A liberal finally gets it; considers buying a gun.

[Dutch Uncle]

imported post

Indeed, the issue at hand isn't purely "liberal vs conservative". It might be more correct to say it is traditionalist vs. progressive, though all these terms paint with a fairly broad brush. Gotta happen, I guess. My main reason in using the old "liberal vs conservative" dichotomy here is the fact that the author of the piece used those very terms to describe her understanding of the issues.

With regard to the snarky, dismissive, oh-so-sophisticated remarks of a certain poster from CT, many of us here have traveled widely, are well-educated/ well-read, and haven't worn blinders wider than anyone else's. If you believe Reagan was a sham, fine. Just don't assume that your pet theory is a good way to determine who is or isn't sophisticated.

By the way the " fasci... I mean..'conservatives' " comment shows a glaring factual misconception. Fascism was a term coined by Mussolini to denote a hard-left, socialist system that believed in statism, high taxes and "big government" at its most frightening. Mussolini was a self-avowed "progressive socialist" who hated anything politically conservative. Talking about a "fascist conservative" is like complaining about a "Catholic atheist". Do some homework....

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:

Talking about a "fascist conservative" is like complaining about a "Catholic atheist". Do some homework....

Talking about "conservative" and "liberal" in general is an exercise in futility because those terms swap meanings every fifty to one-hundred years. The terms are a joke because NO ONE completely fits in one category, but people around here insist on using them incorrectly so I play right along.


Modern, self-identified "conservatives" (which is whatI wasreferring to, think DickCheney)are, in fact,heavily statist fascists.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

ufcfanvt wrote:

I'd like to get permission to republish this somewhere with edits.
I think not using the words liberal and conservative would go a long way to making this article the perfect bridge for a lot of people in America.
It's very easy for people to empathize with a story like that and take hard lessons away, even changing long-held beliefs. It's another thing entirely to use that story to attack an entire belief system. When you do that, the defenses go up too quickly and with too much strength for any argument to work.
Those words are losing their meaning daily anyways...

Yeah, the biggest problem with the article is her "conversion" to "conservatism".

It's a good article, but I don't think it makes its point in the most convincing way. All the meaningless partisan language suggested to me a longtime conservative writer.

We shouldn't be trying to make liberals become conservative. Liberalism can be a good thing (some liberals still take the word "liberal" at its historical meaning, after all), even as just as an opposition force to the "conservatism" of the right-wing, which has developed many serious flaws in recent years.

What we should do is encourage liberals who plan to stay liberals to adopt appreciation for the RKBA as a tenet of their liberalism.

Then we (gun owners) win.

Edit: (Broken keyboard = forgive typos)

I'm glad someone gets it. There's still a ray of hope for the pro-2A cause.

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

Arguing with a liberal about gun control is like washing a pig. Its a waste of time and only annoys the pig.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Arguing with a liberal about gun control is like washing a pig. Its a waste of time and only annoys the pig.

The intelligence of that statement is baffling to us mere mortals. I bow to you, giver of knowledge.

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

AWD, Your intelligence (or lack thereof) is often in question here. Step away from Roget's Thesaurus and the internet for a couple hours and get some fresh air outside.While you're out there,get some real world knowledge and experience, son.

 

[Jonesy]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

JohnK87 wrote:

I don't think it is a lib/con issue at all- it really is more of a country/city thing. The people locked in the cities grow up not thinking that they are allowed to defend themselves.

Winner!!

And why do you suppose they think they can't defend themselves?

Because liberals have brainwashed them into believing that they can't.

No, because the anti-gun crowd as brainwashed them. Liberals have nothing to do with it.

When a previously "conservative" pro-2A persontakes off their blinders, steps out in the real world, gets educated, etc... they don't magically become anti-2A.

Just because someone wasn't rubbing Bush's balls for the last eight years, or because they like certain of Obama's policies, doesn't make them automatically anti-2A.

Open your mind and the world suddenly becomes less black/white.

What a clown you are. All conservatives have on "blinders" and are not "educated"? Please stay in Ct where you belong, although you would probably fit right in in Berkley. Go troll somewhere else please.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Arguing with a liberal about gun control is like washing a pig.  Its a waste of time and only annoys the pig.

Your assertion has no merit, and even less value.

 

[Il_Duce]

imported post

Jonesy wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

JohnK87 wrote:

I don't think it is a lib/con issue at all- it really is more of a country/city thing. The people locked in the cities grow up not thinking that they are allowed to defend themselves.

Winner!!

And why do you suppose they think they can't defend themselves?

Because liberals have brainwashed them into believing that they can't.

No, because the anti-gun crowd as brainwashed them. Liberals have nothing to do with it.

When a previously "conservative" pro-2A persontakes off their blinders, steps out in the real world, gets educated, etc... they don't magically become anti-2A.

Just because someone wasn't rubbing Bush's balls for the last eight years, or because they like certain of Obama's policies, doesn't make them automatically anti-2A.

Open your mind and the world suddenly becomes less black/white.

What a clown you are. All conservatives have on "blinders" and are not "educated"? Please stay in Ct where you belong, although you would probably fit right in in Berkley. Go troll somewhere else please.

Maybe you should be over in Iraq. Though you might be a bit too "conservative" for their tastes.

 

[KansasMustang]

imported post

Il_Duce, neither he,,nor the other jackass that made the almost Fasci,,, comment would survive ten minutes of either Iraq or Afghanistan. While they make me ILL, I will defend to the death their right to their opinion, and,,oh yeah,,already have. However,,I survived it, so have to stomach their BS.
BTW I'm sure you derived your handle by using the Mussilini title of "Il Duce Compeador" GOTCHA

 

[Il_Duce]

imported post

Can ONE THREAD go by without my username being brought up?

I loved Boondock Saints. Il Duce, the main characters' father/the hitman, was a ******* badass, it has NOTHING to do with Benito ******* Mussolini, the characters weren't even Italian (They were as Irish as it gets.), I wasn't even considering the "real life" application of the moniker at the time, it was just a "Hmm, I need a screen name..." moment.


For ****'s sake can we move on?

 

[Chaingun81]

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Arguing with a liberal about gun control is like washing a pig. Its a waste of time and only annoys the pig.

I love it!

Not only it's a waste of time and annoys the pig, but you also gonna get yourself dirty in the process. Really not worth it. Hosing a pig down (with common sense and logic in this case)is kinda fun though :celebrate

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Arguing with a liberal about gun control is like washing a pig. Its a waste of time and only annoys the pig.

Your assertion has no merit, and even less value.

No one would dare call you a troll. They'll just ignore your post.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Arguing with a liberal about gun control is like washing a pig. Its a waste of time and only annoys the pig.

Your assertion has no merit, and even less value.

I have tried arguing with dead set liberals enough to know that what he says is true........the ones who will listen aren't really dead set and usually can be brought to see how foolish the ideas they are spouting really are. The idea of lawful self defense just doesn't fit into the big government, forced redistribution of wealth platform most liberals spout. Some can be turned when you show just how foolish their ideas are, but most are so hard headed and dead set on their socialist utopia that they refuse to see anything beyond what they believe is right.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

Oh how I love reading of the antics of AWDstylez, especially whenhis best buddy R a Z o Ris involved. Makes the world a more entertaining place. Someday they'll realize they're both wrong and I'll be completely bored reading these threads. Ah, I'll rue the day when this forum becomes an utter utopia of roboticly similar beliefs. But for now, I'll sit back with my bag of popcorn and watch my fellowLibertarians take over the world while you guys play tug o' war with a bone devoid of meat and marrow! BWAHAHHAHAHAHHA.

 

[Mordis]

imported post

Not all liberals i run into are anti 2a or carry for that matter. The ones i run into just dont want people running around with full auto and military style guns. In there minds you dont need 17+ rounds to defend your self. I to some extent agree with that. I feel that having a lot of rou nds on hand encourages spraying and not aiming. Which will probably endear the thought of, "well i dont have to be so accurate or try so hard, i have alot of ammo if i miss". Tho, i dont think capacity should be regulated, i know for a fact i plan on purchasing a hi cap 9mm in the next year or so.

AWDstylz i was offended by this comment "I thought a liberalis a conservative that understands economics and realizes Reagan was a sham?

I actually know plenty of "liberals" (and I use that term loosely, anyone that isn't the unibomer is a liberal by this site's standards) that are pro-2A.Respect for theright to keep and bear arms is not limited to fasci... I mean... "conservatives".


Im a conservative and I DO NOT HAVE ANY COMMONBELIEFS WITH FACISTS. What was the nazi party called again.. oh ya the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY. Ya that sounds like a pro liberty free market and individual right loving party never mind that whole socialist thing. As for liberal economics, it has yet to work, 2trillion in liberal spending and the economy is still tanking, yep sounds like good economics to me. Racking up a defict that will bankrupt us and saddle my kids and grandkids with massive debt is such a great thing.

/rant off

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Mordis wrote:

As for liberal economics, it has yet to work, 2trillion in liberal spending and the economy is still tanking, yep sounds like good economics to me. Racking up a defict that will bankrupt us and saddle my kids and grandkids with massive debt is such a great thing.

/rant off

So what was it called when Reagan did it first?

 

[DrMark]

imported post

Interesting read.

Thanks, Dutch Uncle!

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

I've found Dutch Uncle to be an amazing orator and gifted scholar of the Second Amendment. He is also quite amusing in person. We're blessed to have him living in our area and the chance to talk to him from time to time.

Jim, thank you for your insightful contributions to this forum.

Mike

 

[Dutch Uncle]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Mordis wrote:

As for liberal economics, it has yet to work, 2trillion in liberal spending and the economy is still tanking, yep sounds like good economics to me. Racking up a defict that will bankrupt us and saddle my kids and grandkids with massive debt is such a great thing.

/rant off

So what was it called when Reagan did it first?

It wasn't called liberal economics/liberal spending then because Reagan didn't do that. Reagan clearly wanted to balance the budget, but considered defeating the Soviets the higher priority. Some here may not be old enough to remember what a serious threat the "Cold War" was; I am. He had to get the economy out of the horrible Carter-years' morass, and needed to lower tax rates to do it. But he had a democrat congress (both houses) to deal with, so he had to settle for half a loaf. If he'd had a Republican congress, he would have gotten closer to balancing the budget, but that didn't happen. For one, he wanted to get the "Welfare-for-life" monkey off our backs, but the Dems would have none of it. That took the next Republican congress. So we got a win in the Cold War, a robust economy, a sense of renewed pride and well-being, but not a balanced budget. We'd have had the latter if Reagan had gotten his way, but he gave us a hell of a lot more than we EVER would have gotten if Carter had won in '80. Does anyone here over the age of 55 honestly think we'd be doing better now if we'd had 4 more years of Jimmah's Excellent Adventures, followed by Mondale, followed by Dukakis, followed by Clinton, etc., etc.? The very thought should frighten any student of our recent history.