Face the facts: We have very LIBERAL gun laws here, and they are only getting more LIBERAL.

[cleanhippie]

Seriously, in the literal sense of the word, we have very LIBERAL gun laws and they only keep getting MORE liberal.

AS Liberals, why would we want to make something more CONSERVATIVE (more restrictive)? Isn't the basic premise of being a Liberal to affect the greatest possible choice and personal freedom for all, especially those rights enumerated in the constitution?

[Kennah]

1. And use of the word LIBERAL gun laws really pisses off the RW

[cleanhippie]

2. Very true. Pisses off many in the left, too.

Which is sad.

[Kennah]

3. True, but at least there's the chance of some cognitive thought on the issue from the left

[cleanhippie]

4. Not sure about that, judging from most of the anti-2A posts in this forum.

[Remmah2]

9. An independent thinker.

You'll never make it in the world son. :evilgrin:

[cleanhippie]

24. I know, its one of my weaknesses!

Thanks, though!

[RaleighNCDUer]

Particularly when it is actually a twising of LIBERTARIAN, not LIBERAL.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

6. "Gun nuts"?

Resorting to juvenile name calling.

Fail on your part.

[DonP]

8. Well, that was quick ntxt

[cleanhippie]

25. Aww, I missed it. Who was it? Usual suspects?

[Bonhomme Richard]

7. Liberal doesn't automatically mean pacifist. LOL, no one would..

ever accuse me of being a "turn the other cheek" liberal. I'm a liberal because, in general terms, I believe in fairness and people's better nature. Having said that I am not naive either and realize that there is good and bad in the world. I own firearms primarily because they have always fascinated me and I enjoy target shooting but also because the liberal in me wants to be able to defend the defenseless. Simply put, I don't trust authority....period.

[rrneck]

10. At it's base

liberalism refers to rates of cultural change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")<1> is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.<2> Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.<3><4><5><6><7> These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism promotes cultural change by endorsing and strengthening cultural institutions that foster that change. Liberalism seeks to empower people and level the playing field for all. Thus, the spread of firearms legislation that supports the right of the individual to keep and bear arms seeks to distribute a very real sort of power to individuals fairly for everyone using agreed upon social institutions to codify that right.

Conservatism seeks to slow cultural change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")<1> is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.<2><3> The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.<4> The term has since been used to describe a wide range of views.

So, in a nutshell, the worse off your lot in life the more you want a square deal through cultural change. The richer you become the less you want anyone messing with the deal you've got. Given the income distribution in this country, this makes the vast majority of Americans liberals whether they know it or not.

There is a third metric that gets hardly any mention: The optimum rate of cultural change under a given set of circumstances. It's impossible to get that one right for long if at all because that metric is constantly changing and it appears to be doing so at an increasing rate. As time goes on, increasingly nimble cultural institutions will be required to respond to those changes. At least for the foreseeable future. Hang onto your ass, it's going to be a helluva ride.

[spin]

11. Our gun laws are not only liberal but they are PROGRESSIVE.

Nothing is more liberal or progressive than allowing citizens to have a means of overthrowing their government in case it ever becomes tyrannical.

That may well be one of the reasons that we have the longest lasting written constitution in the world.

Power to the people!

edited because of typo

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. If you think owing a Glock is going to be a means of overthrowing the governemnt

you are delusional.

[cleanhippie]

20. WHOOSH!

In case you were wondering what that sound was, it was the point going over your head. Do try and keep up.

[rrneck]

26. Authoritarians have to be a bit myopic,

otherwise it won't work.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. The point, that the 2nd amendment is a defense against government tyranny,

is fallacious. It is a Rambo fantasy.

Look at Libya. They gots guns. They gots lotsa guns. And they were being mowed down by jets, tanks, armored cars, until outside forces stepped in with their own military-grade hardware.

You really think it would be different here?

You're delusional.

[cleanhippie]

32. Maybe today, in the practical sense,...

but not when it was written.... But it IS possible, read on.

Trying to compare what is going on in other countries to our situation is wrong. Having served 21 years in the military, there are very, very few that would EVER fire on our own citizens. If you think they will, its YOU who are delusional.

[rrneck]

33. Long before the military shows up

a lot of repressive things have to happen.

First the cops show up, and then they are joined by private security. When they fail, they turn their backs on criminal activity and let the thugs beat the populace into submission. Only after all that will the military get involved and then on a gradual scale.

And at every step of the way if the people resist with whatever they've got, the next step becomes more difficult. The entire process begins in the voting booth and when it begins there it only rarely ends with a full on insurrection.

Haven't you noticed the continuum of force described in the Bill of Rights?

[slackmaster]

31. self-deleted

Not worth the trouble.

[RSillsbee]

37. Really ?

You might want to read some history, WWI was started by a .32 caliber revolver

[Straw Man]

63. Actually...

You might want to read some history, WWI was started by a .32 caliber revolver

...Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Ferdinand with an FN 1910 semi-automatic like this one:



But yes, it is a .32. And Hitler shot himself with a Walther PPK, also in .32. For such a "marginal" caliber, .32 ACP does seem to have been significant in 20th century European history.

[RSillsbee]

64. That's what I get

for getting my information from the Scholastic Book Club

[Straw Man]

65. 's OK...

I once saw a crime documentary in which the voiceover narrator solemnly announced that a policeman's had wife murdered him with "his own service revolver." The weapon shown on the evidence table was a 1911. I think the writer just liked the phrase "service revolver."

[RSillsbee]

66. I once watched an episode of "Ironsides"

Where Ironside was holding a 1911 in his hands and he called it a revolver

[cleanhippie]

67. Get out!

That did NOT happen??????



:rofl:


In his HANDS????



:rofl:

[spin]

47. What you fail to realize ...

Is that there are over 300 million firearms in our country. We also have a large number of people who have received excellent training in the best military in the world and have left the service. Some of these ex soldiers are experienced in covert warfare and tactics. Many consider themselves defenders of our Constitution and our nation.

An open question is that if we did have a tyrannical government which was ordered to fire on civilians would the military obey orders and shoot their own countrymen or would they join the rebellion.

The fact that the citizens are armed and far outnumber the military may act as a deterrent which is my point. History shows that our government has overcame rebellions in the past. The Whiskey Insurrection in the 1790s is one example and of course the the Civil War. The Civil War came close to tearing this country apart and the North might have lost had Lee bypassed Gettysburg and instead moved on Washington DC.

But the situation I am describing is far different than the Civil War. In my scenario the entire country is in rebellion against a tyrant. There would not necessary be crowds of people protesting with firearms or marching on the Capitol. Instead you have a style of guerrilla warfare which disrupts our basic infrastructure and creates not only chaos but shortages of important essentials such as food and power. The economy is basically shut down and collapses causing a change in government.

Could such a rebellion succeed? Obviously it would require the support of a high percentage of the population. A bunch of old militia members in camouflage clothing attempting to cause such a uprising against any government similar to our current one (despite its problems) would fail badly because most of us still support our elected officials although we may disagree with some of their polices. Such an effort might be used by some as an effort to ban firearms and if that happened a future administration would have the opportunity to become despotic and oppose citizens far easier.

My point is that allowing citizens to own firearms is a deterrent. It's my belief that this has helped prevent a rebellion in the past because the government respects and to a certain level fears the citizens. Of course the founders also created a Constitution that could be changed if necessary which may be a far more important factor in its lasting than the Second Amendment.

But if you look at the Bill of Rights the order may reveal the importance of the rights the founding fathers felt they deserved.

The First Amendment is number one because it is the most important and without it the rest are irrelevant.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment is the ultimate guarantee that if the first is ignored the citizens have a chance to regain the freedoms they lost to a tyrannical dictator.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We have a basic question to answer. Should the government rule the people or should it serve at the will of the people? In my opinion a government that is undeterred will eventually grow into a tyranny. If so, eventually the people will rise and overthrow the government. A government which is deterred has far less chance of ever reaching the state where the citizens have no other choice but to rise up. One reason our Constitution has set the record as the longest written Constitution.

As Chairman Mao said:

Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.".
source: Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224

It's hard to estimate just how many deaths Mao was responsible for. Some estimates are as high as 49 to 78 million people. {source: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html)

This is the type of tyrant that the Second Amendment was created to deter.

[cleanhippie]

19. Great point, spin!

[jpak]

59. They are not "liberal" - the GOP is sponsoring more NRA over-reach suckage

yup

[VoteProgressive]

62. We will not need to do this in your or your kids lifetime. nt

[Hoyt]

12. Corporate laws, banking laws, etc., are liberal too -- need to be tightened up like gun laws.

"Liberal" in many contexts ain't good.

[rrneck]

13. Um,

"Corporate laws, banking laws, etc." are designed to limit the power of the wealthy. That's what makes them liberal - the redistribution of power through government. Just like gun laws.

I'll bet you're a big fan of the divine right of kings too.

[Hoyt]

14. Nope, not a fan. Just like not a fan of people carrying in public.

Arming the public is hardly progressive.

[rrneck]

17. Me neither.

I would hate to have to carry. It's a pain in the ass. I don't even carry a wallet if I don't have to. I love summer because I don't have to wear a lot of clothes.

I live in a very left leaning community that is nevertheless, shall we say, lacking in ethnic diversity. So I love to go to a city like San Fransisco and see all the different kinds of people walking around and getting along with each other.

But none of those people can depend on the authorities to help them if they run across someone intent in hurting them. They have the right to defend themselves in whatever way is best for them. Demanding obedience to a law that leaves people no remedy is the very definition of autocratic power, of which the divine right of kings is a prime example.

[Recursion]

22. Spoken like the historical "progressives" who passed Jim Crow

Which, incidentally, is the origin of gun control laws in the US...

[cleanhippie]

29. Oh, stop that with history and facts. It doesn't like those things....

gets in the way of the talking point, you know.

[Hoyt]

34. Another gunner demeaning civil rights movement by comparing guns to human rights.

Pretty sad when you guys do that, but it's to be expected.

When you and your guns are denied access to colleges, denied even applying for a job, put in segregated schools, denied entrance to restaurants because of your ethnicity, denied loans, lynched, etc., get back with me.

[rrneck]

35. I can't think of a much more fundamental human right

than the right of self defense.

Do you have a self defense solution for everyone who is assaulted by another using a knife, club, fists or feet that doesn't require a firearm?

[Hoyt]

42. Do you really fear all that when you tuck your gun in before leaving home?

[rrneck]

43. I don't carry. nt

[Hoyt]

44. That's good to hear. Now, if you can convince the rest of those here . . . . . .

[rrneck]

46. Whether or not they carry is none of my business. Or yours. nt

[Hoyt]

49. Disagree -- it's not good for society and I can express my opinion on that.

[cleanhippie]

52. Of course you can, no one has ever said you couldn't. But as usual, your opinion is wrong

and not supported by anything factual, but whatever.

[rrneck]

55. Express away.

But your opinion should never become law. And that's the only expression that counts here.

Enjoy your role as a scold.

[cleanhippie]

36. Are you telling me that colleges are NOT denying access to those with guns?

That the workplace is NOT denying access to those with guns? That restaurants are NOT denying access to those with guns?

Did you say that the Second Amendment is NOT a Civil Right?

Seriously? Did you really just state all that?



Delusional, indeed.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoyt]

54. Nope. You can apply, attend and go to any college where accepted - might have to leave guns at home.

But, I'm sure you'll be OK.

[cleanhippie]

56. Then they are denying a civil right if they require that.

The Bill of Rights encompasses our "Civil Rights". You do know that, correct?

[Recursion]

38. Ummm... no

I was pointing out the historical fact that gun control in the US started with Jim Crow.

[Hoyt]

41. No, you were doing what others have tried here -- to compare guns and the civil right movement.

They ain't the same.

[Recursion]

57. No, and both are different from women's suffrage

But all three involve a civil right.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

You really think that the racist south needed gun control laws to enable them to terrorize black citizens? That is pure RW anti-progressive bullshit, trying to blame progressives for the crimes of the authoritarians.

Tea party does the same thing every day today.

[Recursion]

58. 1911? Georga has NY by about 30 years

Nice try, though. And I love the fact that to show it's not racist, you use a gun control law that was specifically sold as disarming Mediterranean and Irish immigrants.

[RSillsbee]

60. Same racism , different race

The Sulivan act was directed right at Italians ( or is racism against white people ok?)

[X_Digger]

61. The Sullivan Act was about those 'damnable continentals'

But hey, that's about 60 years too late.. google 'black codes' or the debate surrounding the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870, 1871, 1875..

[cleanhippie]

21. Well, what did you expect? This one always manages to twist the point into something its not

something completely devoid of any sensible meaning except that which it only understand itself.

[rrneck]

27. Well, it was snark free.

That's a step in the right direction.

Cognitive dissonance cannot be accomplished without effective dialogue.

[cleanhippie]

28. True.

But I have pretty much given up on that one, I think he is a lost cause. Unable to keep his emotions from getting the better of his judgement. Hey, maybe thats why he opposes being able to carry, its projection of his own fears that HE would "snap" and start "mowing people down."

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Ccorporate laws amd banking laws are also designed to enhance the power of the wealthy,

and tightening them up, making them LESS lax, LESS liberal, is what returns power to the powerless. The recent, and on-going financial meltdown was not due to too much regulation.

As Montesque said "the role of government is to ensure that no man need fear his neighbor". Reasonable restrictions on guns by the government assures me that when I see my neighbor walking out of his house with an AK that it is licensed, he is trained and competent, that he is not a criminal, that he is not off his psyche meds, and he is not on his way to the nearest bell tower.

Ya'll are playing games with the definition of 'liberal'. Liberal can mean 'least restrictive', but it also means 'allowing most freedom'. The Loughners walking the streets are a distinct infringement on MY freedom.

The AWB had good intentions but it was silly legislation crafted by people who knew nothing about weapons. Parts of it, however, like the restrictions on high capacity magazines, were reasonable. As O'Donnel said, "The first ten bullets I blame on the individual - the next 21 I blame on the law". Loughner, like the UU shooter, shot until he had to stop and re-load, and was then tackled. How many lives would have been saved, how many injuries prevented, if he had been stopped at 10?

The 'Instant Background Check' is a farce - too much information, most of which is not available to it. There are two solutions to that - either, a comprehensive database that feeds information to it from every possible source (police, FBI, military records, hospital records, court records, etc) which is a civil liberties nightmare; or, an extended waiting period which allows for both a 'cooling off' before purchasing a weapon as well as pertinent background checks.

And paranoid nonsense about weapons registry needs to stop. Nobody is going to, nobody CAN, confiscate anybody's weapons, no matter how many lists your name might appear on. The government simply does not have the manpower to confiscate 200 million weapons. If they ever tried it, it would turn into a shitstorm. So there being a list that has your Glock and your granddaddy's .22 rifle on it is not going to result in stormtroopers knocking down your door. It would, however, enable you to recover your property if it is ever stolen by a burglar.

Wrapping up - putting it simply. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, beyond rational safeguards that you are not a threat to the community. Your household weapons will not overthrow the government or stop a foreign invader. The protector the the constitution is the First, not the Second, Amendment.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

[rrneck]

51. Please see #10. nt

[old mark]

16. K&R- More truth-thank you!...nt

[GKirk]

18. Stop that word play

you're going to make someone's head explode. :)

[cleanhippie]

23. Thats kinda the point, to make heads explode with realization of the facts.

I see a few have popped already!

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. Not facts - spin. The word is LIBERTARIAN, not LIBERAL.

There is a difference.

[cleanhippie]

53. There is a difference, but Liberal was my choice of word, for a reason...

From Websters.

Liberal -

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.



Get it now?

[samsingh]

48. i like the way you phrased that.