guns.

See...that seems like a reasonable basis to begin finding middle ground*. Why is it all we hear out of the left is shrill caws from Feinstein, Boxer and her raptor-like friends?


*Middle ground being abolition of all existing firearms regulations and free guns for everyone in America which we'll agree to scale back to just abolition of existing firearms laws. Hmmmm...I think this is gonna be my new sig.

 

[Mikey]

The only hope that liberals have is that we spare them during the revolution...

Seriously it is not always their personal beliefs that screws us but whom they vote for, that to mention the fact that gun rights and the progressive movement don't work together. A leftist .gov needs power and guns in our hands limit that.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I'm surprised that anyone finds this, well 'surprising'. People, their beliefs and values don't usually fall into nice tidy packages they way media talking heads would like you to think.

 

[lupis42]

See...that seems like a reasonable basis to begin finding middle ground*. Why is it all we hear out of the left is shrill caws from Feinstein, Boxer and her raptor-like friends?

For the same reason that all most of these people have ever heard out of the right is Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity: the loud obnoxious <String of obscene words> sell the most books/newspapers/tv.

 

[lupis42]

The only hope that liberals have is that we spare them during the revolution...

Seriously it is not always their personal beliefs that screws us but whom they vote for, that to mention the fact that gun rights and the progressive movement don't work together. A leftist .gov needs power and guns in our hands limit that.

Many, maybe even of them don't even realize what the people they're voting for stand for, especially as concerns the RKBA. Education and friendliness will win hearts and minds, and once you have them by the hearts and minds, their votes will follow.

 

[cekim]

For the same reason that all most of these people have ever heard out of the right is Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity: the loud obnoxious <String of obscene words> sell the most books/newspapers/tv.

Pelosi, Boxer etc and diseases of their ilk have little to do with "liberal" or "conservative". They just want power... Armed sheeple scare them, so why not disarm them? Worked for Hitler, Stalin, etc...

They are the worst of the liberal elite who just want to be sure that the unwashed masses don't get past the gates of their castle. So, "let them eat cake" they say. "Have some more 'bread and circus', but for god's sake we wouldn't want 'those people'TM armed..."

They are racist, elitist, obnoxious people some of whom are just too stupid to realize they are morons and some of whom are even more frighteningly intelligent and if I believed in "evil" - they would be it...

 

[Jedhed]

....
They are playing possum and waiting for us to turn our backs. Don't believe for a second that your guns are safe just because they haven't rattle the cage for a while. Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Mod Squad are just laying in wait.

Morons on Dope?!?!?

 

[cekim]

Morons on Dope?!?!?

Sadly, I think we'd all be better off if they had a weed habit...

It's the coke and botox that seem to be driving them mad...

 

[Sleepytime]

Morons on Dope?!?!?

Works for me!

 

[Sleepytime]

Sadly, I think we'd all be better off if they had a weed habit...

It's the coke and botox that seem to be driving them mad...

Heh... Yeah right. Look at Algore. You KNOW he's got a weed habit (look up his monthly electric bill and tell me he isn't cultivating!) And he is still anti-gun. It's just the battle cry... more like a whimper... that these leftist limp-wristed asshats will never let go of. No matter how many facts are presented to them regarding the benefits of civilial ownership vs. the disadvanage of a disarmed society, to them, crime will always be the fault of the 'tool' used and not the criminal committing the crime. They will always view the criminal as a victim of the failure of society to get to 'understand' him and sympathize with his problem. Jail won't be the answer anymore, but 'rehabilitation' will. And when their 'rehabilitation' fails, time and time again, they'll ask for a study to be performed to find out what is causing the failure rate to be so high. After the results are manipulated to reflect well on the programs the blame will be cast on the law abiding citizens. More gun/weapon regulation will be imposed.

Keep your eyes pealed and ears open. Get ready to duck because the sh*t is ready to hit the fan.

 

[jds1971]

Indeed. I always categorized myself as more on the "liberal" side of the fence, for three simple reasons: Because I hate the inclusion of religion into government, especially the attempt to use government to enforce religious or social values, whether those values are good or not. (Examples include family values and PC values). Because I believe that *completely* free markets are, in many cases, subject to substantial and problematic asymmetries and externalities which can and should be corrected for by well thought out, minimally intrusive legislation. (Think labeling laws on food as an example) And because I think that suspending civil rights/liberties in the name of catching terrorists is completely inappropriate and unacceptable. No exceptions. Our civil rights and freedoms were already overly subjugated *before* the [STRIKE]PATRIOT[/STRIKE]FACIST act. In the last half dozen years, I've come to realize that certain other positions of mine (such as political correctness, and copyright, and the RKBA) are equally anathematic to the modern American left. I'm sick of left-right politics, and I'm not convince that adding in a couple more axes (by giving us third parties for example) would even solve the issue, although it would certainly be a start. All of this is a long-winded way of getting to a point, which goes as follows: Unless you consider yourself to be well represented by Ann Coulter, don't assume that people you consider liberals are well represented by similar examples. For most people, politics really aren't that simple, and trying to demonize the other side most often just makes you look like a tool.

+1 i agree. it seems like our political discourse has become completely dominated by labeling each other.

 

[Cato]

Indeed. I always categorized myself as more on the "liberal" side of the fence, for three simple reasons:
Because I hate the inclusion of religion into government, especially the attempt to use government to enforce religious or social values, whether those values are good or not. (Examples include family values and PC values).
Because I believe that *completely* free markets are, in many cases, subject to substantial and problematic asymmetries and externalities which can and should be corrected for by well thought out, minimally intrusive legislation. (Think labeling laws on food as an example)
And because I think that suspending civil rights/liberties in the name of catching terrorists is completely inappropriate and unacceptable. No exceptions. Our civil rights and freedoms were already overly subjugated *before* the [STRIKE]PATRIOT[/STRIKE]FACIST act.

In the last half dozen years, I've come to realize that certain other positions of mine (such as political correctness, and copyright, and the RKBA) are equally anathematic to the modern American left.

I'm sick of left-right politics, and I'm not convince that adding in a couple more axes (by giving us third parties for example) would even solve the issue, although it would certainly be a start.

All of this is a long-winded way of getting to a point, which goes as follows: Unless you consider yourself to be well represented by Ann Coulter, don't assume that people you consider liberals are well represented by similar examples. For most people, politics really aren't that simple, and trying to demonize the other side most often just makes you look like a tool.

Do you believe that there should be any regulations regarding the ownership or possession of forearms?

 

[Cato]

+1 i agree. it seems like our political discourse has become completely dominated by labeling each other.

What is wrong with labels?

 

[PaulD]

What is wrong with labels?

What is wrong with lablels is they are just a means, intentionally most of the time, of obfuscating the real issues and just becomes fodder for political pissing matches. Also, as has already been discussed here, they're far too simplistic a way to classify a whole set of political beliefs.

 

[PaulD]

Do you believe that there should be any regulations regarding the ownership or possession of forearms?

Why don't you state your thoughts on the issue if you're going to ask a question like that?

 

[drgrant]

Do you believe that there should be any regulations regarding the ownership or possession of forearms?

I would hope that I'm allowed to own/posess my own forearms, considering they ARE attached to my body.

-Mike

 

[Lynne]