A liberal finally gets it; considers buying a gun.

[Il_Duce]

imported post

I'm a huge fan of "If it's not hurting anyone, what's the big deal?"

 

[Dutch Uncle]

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

smoking357 wrote:
I like the Libertarian approach, too. "Keep the government out of my business (and her uterus)"... The government should be as small as possible and should serve the people, not have the people serving the government.

I've found that most (maybe not all) liberals firmly believe the government knows what is best for you and think "bigger is better". There are a few conservatives that are equally guilty of "Big Government".

"The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power".

"Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it".

(Two of my favorite quotes from Woodrow Wilson.)

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

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)

Liberalism is NEVER a good thing. At least modern day "progressive" Liberalism is not a good thing.

Liberals are all about control. It is exactly the same as the moralists type of control, with the exception of having different objects of control.

Liberalism is never good and never will be. Liberals may get one thing, but they miss the others.

Like you for example, you might get the basics of the 2nd Amendment, but agree withsome or manyof the regulations and ordinances which practically nullify or dangerously infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

You also probably agree with things like socialized medicine, medicare, medicaid, social security et al. Yet completely disregard the fact that in order to give these things to people, the entirety of the US must be enslaved for part of the year to pay for them. What percentage of your income is taxes? Mine is well over 50% if you count property taxes, local, State and Federal. This means that I'm a slave for 6 months. My 4th Amendment rights are completely violated as the property taxes (if not paid) will effectively force my forfeiture of the property. Through threat of violence and theft, the government enslaves us and people like you agree with those control freaks and tyrants who have for over a century ignored the basic tenants of our Constitution... so yes, I can say with complete confidence that Liberalism (progressive movement Statism) is never good.

Now this is not to say that you are not a good person. I believe you probably are quite a nice person who cares about people and only wants to help... that being said... I always refer to a quote from C.S. Lewis;

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~ C.S. Lewis

It is this statement which I believe to be even more true today than when he first penned it.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

:quirky:quirky:quirky:quirky:quirky:quirky:quirky:quirky:quirky

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Now, when did I say anything about progressives, or other illiberal statists?

One can presume from context that anyone I refer to even slightly favorably is not a statist.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Like you for example, you might get the basics of the 2nd Amendment, but agree with some or many of the regulations and ordinances which practically nullify or dangerously infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

lol, I do? Give me some examples. Back this up, right now. I demand it.

I realize you ignore my posts. But, since that is the case, don't presume to know my opinions.

If anything, you are more statist than myself. Ask AWDstylez here. He does read my posts, I think.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

If anything, you are more statist than myself. Ask AWDstylez here. He does read my posts, I think.

Indeed, marshaul is "libertarian" to a fault.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

You also probably agree with things like socialized medicine, medicare, medicaid, social security et al.

What do you base this assumption on? When have I said I support or advocate these things?

The answer is no, I don't agree with these things; I never have. You just made that up, god knows why.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

You also probably agree with things like socialized medicine, medicare, medicaid, social security et al.

What do you base this assumption on? When have I said I support or advocate these things?

The answer is no, I don't agree with these things; I never have. You just made that up, god knows why.

Let me clue you in on a little something that I realized a long time ago. If you don't agree with "them" ("them" being any one of the resident, self-identified defenders of all things American) then you're automatically a commie/liberal/marxist/psycho/freedom hater/America destroyer. Black or white, there is no middle ground. You're with us or you're with the terrorists.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

No offense to any liberals here (well, maybe just a little), but it occured to me that the word "liberal" might derive from something having to do with freedom.

So, I looked it up.

Now, I think plenty of liberals are hiding behind a false-front. Too much of what liberals push forinvolves increasing tyranny, not freedom. Not that some so-called conservatives are any better; I'm just looking at the corruption of the word.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

You also probably agree with things like socialized medicine, medicare, medicaid, social security et al.

What do you base this assumption on? When have I said I support or advocate these things?

The answer is no, I don't agree with these things; I never have. You just made that up, god knows why.

Let me clue you in on a little something that I realized a long time ago. If you don't agree with "them" ("them" being any one of the resident, self-identified defenders of all things American) then you're automatically a commie/liberal/marxist/psycho/freedom hater/America destroyer. Black or white, there is no middle ground. You're with us or you're with the terrorists.

No, when you advocate and applaud interpretations of the Constitution that take liberty rather than protect it... you are enemies of the Constitution. You don't just have a different opinion, your beliefs and those like you in power take our Freedom and Liberty every single day. I've had arguments with both you and marshaul to know you are progressive Statists who have tried to hide your true colors. You are the types of liberals who claim to be for liberty, but defend unconstitutionallaws and/or ordinances as lawful or reasonable. Anyone who has argued with you before knows you are both Statists, so backing yourself up withthe other is like Stalin usingMao as a characterreference.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Black or white, there is no middle ground. You're with us or you're with the terrorists.

1.] If one ever decides to decide .

2.] Of course being undecided is also a choice .

3.] But what if it is incorrect ?

____________________________________________________________________


VS [ google ]

... giveth to all man liberally and abraideth not ...

____________________________________________________________________

I hate abridged dictionaries .

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

And you may want to call yourself an original Liberal.... but I believe I've seen too much FDR Liberal in you to believe that you could be anything but a modern day Liberal. You argue for Democracy, when that's what all modern day Liberals want, Democracy Now, Democratic Underground, Democracy.org, and a plethora of other modern Liberal think tanks who advocate majority rule. They want this because they know how easy it is to use demagoguery to push through a socialist, and finally (without using the name) a fascist agenda. Those who advocate for a Democracy are without a doubt, enemies of the Republic and must be stopped.

 

[Il_Duce]

imported post

WfL... you're an extremist. Hope you know that. Like, ******* nuts.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Il_Duce wrote:

WfL... you're an extremist. Hope you know that. Like, @#$%ing nuts.

Been reading your Bible, the report issued by the Department of Homeland Security? I figured it would not be long before another flaming liberal on these boards would chime in... come on guys, give it up... your cover is blown.

 

[Il_Duce]

imported post

Hah, yes, I am a liberal because.. of.. um... what, exactly?

 

[smoking357]

imported post

I'm on Page 4, and this thread is quite foggy. Just what point is at issue?

 

[marshaul]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

I'm on Page 4, and this thread is quite foggy. Just what point is at issue?

That I'm a statist who loves FDR.

Which could not be farther from the truth. Apparently WfL believes that, for someone to not be in total 100% agreement over "shoot to kill", necessarily entails that person being a big-government-loving statist.

:quirky

I'm done defending myself to this guy. Anybody who has debated with me (and actually read my posts), knows I'm none of the things he accuses me of.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

And you may want to call yourself an original Liberal.... but I believe I've seen too much FDR Liberal in you to believe that you could be anything but a modern day Liberal. You argue for Democracy, when that's what all modern day Liberals want, Democracy Now, Democratic Underground, Democracy.org, and a plethora of other modern Liberal think tanks who advocate majority rule. They want this because they know how easy it is to use demagoguery to push through a socialist, and finally (without using the name) a fascist agenda. Those who advocate for a Democracy are without a doubt, enemies of the Republic and must be stopped.

BS. I argued for Jeffersonian Republicanism. And you know it. You need to think before you speak.

The power of the majority is an important reality, but that doesn't justify the majority taking rights from the minority. Jefferson's position was a little more complex than "OMG majority rule! no minority rights!"

OK, now I'm done.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Il_Duce wrote:

Hah, yes, I am a liberal because.. of.. um... what, exactly?

Because you disagreed. Disagreement = liberal. "Yes master" = conservative.

This board gets more stupidly partisan by the second.