Why US liberals are now buying guns too - BBC

[71montess]

Most of NH is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

The obviously go with there socially liberal voting pattern for president,senator etc.

 

[fencer]

Liberal preppers? LMAO

Yep, they call their bomb shelter a "safe place'.

 

[E.Stoner]

tell him the lightest pistols are made of pure unobtanium

Untrue. The lightest guns are Glock 7's. They are made from ceramic and virtually undetectable by xray. The downside is that they are pricey. You'll have to save at least a months salary for one.

 

[Waher]

So when all the liberals in MA read up on how Glocks and AR15s are the most popular and recommended firearms in the country for first time owners. Then find out upon setting foot in their first gun shop they can't buy them in MA because the AG prevents the peasantry from having said firearms without her royal blessing. Do you really think that will change anything? Naw.....

 

[Whutmeworry]

I don't personally know any liberals whose world view includes total government control over people's lives. And I know a lot of liberals.

In general I think there is very little understanding of liberals here on NES.

The problem is that they DO believe in total government control, they just don't REALIZE it. Case and point:

They believe in "free speech", they just believe that speech they find offensive (they would call it "threatening" or "aggressive") should be illegal.

They consistently want to use government as a tool for regulating businesses large and small, regardless of the tremendous damage it does to the rights of business owners & their employees, job growth and the economy in general.

They consistently want to use government to punish behavior they find distasteful. In other words, THEY WANT SOCIAL ENGINEERING. "Hate Crimes" legislation is a perfect example. They want to punish criminals based on HOW THEY WERE THINKING rather than applying justice EQUALLY under the law based on the crime(s) committed.

They scream for things like gay marriage in the name of FREEDOM, not realizing that what they're actually pushing for is MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION of gay people because let's face it - if not for purposes of government regulation there's ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for the government to be concerned with whether ANYONE is married or not, gay or straight.

Somebody tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[Rat187]

With any luck they will all shoot themsevles in the face, accidently of course.

Yup, ND's will wipe out 50% of the snowflakes...be thankful I not too long ago I was ay the gun range with a 'clear and present danger' to my right. her and her BF were taken turns wiping out the Trump supporters, Her pistol jammed and she turned it around and looked down the barrel with her finger on the trigger...F...Me !

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Untrue. The lightest guns are Glock 7's. They are made from ceramic and virtually undetectable by xray. The downside is that they are pricey. You'll have to save at least a months salary for one.

Yeah, but you are still in deep kimchee if you fact 4 *******s in a two by two cover formation.

 

[E.Stoner]

Yeah, but you are still in deep kimchee if you fact 4 *******s in a two by two cover formation.

 

[CTpatriot]

Except when the conservatives don't want an abortion, then no one can have an abortion.

The problem with your statement is that abortion like drugs or rape or murder is a bad thing. Republicans don't want to deny people good things just bad things. You just don't seem to think things through before you post.

 

[Laura]

Except when the conservatives don't want an abortion, then no one can have an abortion.

You're right there...conservatives don't want freedom to kill babies...and the liberal mantra "Save the Whales, kill a baby"...just doesn't go over well.

 

[peterthefish]

Except when the conservatives don't want an abortion, then no one can have an abortion.

Everyone gets bitten in the ass by thinking short term once in a while. Abortions are a great way to control the liberal population! They literally act to limit the population growth of groups you disagree with on the topic.

On a more serious note, both parties are a little too quick to impose their own rules on others when it suits their agenda.

 

[CosmicIrony]

The problem is that they DO believe in total government control, they just don't REALIZE it. Case and point:

They believe in "free speech", they just believe that speech they find offensive (they would call it "threatening" or "aggressive") should be illegal.

They consistently want to use government as a tool for regulating businesses large and small, regardless of the tremendous damage it does to the rights of business owners & their employees, job growth and the economy in general.

They consistently want to use government to punish behavior they find distasteful. In other words, THEY WANT SOCIAL ENGINEERING. "Hate Crimes" legislation is a perfect example. They want to punish criminals based on HOW THEY WERE THINKING rather than applying justice EQUALLY under the law based on the crime(s) committed.

They scream for things like gay marriage in the name of FREEDOM, not realizing that what they're actually pushing for is MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION of gay people because let's face it - if not for purposes of government regulation there's ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for the government to be concerned with whether ANYONE is married or not, gay or straight.

Somebody tell me where I'm wrong.

In many cases the "freedoms" that business owners want to protect from regulation are tings like the freedom to operate unsafe environments (for example, exposure to asbestos). Sorry, but that isn't a "freedom" that I count.

Most of the time "social engineering" refers to policies that aim to encourage certain behavior by providing incentives. That's what a business does every time it has a sale.

Organized crimes (for example hate crimes) are more of a threat to society than disorganized crime. We have government in part because some a*holes won't control themselves.

Calling gay marriage a regulation of gay people is laughable. Gays wanted marriage equality because of privileges accorded legal spouses. Until you have experienced being unable to see your dying partner in the hospital I won't give this "argument" any more consideration.

So, there, I've told some of where you are wrong.

 

[CosmicIrony]

You're right there...conservatives don't want freedom to kill babies...and the liberal mantra "Save the Whales, kill a baby"...just doesn't go over well.

Liberals don't want the freedom to kill babies either. Abortion is not killing babies. Also, no one has that mantra.

 

[peterthefish]

In many cases the "freedoms" that business owners want to protect from regulation are tings like the freedom to operate unsafe environments (for example, exposure to asbestos). Sorry, but that isn't a "freedom" that I count.

Do people really believe stuff like this? I mean, I think I get what you're trying to say. Business owners want to be protected from responsibility for the negative externalities of their actions.

But your actual example is dumb. Hurting people who work for you is expensive. Most successful firms invest a lot of money in safety because there is a positive return on on that investment.

Most of the time "social engineering" refers to policies that aim to encourage certain behavior by providing incentives. That's what a business does every time it has a sale.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense? What positive behavior does McDonald's want to encourage when they sell me a burger?

There's no social engineering involved - in our relatively free market buyers and sellers get together when a transaction provides an economic surplus to both parties.

Organized crimes (for example hate crimes) are more of a threat to society than disorganized crime. We have government in part because some a*holes won't control themselves.

I would say 'potentially more of a threat'. No one (well, some people, but there are nuts everywhere) wants to see another holocaust. But guess what? But if you look at groups like LGBT, that's not really the direction things are going. And in the presence of an ongoing increase of social support, hate crime legislation doesn't really serve a compelling social purpose.

Calling gay marriage a regulation of gay people is laughable. Gays wanted marriage equality because of privileges accorded legal spouses. Until you have experienced being unable to see your dying partner in the hospital I won't give this "argument" any more consideration.

Yeah, you pretty much nailed this one.

 

[MagGus1820]

Calling gay marriage a regulation of gay people is laughable. Gays wanted marriage equality because of privileges accorded legal spouses. Until you have experienced being unable to see your dying partner in the hospital I won't give this "argument" any more consideration.

So, there, I've told some of where you are wrong.

As a society why don't we ask ourselves, why does the gov have a say in this either way? The solution would have been to get gov out of all marriages, not bring gay's under the tyranny tent with the rest of us. Why does the gov have a say at all about who lays in a bed next to anyone? Or who you can make the beneficiary of a contract between you and a private company?

Liberals chose the knee-jerk gov come fix this reaction instead of fixing the deeper problem. That is, the feds shouldn't be involved at all.

 

[NHKevin]

As a society why don't we ask ourselves, why does the gov have a say in this either way? The solution would have been to get gov out of all marriages, not bring gay's under the tyranny tent with the rest of us. Why does the gov have a say at all about who lays in a bed next to anyone? Or who you can make the beneficiary of a contract between you and a private company?

Liberals chose the knee-jerk gov come fix this reaction instead of fixing the deeper problem. That is, the feds shouldn't be involved at all.

Agreed. I think this is what whutmeworry was saying.

 

[Whutmeworry]

Agreed. I think this is what whutmeworry was saying.

This is exactly what I'm saying. The government taxes (treats) us differently based on whether we're married or not, with children or not. This is wrong. Everyone of us should be treated equally under the law. Why should a person who chooses not to get married and/or have children be taxed more heavily that married people or people with children simply because he/she decided to remain single??? Requiring marriage licenses empowers the government to LEGALLY DISCRIMINATE against the people in this way.

 

[10thSFFD]

Most of the time "social engineering" refers to policies that aim to encourage certain behavior by providing incentives. That's what a business does every time it has a sale.

Stalin was a father of a social engineering. Moving nations from one place to another, moving people into gulags and re-educating them with a "help" of hard labor. Twisting it against business is an obvious failure. Coming out from the communist mausoleum over and over again does have a certain entertainment value which I enjoy tremendously.

Merry X-mas to you!

 

[10thSFFD]

This is exactly what I'm saying. The government taxes (treats) us differently based on whether we're married or not, with children or not. This is wrong. Everyone of us should be treated equally under the law. Why should a person who chooses not to get married and/or have children be taxed more heavily that married people or people with children simply because he/she decided to remain single??? Requiring marriage licenses empowers the government to LEGALLY DISCRIMINATE against the people in this way.

You are up to something. Why should we reward single mother with single father and few kids with our taxes? IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO SUPPORT A SINGLE LIFE!

 

[firestorm]

To late most clubs are full we have over 50 on our waiting list. Plus most police departments require club membership for lic to carry.

This isn't true, there are a couple towns that require that but its not nearly most. Boston does, braintree used to (They might still) but I don't know of any others.

 

[Whutmeworry]

In many cases the "freedoms" that business owners want to protect from regulation are tings like the freedom to operate unsafe environments (for example, exposure to asbestos).

In all cases businesses want the freedom to hire & fire as they see fit, to be able to enforce their own dress codes, to retain the right to serve who they want to serve and likewise have the freedom REFUSE service to anyone they DO NOT want to serve. They also want the freedom to pay their employees as they see fit and to (in the case of the service industry) set their own prices for their services. As private businesses they have the right to do ALL of these thing s and yet, they've been attacked and continue to be attacked (and threatened with government intervention) by liberals on each one of the aforementioned points.

Most of the time "social engineering" refers to policies that aim to encourage certain behavior by providing incentives. That's what a business does every time it has a sale.

The government should NEVER be in the business of incentivizing or deincentivizing ANYTHING. It is the role of US as INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE to work to influence OTHER people APART FROM our government. This is the only way TRUE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY endures.

Organized crimes (for example hate crimes) are more of a threat to society than disorganized crime. We have government in part because some a*holes won't control themselves.

Again, ALL CRIMES are a threat to society and as such ALL CRIMINALS are to be treated equally under the law for the crimes they commit, REGARDLESS of the REASONS they committed the crimes. To empower our government do otherwise is to treat VICTIMS unequally.

For instance. No one argues that the heinous crime that took place some years ago in Jasper, Texas where a bunch of white male thugs dragged a black gentleman to his death behind a pick-up truck was exactly that, a heinous, despicable crime and should have resulted in - if not the death penalty - the most severe punishment possible. But let's suppose for a second that the man dragged to his death was also white, or that both the victim and the perpetrators were black. Should the sentences for the crime have been any less severe?? The victim would have died in an equally horrible, painful way in either case. The victim's family would miss him equally as much, and yet the average liberal would argue that the government should treat the victims and perps differently based essentially on skin color. This is WRONG!

Calling gay marriage a regulation of gay people is laughable. Gays wanted marriage equality because of privileges accorded legal spouses. Until you have experienced being unable to see your dying partner in the hospital I won't give this "argument" any more consideration.

I've addressed this last point in a previous post, but you've totally missed my whole argument here. My argument is that IT IS ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS who sees who in the hospital whether they are dying or not, gay or straight.

So, there, I've told some of where you are wrong.

Except I'm not wrong, YOU are. Merry Christmas!!!

 

[Whutmeworry]

I know this is a gun forum so I didn't mean to get so far off the beaten path, but to tie it back to the OP remember that if liberals as a group are attempting to provide privileged status to so many oppressed, disenfranchised groups, they owe it to us gun owners to provide this status to US as well.

 

[10thSFFD]

I know this is a gun forum so I didn't mean to get so far off the beaten path, but to tie it back to the OP remember that if liberals as a group are attempting to provide privileged status to so many oppressed, disenfranchised groups, they owe it to us gun owners to provide this status to US as well.

Too much alcohol in the eggnog! That would be the day!

 

[AverageJoe]

Liberals don't want the freedom to kill babies either. Abortion is not killing babies. Also, no one has that mantra.

Right, abortion is killing fetuses, not babies. It's amazing how semantics can be used to justify taking a life, whether it's' a baby or a fetus.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

As private businesses they have the right to do ALL of these things

Under US law, that statement is just plain false.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS who sees who in the hospital whether they are dying or not, gay or straight.

True, but there are lots of other things that are "none of the govt's business" that go with marriage. Default rules of inheritance; Social security spousal benefits; ability file a joint tax return. Gay marriage was practical to implement. Unwinding all the legal implications of marriage to get the govt out of that business was not practical.

 

[Whutmeworry]

Under US law, that statement is just plain false.

Laws aren't necessarily constitutional, or even right.

True, but there are lots of other things that are "none of the govt's business" that go with marriage. Default rules of inheritance; Social security spousal benefits; ability file a joint tax return. Gay marriage was practical to implement. Unwinding all the legal implications of marriage to get the govt out of that business was not practical.

Undoing the gigantic pile of existing gun control laws seems impractical too (especially in MA), yet here we all are at least talking about it...

 

[Varmint]

Right, abortion is killing fetuses, not babies. It's amazing how semantics can be used to justify taking a life, whether it's' a baby or a fetus.

Yeah, but look at how quickly small government conservatives agree to have the government step in and force women to have babies they dont want or didnt ask for, just cause it lines up with their religious beliefs.

You cant pick and choose which tyrannical laws you want to have.

 

[AverageJoe]

Yeah, but look at how quickly small government conservatives agree to have the government step in and force women to have babies they dont want or didnt ask for, just cause it lines up with their religious beliefs.

You cant pick and choose which tyrannical laws you want to have.

Babies "they didn't ask for"? So the stork got the wrong address?

 

[MisterHappy]

IBTL

 

[Varmint]

Babies "they didn't ask for"? So the stork got the wrong address?

So you think the government should force biological fathers to pay child support for all those babies? It takes two to make a baby. I just see a lot of hypocrisy on this issue.