liberal left socialist pinkos

[ishi]

BluesStringer,

ishi, I admire your candor and your RKBA positions but I don't think that they are compatible with your political party of choice. You're not alone though. I align with BluesStringer very closely politically and I feel increasingly disconnected with my former political party of choice, the Republicans (at least at the federal level).

Thanks Torch... I know what you mean, sometimes I think I should start my own political party.

The thread started out as a 2A thread anyway, but now that it's become more about general political issues, it seems out of place in the "2nd amendment" forum. Thanks to everybody who's read it or responded. Now that I've said my piece, I'll be satisfied to return to the shadows and talk about guns.

ishi

[Ektarr]

Ishi, I was gently chastised myself recently for not "staying on the thread." The fact is, like a conversation, the content of a thread can wander.

With respect to a Third Party, I'd be interested -- either in this thread or another, for those purists out there -- in hearing thoughts on the Constitution Party, for example...an established party that seems to have our Constitutional issues at heart but not to have the emotional frenzy I see connected to the Libertarians. Whaddaya think?

[BluesStringer]

BluesStringer,

How in the world do you survive in Madison? I imagine that you sometimes feel like a rock in the middle of a stream trying not to get wet.

I'm not sure I understand the question Torch. Could you please expound and clarify?

ishi, I admire your candor and your RKBA positions but I don't think that they are compatible with your political party of choice. You're not alone though. I align with BluesStringer very closely politically and I feel increasingly disconnected with my former political party of choice, the Republicans (at least at the federal level).

For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party. I was raised in a generations-deep Democrat family in Southern Cal, so I know a lot about liberalism from a first-hand perspective. I'm old enough that I remember when the Dem party wasn't nearly entirely controlled by the whacked-out far left of the party, and I was as comfortable referring to your average Dem as a patriot as I might've been referring to Republicans that way if I were paying much attention to them beyond how to beat them in the next election. I can remember when ideas informed the debate, as opposed to ideology. When I had to start making decisions for myself and let go of the apron-strings of my Dem family, it didn't take long to figure out that Dems didn't represent much of what I believe in. In that regard, I align more with Republicans, but I've never seen the need to join the party, and the last Congress' and Bush's affinity for creating a legacy of out-spending Bill Clinton of all people, makes me glad I'm not affiliated with them in any official way. I'm fortunate that, for the time being, I am not required to declare a party to register to vote, but I can still participate in primary elections. I've heard that that will likely change in Alabama though, and at that point, I guess I would register Libertarian or maybe The Constitution Party, but it's for dang sure it won't be Dem or Rep under any circumstances.

Blues

[HK4U]

Sometimes, sleeping with the enemy can be a thrill! Moving on.....

Maybe, someone could enlighten me as to the Constitutionality of our "conservative" President offering illegal immigrants amnesty? Perhaps we can find out where the gummint is supposed to provide education, health care, or retirement? Ol' Dubya seems to have fallen off that conservative wagon a long time ago....

I think the real problem is we have polititions on both sides of the fence that are selling us out to the U.N. New World Order, one world order gang. When it comes right down to it they can call themselves what ever they want but in reality they are all traitors and enemies of the Constitution.

[Puppy]

"The liberal left commie socialists are after our guns!"

This is pretty typical fare on the internet gun forums. It's also wrong and destructive to the 2A movement, and here's why:

As Americans, we have hundreds of political issues that are important to us. Many are related to economics, some are related to religious values, some are about foreign policy. Of all of these, civil rights are usually the least divisive. Most americans learn early about the Bill of Rights and accept them as fundamental building blocks of our nation's character. It's hard to find Americans who won't support the freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial.

As a civil rights issue, gun ownership is not an issue that naturally divides along traditional political lines. The American Left has always been a champion of civil rights - the ACLU, regardless of its disappointing and inexplicable stance on the 2A as a collective right, has generally been a lion defending the Bill of Rights. The Left also have families, and are victims of crime the same as everybody else.

A sizeable portion of the Left would be very receptive to getting on board with the pro 2A movement, if only the current 2A advocates would be less divisive and insulting to the Left's other, unrelated political views. When a left-leaning American wants information about buying a gun for the defense of his family, he will log on to a gun forum and find himself immediately insulted and vilified in every thread on the forum. It should come as no shock when he thinks "These guys are complete a-holes, maybe I should rethink my position on this". The 2A struggle has just lost another vote. There's one more person who will never go out of his way to write his congressman or senator to demand the 2A be respected. There's another person who may no longer care about the 2A views of the candidates in the Democratic primary.

Every successful grassroots civil rights movement has worked to embrace voters from across the political spectrum. The 2A movement has instead created a divisive and confrontational movement that makes enemies instead of courting allies. This is one of the reasons for why the 2A movement has had limited success in the political scene - it actively drives away voters from the Left.

Besides being harmful to the 2A movement, the claim that gun restrictions and confiscation are naturally Socialist policies simply is not true. Socialism is interested in the economic equalization of society, the means of which might range from high taxes on the rich and capital gains income, to nationalized healthcare, to outright public ownership of the means of production and a state-planned economy. Those who disagree with these ideas have predictably uncharitable opinions of those who espouse them, but this has nothing to do with the 2A. The 2A is not an economic policy, it is a statement about the civil rights of the individual in the United States.

Ironically, the anti-2A politicians who are most often called 'liberal left socialist' are actually staunchly pro-Capitalist candidates of the Democrat party, which happily takes billions in campaign donations from the same Corporations and rich individuals as donate to Republican causes. Calling Pelosi and Hillary Clinton Socialists is quite frankly an insult to Socialists everywhere.

Capitalist democracies such as Australia and the UK are the most recent nations to disarm their citizens. Is this because Australia is full of liberal left socialists? Their staunchly conservative, rabidly anti-gun prime minister John Howard would disagree.

Gun control is about control - control of the government over the individual. If we want to defeat this control, we need to see where the threat is coming from - with clear eyes and a clear head. 2A rights needs to be de-linked from other issues so that people from across the political spectrum can work together. Need an epithet? Use 'antis' or something, anything, but not socialist, liberal, left, democrat. When you do that, you simply drive away the folks from that camp who want to join the struggle. Resist the urge to turn the 2A movement into a Republican 'members-only' clubhouse. Republicans can't win this fight alone.

Hello, I'm Ishi, I vote Green party, and I support the Bill of Rights - ALL of it.

Excellent post and I agree. I tend to be conservative on about 20% of issues, liberal on about 20% and disagree with both sides on 60%. In other words I am about as middle of the road as it gets and I have been know to make insulting remarks to both liberals and conservatives, depending on the issue.

My shooting buddy is liberal. I had on occasion made disparaging remarks in front of him about liberals. Now I wonder why. He is pro gun, he has his CCWL and packs every where he goes, never even "stripping" in his own home.

Not every one who is liberal opposes the 2nd and we do the cause no good to insult them and drive them away. Welcome them with open arms, help them and advise them. You might even find you like them. (Well, sometimes. :D)

[Puppy]

I understand that feeling. I've often thought that there should be a law exam requiring applicants to be able to recall and apply the law concerning self-defense and deadly force. I have a strong suspicion that the vast majority of license holders have little clue or interest in how the law is applied.

The Kansas test spends probably 80% of the class time on just such issues. Not just the laws but examples from real life. If people take their responsibility seriously, and continue to practice as they should, shooting top scores for the test is not that critical IMO. As a compromise, (probably impractical) I would suggest that the licensed CCWL holder possibly should be given a shooting test at the end of the first 6 months. If it's obvious they haven't been practicing then they have another 6 months to shape up or lose their license.

As I said probably not practical. I and my shooting buddy have been shooting handguns since we were small sprouts, (and that was a long long time ago." But for us both it was a sometime thing. When I moved to a big city I shot maybe three times a year and that was just plinking cans and the like when I returned to the family farm on vacation. Since we both got our CCWL we both go to the range an average of twice a week.

[Puppy]

I'm not sure if it exceeds the consitution. The second ammendment says "well regulated" That might give the government power to demand training and proficiency. I'm anything but a constitutional scholar, but I'm concerned about some of the negligence and ignorance I see(I'm a trauma surgeon and get to see some of the consequences first hand)

The 2nd also says "the people", which is used in several of the Bill of Rights.

Does the first amendment which says "the People's right to freedom of speech" also give the government the power to determine training and proficiency in speaking?

I'm not flaming you. I just read an excellent analysis of the language of the bill of rights. In every right the term "the people" clearly refers to individual rights not collective rights. This knocks the anti gun peoples argument that the 2nd only refers to a "government militia" out of the ballpark.

As the author said; that makes as much sense as saying the Freedom of speech is not an individual right either, and applies only if a government sponsored group got together and spoke only upon condition of a collective agreement.

[kwo51]

Blue dog dem . for years . Carter made me change.