When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. [More]That much I'll agree with.
But can we all get along?
We've had such discussions before.
[Via Particle]
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
2A-Loving Liberals?
But can we all get along?
We've had such discussions before.
[Via Particle]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
C'mon David! That's outright bullshit!
I know plenty of gun-owning liberals. I even sent you a liberal gun magazine!
From Seattle, to Portland down to San Francisco - the only people I've ever met who are opposed to firearms are the people who have never used one. It's not a "liberal" thing, it's just unfortunate that many liberals grow up in households that do not own a gun, and consequentially, do not understand why someone would own a firearm.
Your bullshit combative attitude towards what you perceive as "liberals" is going to cost you your guns. The more you polarize and monopolize the 2A as a "conservative" movement (WTF does "conservative" even mean these days?), the less overall supporters you're going to have. No doubt, it was this polarization that originally allowed for the handgun bans and firearm restrictions that are being appealed today.
This is where we differ: I don't equate liberals to "democrats" - the terms starting with "D" and "R" have been meaningless for half a century, they can switch positions 180 degrees without any flak from the popular media - infact, the two parties are working together: both of them want to take your guns away, both support socialism for the wealthy, and both are steadily moving away from the Bill of Rights to a totalitarian police state. If you want to bash Democrats, call them “Democrats”, because people who vote for a “D” or “R” are just f’n fools.
I'm trying to figure out what I said that set you off.
The League of women's voters seem to have issues with the 2nd amendment also. Odd as I'd think women are concerned for their safety. Perhaps the National charter will reevaluate their stance now the Courts spelled it out.
I think replacing "liberal" with "progressive" might do the trick...
ACO, that's the term the linked article used.
I'll stand by my contention that it's appropriate to question someone who says he or she is "for" guns but then turns around and empowers those trying to take them. Seems like a Q.E.D. thang to me...
fidelity, I sure get tired of explaining this to dumb people, but in fairness to you, I will type this very slowly.
American conservatism is the exact opposite of conservatism in the rest of the world. Same with liberalism.
It has everything to do with the direction of the flow of power. In all the rest of the world power reides in and flows from the government. Any act that increases the permitted activities of the citizen (there are no 'rights' in those governments for the people) is viewed as a more freeing event and is thus a liberalizing act or event. Because it frees people from fetters placed on them by government.
Any act in those countries that increases government power and lessens citizen freedom is considered conservative, because it conserves the power of the state.
Read the above two or three times until you understant it.
Done? Good!
Now in America the power resides in the people and flows from us to the government so that the state may accomplish its enumerated tasks.
This very simple fact means that conservativism here is accomplished when the people are freer and the state is fettered by our power. This is the very thrust of our founding documents and the entire intent of our founders as embodied in the Constitution.
Liberalism here views the constitution as a malleable and/or meaningless document if it places limits on the state and reduces the state's power to fully control the citizen. This is done by criminally "liberally" interpreting the constitution, instead of reading it for what the words mean and meant at the time of its adoption.
It makes no difference what political party one belongs to, one cannot be a political conservative in this country if he does not honor the constitution for the meaning written into it, not read into it.
It is possible to be a liberal fiscally, societally, and culturally and still be a political conservative. It is also possible to be a social conservative, fiscal conservative and be a political liberal.
The second amendment is a perfect laboratory for exposing the political character of the participants. Anyone who believes that gun rights can be "reasonably restricted" is a liberal. The wording of 2A expresses "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Anyone who reads into that that "reasonable restrictions" are allowed is a liberal and a liar.
Liberals in other countries may be considered advocates of freedom, but here they can only be considered evil, because they advocate for violating the very tenets of freedom as guaranteed in our constitution.
Now! See how easy that was?
I can't say you are wrong about liberals being the cause of me losing my guns, but it will be after the fight and more deaths than just mine.
fidelity, I sure get tired of explaining this to dumb people, but in fairness to you, I will type this very slowly.
American conservatism is the exact opposite of conservatism in the rest of the world. Same with liberalism.
It has everything to do with the direction of the flow of power. In all the rest of the world power reides in and flows from the government. Any act that increases the permitted activities of the citizen (there are no 'rights' in those governments for the people) is viewed as a more freeing event and is thus a liberalizing act or event. Because it frees people from fetters placed on them by government.
Any act in those countries that increases government power and lessens citizen freedom is considered conservative, because it conserves the power of the state.
Read the above two or three times until you understant it.
Done? Good!
Now in America the power resides in the people and flows from us to the government so that the state may accomplish its enumerated tasks.
This very simple fact means that conservativism here is accomplished when the people are freer and the state is fettered by our power. This is the very thrust of our founding documents and the entire intent of our founders as embodied in the Constitution.
Liberalism here views the constitution as a malleable and/or meaningless document if it places limits on the state and reduces the state's power to fully control the citizen. This is done by criminally "liberally" interpreting the constitution, instead of reading it for what the words mean and meant at the time of its adoption.
It makes no difference what political party one belongs to, one cannot be a political conservative in this country if he does not honor the constitution for the meaning written into it, not read into it.
It is possible to be a liberal fiscally, societally, and culturally and still be a political conservative. It is also possible to be a social conservative, fiscal conservative and be a political liberal.
The second amendment is a perfect laboratory for exposing the political character of the participants. Anyone who believes that gun rights can be "reasonably restricted" is a liberal. The wording of 2A expresses "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Anyone who reads into that that "reasonable restrictions" are allowed is a liberal and a liar.
Liberals in other countries may be considered advocates of freedom, but here they can only be considered evil, because they advocate for violating the very tenets of freedom as guaranteed in our constitution.
Now! See how easy that was?
I can't say you are wrong about liberals being the cause of me losing my guns, but it will be after the fight and more deaths than just mine.
Post a Comment