MicroBalrog
member
Hey, I'm a Democrat! 
I support almost all of their stuff - except GCA - 68, NFA, FOPA, AWB, etc.
I support almost all of their stuff - except GCA - 68, NFA, FOPA, AWB, etc.
Who's more violent, liberals or gun owners?
- Thread starter twoblink
- Start date
- Status
seeker_two
Member
Definitely liberals...
After all, when you take away a person's dignity, self-determination, liberties, and personal possessions, they tend to behave violently & w/o any concern for their character or others.
Just look at the prison system...
After all, when you take away a person's dignity, self-determination, liberties, and personal possessions, they tend to behave violently & w/o any concern for their character or others.
Just look at the prison system...
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
The nation's prisons are packed to the proverbial "rafters" with individuals who believe there's such a thing as a free lunch, and they're entitled to it.
Crimper-D
Member
I'm ARMED - I don't Have to be Violent!
I've been around the company of Liberals for several generations.
My observations are that while they talk a good line of "Kumbiyah" and love to sound off in the comfort of their self-assumed superiority over the great 'unwashed' semi-literate Redneck Mainstream populace, they are stifeling a HUGE amount of RAGE
that comes out in interesting ways... their Driving habits come to mind immediately Their business dealings with one another and their approach to service employees - public or private are interesting to observe too.
Who's more likely to be in some form ot "Therapy" - a Liberal or a Gun Owner - Why?
Who is more likely to Lie, Cheat or Steal?
Be Resposable?
I've been around the company of Liberals for several generations.
My observations are that while they talk a good line of "Kumbiyah" and love to sound off in the comfort of their self-assumed superiority over the great 'unwashed' semi-literate Redneck Mainstream populace, they are stifeling a HUGE amount of RAGE
that comes out in interesting ways... their Driving habits come to mind immediately Their business dealings with one another and their approach to service employees - public or private are interesting to observe too. Who's more likely to be in some form ot "Therapy" - a Liberal or a Gun Owner
- Why? Who is more likely to Lie, Cheat or Steal?
Be Resposable?
Liberals - because they are always advocating using violence (govt.) to enforce their desires on others. Conservatives aren't immune to this either, but liberals seem more addicted to violence, (govt.).
By a large majority gun owners just want to be left the heck alone and by the same token seem to be more willing to leave others alone.
By a large majority gun owners just want to be left the heck alone and by the same token seem to be more willing to leave others alone.
Believe it or not, something similar has actually been studied!
Check out this article. Scholars often complicit...
Check out this article. Scholars often complicit...
4570Rick
Member
First, The question should be Liberal or Conservative. There are a lot of liberal gun owners. It is also not correct to say the whole group is as any one individual in that group. The debate should be;
As a whole, which group has the greater propensity to commit acts of violence?
This may not be the definitive question, but it is closer to being valid. It is also not a jab at liberals any more than saying people who drive high performance cars get more tickets and have more accidents. It’s just statistically true. Liberals, by their very nature, are more passionate. They are more prone towards activism. As such, they tend to be more apt to cross the line than the more rigid conservative.
So in response to the question, the answer is Liberals. As examples, I offer these;
1. Spikes driven into trees to cause damage to loggers and their equipment.
2. Red paint or blood thrown at those who wear fur.
3. Research facilities broken into, to release animals used in medical experiments.
4. Gay activists who assault the congregants of a church, which holds the homosexual act, a sin.
5. Ramming whaling ships to protest whaling.
6. Using smear tactics to try to get on-air radio talk show hosts fired for stands taken against “Liberal Positions.â€
7. Blocking traffic during protests of war, animal abuse, World Trade Agreement meetings etc. These more often than not turn violent to some degree.
8. Using weapons in the commitment of crimes. (These criminals tend to blame, bad childhood, poverty, social pressures etc. The blame game tends to be more a liberal tool than a conservative one.)
This is not to say the above causes are right or wrong, nor is it an indictment of all liberals. It is simply the suggestion that, expressed as a per-capita percentage; the liberal is more likely than the conservative to act in a violent manor to given stimuli.
As a whole, which group has the greater propensity to commit acts of violence?
This may not be the definitive question, but it is closer to being valid. It is also not a jab at liberals any more than saying people who drive high performance cars get more tickets and have more accidents. It’s just statistically true. Liberals, by their very nature, are more passionate. They are more prone towards activism. As such, they tend to be more apt to cross the line than the more rigid conservative.
So in response to the question, the answer is Liberals. As examples, I offer these;
1. Spikes driven into trees to cause damage to loggers and their equipment.
2. Red paint or blood thrown at those who wear fur.
3. Research facilities broken into, to release animals used in medical experiments.
4. Gay activists who assault the congregants of a church, which holds the homosexual act, a sin.
5. Ramming whaling ships to protest whaling.
6. Using smear tactics to try to get on-air radio talk show hosts fired for stands taken against “Liberal Positions.â€
7. Blocking traffic during protests of war, animal abuse, World Trade Agreement meetings etc. These more often than not turn violent to some degree.
8. Using weapons in the commitment of crimes. (These criminals tend to blame, bad childhood, poverty, social pressures etc. The blame game tends to be more a liberal tool than a conservative one.)
This is not to say the above causes are right or wrong, nor is it an indictment of all liberals. It is simply the suggestion that, expressed as a per-capita percentage; the liberal is more likely than the conservative to act in a violent manor to given stimuli.
Liberals who own guns
no offense to the Libs here, but I think a gun-owning liberal, while to be commended for his sense, is actually showing how liberalism is not really credible.
I refer to Liberalism in the modern sense, of course, not to classical liberalism, which is more like modern Conservatism. Liberals (modern sense) who own guns are acknowledging that liberlism is inherently mistaken, since liberlalism favors big gov't and disarming citizens; yet when it comes down to the personal level they decide to be armed. It's the OTHER guy who can't be trusted with guns. I don't care whether you own guns only for 'peaceful' purposes sucha as hunting or target shooting; if you as a liberal own them you contradict yourseslf.
Now I don't mean to accuse fellow THRers of hypocrisy; I realize that liberalism is a spectrum just as is conservatism. But I think there's no getting around the fact that gun control is the natural position of the liberals, organic to their politics, because to organize the Great Society requires control of the citizens. And armed citizens are hard to control.
So yes, jmbg29, there are millions of gun-owning liberals. But I think they own them because they aren't really as 'liberal' as they think. Which is fine by me, of course. The others, like Feinstein, who actually carry but want me disarmed...you can finish the sentence.
no offense to the Libs here, but I think a gun-owning liberal, while to be commended for his sense, is actually showing how liberalism is not really credible.
I refer to Liberalism in the modern sense, of course, not to classical liberalism, which is more like modern Conservatism. Liberals (modern sense) who own guns are acknowledging that liberlism is inherently mistaken, since liberlalism favors big gov't and disarming citizens; yet when it comes down to the personal level they decide to be armed. It's the OTHER guy who can't be trusted with guns. I don't care whether you own guns only for 'peaceful' purposes sucha as hunting or target shooting; if you as a liberal own them you contradict yourseslf.
Now I don't mean to accuse fellow THRers of hypocrisy; I realize that liberalism is a spectrum just as is conservatism. But I think there's no getting around the fact that gun control is the natural position of the liberals, organic to their politics, because to organize the Great Society requires control of the citizens. And armed citizens are hard to control.
So yes, jmbg29, there are millions of gun-owning liberals. But I think they own them because they aren't really as 'liberal' as they think. Which is fine by me, of course. The others, like Feinstein, who actually carry but want me disarmed...you can finish the sentence.
gryphon
Member
Khornet, good point.
Some examples are the Hollywood actors/actresses who talk about gun control and banning firearms, yet have armed bodyguards.
Somone else also posted that they are a Democrat and own a gun. While a lot of people, and at one time myself thought, that Democrat and liberal are synonimous, they are not. You can be a Democrat and not a liberal, although in the past few years, the extremist liberals have been taking over the democratic party, making it seem as if there is no distinction.
Some examples are the Hollywood actors/actresses who talk about gun control and banning firearms, yet have armed bodyguards.
Somone else also posted that they are a Democrat and own a gun. While a lot of people, and at one time myself thought, that Democrat and liberal are synonimous, they are not. You can be a Democrat and not a liberal, although in the past few years, the extremist liberals have been taking over the democratic party, making it seem as if there is no distinction.
twoblink
Member
Kaylee nailed it, what I meant was "impulse control". Also, I find that most that belong to the gun culture (generally what I mean by gun owners) to have more self-control..
jmbg29
member
You get no argument from me.
I have always maintained that the libs that own firearms are hypocrites. Many people make the mistake of giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think that I ever have. I learned at the knees of relatives wounded in combat to "never underestimate your enemies".
Take my sig line for example. It's from MM the Jabba the Hutt of all things liberal. See what he reveals about himself in it. He knows that his most deeply held political beliefs are a sham, based on a lie, wrapped in propaganda, and yet he shamelessly goes on to pimp his filth anyway, because he knows that the sheeple will line up around the block to buy it.
It has been a difference without a distinction for at least the 40 years that I have been on this planet. We live in a country with a government that does now, and will continue to (in the forseeable future) operate on a two party system. Being a conservative Demorat is little different from being a wheelman.
The radical left runs into the country, guns down some of the citizens (while holding the rest at gunpoint), steals all the money, and all the conservative Demorat did was drive them there, and wait patiently with the engine running so they could get away with it.
THANKS!
BerettaNut92
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Messages
- 9,723
Impulse control? I don't know, seeing all those 'Look what just followed me home today!' posts
Sven
Senior Member
How about some threads about how to remedy the situation, versus spewing rants about how bad the other side is?
rick458
Member
Mass medication seems to be an option
anger management does not seem to work very well
(IE Cleibold and Harris):banghead:
anger management does not seem to work very well
(IE Cleibold and Harris):banghead:
trapshooter
Member
If, by 'liberal ', we mean anti-rights, elitist, whining peta/greenpeace/feinswine/hitlery type a-holes, then yes, they are certainly far more violent and vile than the vast majority of gun-owning types I have met or had discourse with.
jmbg29
member
How about some concrete examples of what you mean. I'll see if I have tried your ideas before, and let you know what I think.
I once heard a liberal celebrity (Gene Simmons of KISS of all people) say that liberals and conservatives are both willing to use force to preserve life. He said that they merely differ on when to drop the hammer. I submit that he is correct, but that he left out a vital point. Liberals are only willing to drop the hammer themselves after it is far too late. I submit - as evidence to back my theory - that Mr. Simmons' entire family on his mother's side was wiped from the face of the Earth by the
NAZIS! Because Mr. Simmons liberal family members were unwilling to use violence that by any reasonable measure, was just! Unfortunately, brave conservative men like my Uncle Frank didn't get to the death camps soon enough to save Mr. Simmons' family members. But don't think for a minute that I don't thank God nearly every day that he did in time to save others who were more fortunate. And don't think for a moment more that it doesn't make me feel sick inside that many of the children of those saved have joined with hundreds of millions of other sheeple that just don't "get it".
I've tried for 30 plus years to talk sense into people, but quite frankly, I find that people that consider fundamentals - like self-defense - to be anathema; to be utterly unreachable.
Sorry if my endless frustration offends your sensibilities, but the bottom line is this: their hatred of the self in favor of the imaginary "safety" of the collective, enrages me in that their votes place restrictions upon MY ability to keep me and mine safe.
Marshall
Member
Gee, wonder how this poll will turn out? ROFLMAO
Gun forum: Who's more violent, we conservative, level headed, self controlled, background checked gun owners? Or, the liberal, irrational, out of control, no background checked anti's? HAHAHAHA Uhhhhh, they are??
Did I get it right, huh huh huh tell me tell me?
Gun forum: Who's more violent, we conservative, level headed, self controlled, background checked gun owners? Or, the liberal, irrational, out of control, no background checked anti's? HAHAHAHA Uhhhhh, they are??
Jim March
Member
The term "Liberal" is too much of a catch-all.
First problem: as of 40/50 years ago, the main group agitating for serious racial equality were "Liberals" and unfortunately carried all sorts of other "socialistic baggage". (NOT all of 'em, CORE is a classic example otherwise.) I don't believe MLKJr was himself a communist but he had some commie allies. The whole "left-wing movement" gained "moral credibility" from those times and is still "feeding off it".
In terms of race relations, *I* am a "liberal".
The rest of the Liberal package:
* "Since the gov't managed to fix race relations, they should fix everything else".
.
* "Social Justice", using gov't spending to "make sure nobody gets left behind". They can't see that they sponsor a "culture of theft and helplessness".
* Once you get to thinking that "wealth is evil", it's a short jump to "the US is evil", which explains Democrat foreign policy.
What's puzzling is that gun control per se really doesn't *fit* into all this! Think about it a bit. The only real connection is that personal arms can stop a progression to a fully totalitarian FORM of socialism way out past where we're at now, hell, past where Western Europe mostly is.
So the question is, how many of the current Democrats REALLY, secretly, want to take us towards a Stalinist/Maoist future? I can think of a few: Hillary is that rotten, Willie Brown, DiFi, maybe a dozen others. But, call me an optimist, I really don't think there's all that much support for that sort of thing. Maybe impossible to say. In the *UN*, good GOD there's one hell of a lot of Stalin wanna-bes.
I have a sneaking suspicion two other things are going on, completely outside the "Liberal problem":
1) Academia is full of complete morons with no "street sense" whatsoever. "Useful idiots" for other, more dangerous types.
2) Dig deep enough, and I think you'll find people way the hell up there in gov't who believe that the US prevailing wages are too high to make the US competitive in the world economy. Therefore, a series of sustained economic recessions or even depressions will be needed to get us "back in balance", reducing the value of the US labor pool. If I'm right, they'll try and do it with a "soft landing" at the bottom, to an economy where most people own bicycles instead of cars and live six to an apartment instead of four to a ranch house. That's going to cause upheaval, possibly riots, social tensions, crime, and they think private guns will either make it worse or allow for a major social change before the "downgrade" is finished.
Now, the mysterious "they" might even be right about the need to "soft land" the economy. More likely, they're not factoring in the "new wealth" potentially available from space, hardcore genetics, biotech, nanotech, etc. I believe the human race can actually get past the coming problems but it'll be one very weird world when we're done. Cool. "High tech weird" is better than "planet Calcutta slum".
But whatever happens: we can't let the totalitarians take over. We *know* where that can go.
We'll keep our guns.
First problem: as of 40/50 years ago, the main group agitating for serious racial equality were "Liberals" and unfortunately carried all sorts of other "socialistic baggage". (NOT all of 'em, CORE is a classic example otherwise.) I don't believe MLKJr was himself a communist but he had some commie allies. The whole "left-wing movement" gained "moral credibility" from those times and is still "feeding off it".
In terms of race relations, *I* am a "liberal".
The rest of the Liberal package:
* "Since the gov't managed to fix race relations, they should fix everything else".
.* "Social Justice", using gov't spending to "make sure nobody gets left behind". They can't see that they sponsor a "culture of theft and helplessness".
* Once you get to thinking that "wealth is evil", it's a short jump to "the US is evil", which explains Democrat foreign policy
.What's puzzling is that gun control per se really doesn't *fit* into all this! Think about it a bit. The only real connection is that personal arms can stop a progression to a fully totalitarian FORM of socialism way out past where we're at now, hell, past where Western Europe mostly is.
So the question is, how many of the current Democrats REALLY, secretly, want to take us towards a Stalinist/Maoist future? I can think of a few: Hillary is that rotten, Willie Brown, DiFi, maybe a dozen others. But, call me an optimist, I really don't think there's all that much support for that sort of thing. Maybe impossible to say. In the *UN*, good GOD there's one hell of a lot of Stalin wanna-bes.
I have a sneaking suspicion two other things are going on, completely outside the "Liberal problem":
1) Academia is full of complete morons with no "street sense" whatsoever. "Useful idiots" for other, more dangerous types.
2) Dig deep enough, and I think you'll find people way the hell up there in gov't who believe that the US prevailing wages are too high to make the US competitive in the world economy. Therefore, a series of sustained economic recessions or even depressions will be needed to get us "back in balance", reducing the value of the US labor pool. If I'm right, they'll try and do it with a "soft landing" at the bottom, to an economy where most people own bicycles instead of cars and live six to an apartment instead of four to a ranch house. That's going to cause upheaval, possibly riots, social tensions, crime, and they think private guns will either make it worse or allow for a major social change before the "downgrade" is finished.
Now, the mysterious "they" might even be right about the need to "soft land" the economy. More likely, they're not factoring in the "new wealth" potentially available from space, hardcore genetics, biotech, nanotech, etc. I believe the human race can actually get past the coming problems but it'll be one very weird world when we're done
. Cool. "High tech weird" is better than "planet Calcutta slum".But whatever happens: we can't let the totalitarians take over. We *know* where that can go.
We'll keep our guns.
jmbg29
member
I have thought about it... a lot.
You are missing the whole point. Liberalism is about liberals (especially their dream of a benevolent dictator) telling you, and every one else, that you are incompetent to handle your own affairs.
It's been said a million times, but here it goes again...It's not about guns, it's about CONTROL!!!!
They figure out how much of your money you get to keep.
They figure out what you get to own/not own.
They get to assign you what your race/ethnicity is e.g. Judge Estrada. Normally libs would squeal like squished cats that Estrada must get the job because not enough members of "la raza" sit on the federal bench. They get to determine what constitutes a "latino".
etc, etc., etc....
twoblink
Member
There is also the stupidity part;
They protest and become violent at an NRA rally?? So you can't say they are all that smart..
Solutions?
First, we have to win back the schools, I think this is the start. Look at the colleges and the professors and what they spew. We educate one by one, they brainwash in masses.. We pay to take someone shooting; they have to students pay tuition to bet brainwashed.
They protest and become violent at an NRA rally?? So you can't say they are all that smart..
Solutions?
First, we have to win back the schools, I think this is the start. Look at the colleges and the professors and what they spew. We educate one by one, they brainwash in masses.. We pay to take someone shooting; they have to students pay tuition to bet brainwashed.
jimbo
Member
Liberals and Conservatives both have their violent fringe of extremists. To say the one is more violent than the other is to paint with too broad a brush. The fact is that most gun-owners are like most people, which is to say non-violent unless severely provoked or threatened.
But I agree with your point that many of these war-protesters come from the violent liberal fringe.
But I agree with your point that many of these war-protesters come from the violent liberal fringe.
1
12.7x99mm
Guest
I’ve been to many, support out troops rallies in my area and all the cops there were saying they had nothing to do.
Everyone was happy and polite and I bet 50% of the supporters were armed. (classic example of a armed society is a polite society) Lots of really nice people and families and real decent Americans. Another thing I noticed is that all the streets were cleaned up after they left. They didn’t leave a mess behind.
Now go to liberal rally against the war/president and see what happens. Take a look at the attitudes, shouting and possible violence and take a look at the streets after there done. It’s a mess.
Everyone was happy and polite and I bet 50% of the supporters were armed. (classic example of a armed society is a polite society) Lots of really nice people and families and real decent Americans. Another thing I noticed is that all the streets were cleaned up after they left. They didn’t leave a mess behind.
Now go to liberal rally against the war/president and see what happens. Take a look at the attitudes, shouting and possible violence and take a look at the streets after there done. It’s a mess.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
I find it interesting how 19th century liberals' brains would explode if they found out what is considered "liberal" now.
- Status
Similar threads
