Think all liberals are against gun rights?

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I'm pretty sure Oklahoma doesn't license handguns either. But they DO license those who control them. I'm not too familiar with your state's laws. But I do know that as a Texas Concealed Handgun Licensee I am ok to carry legally in your state. If you are not licensed in your state, YOU do not have those same privileges.
If you don't like your state's laws, work to change them.

I think you missed my reductio ad absurdum and satire.

To the facts of Oklahoma law, Title 21, Pp 1290.25. "LEGISLATIVE INTENT", contains the following:

[*]"... The Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall be liberally construed to carry out the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense and self-protection. The provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act are cumulative to existing rights to bear arms and nothing in Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title shall impair or diminish those rights. ..."

Pretty neat, eh?

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

 

[Deanimator]

I don't. Not unless birthing poses a significant risk to the woman's life.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

Maybe, but I'll bet you don't think the Ukrainians had it coming either, or that KAL007 was a "spyplane" that SHOULD have been shot down.

Those kinds of opinions are the hallmarks of "progressives".

 

[toivo]

Maybe, but I'll bet you don't think the Ukrainians had it coming either, or that KAL007 was a "spyplane" that SHOULD have been shot down.

Those kinds of opinions are the hallmarks of "progressives".

Is this from firsthand experience, or just hearsay? I've never heard those kinds of opinions, and I talk politics with all kinds of different people, lefties and righties both. There might be a few 90-year-old die-hard American Communists who never broke with Moscow like all their comrades did in the 50's, but they're not exactly representative of the people who call themselves "progressives" today.

Ive heard quite a few liberal defend Slovidan Milosevic, so it goes pretty low.

I have never personally heard ANYONE defend Milosevic. You might be thinking of Ramsey Clark and the International Action Center, but they're about as mainstream as the Branch Davidians. Don't confuse the Loonytoon Left with liberals and/or progressives in general. That's the kind of stereotyping that antis use to brand all gun owners as racist neo-Nazis.

 

[ezypikns]

woodci

Sorry. Guess I missed the point. Comes from not reading all of someone's posts.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

ezypikns,

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

ezypikns,

No problem, guy(or gal) I've missed a few myself!

Woody

 

[Deanimator]

Is this from firsthand experience, or just hearsay?

Over twenty years of experience in FidoNet and usenet. Many are the hardcore leftists who've tried to pooh pooh the Stalinschina, the Khmer Rouge genocide, et al.

The hardcore left does NOT believe in human rights. They believe in POWER, namely THEIR power.

They struck a pose of being "pro-labor"... until Solidarnoscz hit the scene in Poland.

To this day, they call radio talkshows defending the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I stopped reading "The Nation" in the late '80s when they ran an article attempting to "debunk" Stalin's terror famine.

Liberals believe [usually] in liberty. Their ideas may not always be right or make sense, but that's where their tendencies poiint.

"Progressives" believe in state power and fear and despise the power of the individual.

Which one is more likely to deny the truth of Soviet auto-genocide?

We both know.

 

[cbsbyte]

The RKBA should not be a left or right issue. To make allies we have to reach out to everyone. By dismissing one side of the political specturm we are dooming our side to fail. The only way to win is to get more people on our side. I would recommend taking a anti out to shoot, it might change their mind. At least you have a better shot at changing their minds by engaging them than bashing them on the net.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

When I first started researching gun control in
the 1960s, I periodically went to the public library
took the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature,
made a list of the year's articles and tried to read
every available article in the library's collection of
periodicals, taking notes. (The row after row of
bound periodicals all the way back to the 1920s
was like a living time machine.)

Gun Control is part of the capital L Liberal dogma
and cathechism. True dyed-in-the-wool Liberals
use Gun Control and Abortion-On-Demand as tests
to weed out True Liberals from Faux Liberals.

When I wrote my Intemperant Rants in the Mensa
Newsletter Nexus in answer to the Pragmatic Solutions
of Jon K. Evans PhD in the 1980s, Dr. Jon labelled me
a bleeding heart liberal. I answered that it did not
matter how much my little heart bled, I would never
be accepted as a true liberal because I did not
believe in gun control and disliked abortion-on-demand
as an easy out to a moral dilemma.

One of James D. Wright's earliest writings on gun control,
Demographics of Gun Control, The Nation, Nov. 1975,
later became one of the chapters of his book, Under
The Gun (Aldine, 1983). The letters to the editor in
response to his article confirmed the doctrinaire liberal
contempt for gun owners. The doctrinaire liberal response
to the book was enlightening in a dark way.

BUT Wright and Donald B. Kates and several others who
have been clearly ID'd as very much more pro-gun are
very clearly liberal. AND not all people who self identify as
conservative or Republican qualify as pro-gun either.

So Doctrinaire Liberals who feel repeating dogma and
catechism makes them part of a superior elite are
against gun rights and for gun control without question.

Liberals who are truly liberal tend to be libertarian on the
issue of gun rights.

It is a shame that the shrilly ant-gun liberals are the ones
who seem to dominate.

 

[toivo]

Deanimator--I think what you're talking about is an old-fashioned Stalinist Communist, which is an increasingly rare bird, or odd duck as the case may be. The term "progressive" nowadays has come to be a euphemism for "liberal," popularized since the "L-word" has been so strongly demonized from both sides. What's a pro-union person to do when a so-called liberal Democrat president sells out the American worker? Call himself something else, is what.

 

[CDignition]

it is irrelevant if your local rep is pro gun, the Dem Leadership is driving the bus, and they are anti all the way...a Vote for a local Dem Rep is a vote for Pelosi...

 

[Kaylee]

Hunh... the article is interesting, inasmuch as the Texas branch of the ACLU seems to be stick primarily on the "profiling" aspect, namely the "Bubba Profile." That is kinda interesting... especially seeing the shoe on the other foot as it were. hunh. God Bless Texas, I reckon.

To the original question.. no, of course not. In my experience most are, especially in the "Blue States" - but "all" is just silly. You can't get that many people to agree the sky is blue, much less details of public policy.

That said - the Democrat Party leadership is indeed solidly anti, so CDignition does have a point. If and when the "Blue Dogs" manage to reign in the likes of Schumer and Feinstein and Kennedy, sure I'll be happy to listen. In the meantime, the firearms freedom issue is gonna remain an albatross on the left's neck.

-K

 

[Trifler]

Quote:
In my experience, Liberals in general believe in waiting periods and background checks when purchasing firearms, but they also believe one should have the right to purchase that firearm should a person pass those background checks. All of the Liberals I know support the 2nd Amendment primarily for the purpose of civilians A) Supporting military forces in the event of an invasion that reached U.S. soil as resistance fighters, and B) To allow an armed resistance should the Constitutional government somehow be overthrown (a major military coup, insane Dictator wannabe, or whatever reason). Admittedly both are unlikely, B extremely so, but they are situations that were considered when the 2nd Amendment was written and they are situations where Liberals would step up and say, "I need a gun."

Your Liberals sure are conservative.

In my experience living in one of the most admittedly Liberal neighborhoods on the planet (it's actually documented somewhere), whenever I talk about the right to keep and bear arms as a last stand against a tyrannical government or an invasion, they tend to say things like "Come On! That could never happen!" or "Where's the tinfoil?" followed by an "I just don't like guns".

Well... ultimately each person's beliefs are going to be slightly different. We only form into groups because our political system demands it.

For example: As other people have mentioned on here, there are so-called "Liberals", and there are people who base their beliefs on actual definition of the word Liberal (people who believe other people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm me or mine). Likewise there are generic Conservatives, and there are those of the so-called "Christian Right". I think we call all agree that not all Christians are members of the "Christian Right". If anything, I hear more devoutly religious people speak out against guns than anyone else, but even then I wouldn't say it's the Church vs. the NRA either.

 

[Fulcrum of Evil]

(liberals care)Enough to infringe upon them excessively.

No, those are the fascists. They're just running under a D ticket for the moment.

 

[wooderson]

Over twenty years of experience in FidoNet and usenet.

Ah, usenet, always a representative sample of popular political opinion and studied political discourse.

Many are the hardcore leftists who've tried to pooh pooh the Stalinschina, the Khmer Rouge genocide, et al.

It just so happens that I spent a number of years on the usenet groups, most of the people I corresponded with were well to the right of me (ie they ranged from angry Nader-voting Democrat to Clinton-loving moderates)

They were, almost uniformly, archly pro-Israel, with not a Soviet sympathizer in sight and ardently in favor of the Serbian bombing campaign (which occurred near the end of my Usenet-reading days).

I'm sure there were some wackjobs out there praising Comrade Stalin and writing off the Khmer Rouge (an act which is distinctly less left-wing than you'd think, given our history from the '60s to the '80s).

Outside of Usenet, I've encountered precisely one Milosevic defender (he's in the Ohio State Political Science PhD program) who's also something of a revolutionary du jour - you name the cause, he'll be on top of it. In the years I've known the guy, he's been a Pan-African Nationalist, a Pan-Arab Nationalist, a Maoist, pro-intifada, pro-Iraqi resistance... and for a few months after 9/11 he became ardently pro-American at all costs and wanted Afghanistan bombed out of existence.

Homeboy is both a moralist of the worst sort (degenerate consumer culture etc.) but lacks an independent moral compass - he's a reactionary. He reacts to the existence of the US, supporting anything that calls itself an opposition. Which is strikingly similar to the way certain rightists identify with the US and against... nah, too late for that kind of talk.

(all this brings to mind the fact that Clinton, generally spoken of in 'Stalinist' terms by certain people, was the guy who bombed Milosevic...)

Frankly, your portrayal of 'progressives' and 'liberals' has little to do with reality.

 

[Deanimator]

Deanimator--I think what you're talking about is an old-fashioned Stalinist Communist, which is an increasingly rare bird, or odd duck as the case may be. The term "progressive" nowadays has come to be a euphemism for "liberal," popularized since the "L-word" has been so strongly demonized from both sides. What's a pro-union person to do when a so-called liberal Democrat president sells out the American worker? Call himself something else, is what.

I'm a LIBERAL. I REFUSE to be called a "progressive". Progressive has connotations which I find distasteful.

For liberals to call themselves "progressives" is the equivalent of conservatives to suddenly start calling themselves "White nationalists". I would no more associate myself with the Walter Durantys of the world than conservatives should associate themselves with the Ernst Zundels.

When you mix a gallon of chablis with an ounce of sewage, you don't get a gallon and an ounce of chablis. In fact, you don't even get an ounce of chablis.

 

[Deanimator]

Outside of Usenet, I've encountered precisely one Milosevic defender (he's in the Ohio State Political Science PhD program) who's also something of a revolutionary du jour - you name the cause, he'll be on top of it. In the years I've known the guy, he's been a Pan-African Nationalist, a Pan-Arab Nationalist, a Maoist, pro-intifada, pro-Iraqi resistance... and for a few months after 9/11 he became ardently pro-American at all costs and wanted Afghanistan bombed out of existence.

Not only did I see a considerable number of pro-Milosevic types in usenet, I heard a lot of them on radio call-in shows.

Most of the hardcore leftists I've seen are simply anti-American (and ultimately anti-Western) to the point of siding with those who would behead THEM with a rusty butcher knife. This was SO eloquently pointed out by the leftist Christopher Hitchens in a debate with a British leftist right after 9/11.

 

[wooderson]

Which "radio call-in shows" would these be?

This was SO eloquently pointed out by the leftist Christopher Hitchens in a debate with a British leftist right after 9/11.

Hitchens is a drunken fool who's been slowly going nuts for years, you'd have a rather difficult time calling him a leftist these days. He makes the same mistake you're continually making here - mistaking an isolated voice for a representative sample.

He was, ironically, one of the first individuals to defend Noam Chomsky when people accused him of defending the Khmer Rouge (as you've decided is common amongst 'hardcore leftists').

 

[Deanimator]

Hitchens is a drunken fool who's been slowly going nuts for years, you'd have a rather difficult time calling him a leftist these days. He makes the same mistake you're continually making here - mistaking an isolated voice for a representative sample.

That's not really much of a refutation, is it? But it is emblematic of the tactics of the hard left. But I guess it's easier to yell "drunk" (or "fascist") than to craft a coherent argument.

I saw and heard part of the debate and he was 100% correct. The hardcore left hates Western civilization so much, they've leapt into bed with people who'd kill THEM before they'd kill Bush.

As far as which radio shows these freaks of nature call, everything from Rush Limbaugh to Art Bell, to local Cleveland radio shows. It got to the point where I started recognizing them by their voices.

Liberals question whether Iraq was a good idea. Progressives don't question whether Afghanistan was a good idea... for the Soviets.

 

[toivo]

My point is that the people you're talking about are a very small, although very vocal, minority. The fact that you started to recognize their voices is evidence of this. The majority of people who call themselves "progressive" are closer in spirit to what you call "liberals" than they are to these fringe-dwellers.

I think we're really just arguing about labels here. I, like you, have to use for people who make excuses for dictators.

 

[wooderson]

As far as which radio shows these freaks of nature call, everything from Rush Limbaugh to Art Bell,

Ah, so your experience with these dastardly leftists, allowing you to characterize them all, comes from:

A) The complete anonymity of Usenet, known for its reasonable tone and level of discourse

B) Chris Hitchens, who clearly has no agenda of his own

C) Call-ins to a libertarian wackjob radio host... and a right-wing wackjob radio host? Not to Air America or NPR, not comments attributable to Terri Gross or Al Franken...

I think that tells me all I need to know.

 

[Deanimator]

I think that tells me all I need to know.

The REALLY telling thing was your intentional omissions, especially of local Cleveland radio stations. I don't listen to Air America (who does?). I tried to listen to Janeane Garofalo over the internet once before she bailed on them, but as much as I like her, her show was as annoying as Michael Savage's. And indeed I have heard these people on NPR call-in shows such as "Talk of the Nation".

You seem as bent upon defending (or denying) the hardcore left as some Libertarians are on demonizing Abraham Lincoln.