Liberals, Progressives, 'Leftists' and Guns

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


" By and large 'liberals' want peace, love and enlightenment.
How that is seen as a bad thing....just blows my mind. "

Far from Being Realistic is the Common Bane of All Progressive Liberals . Social Darwinism has Ruled this Planet from Time Immorial . It is ingrained in Mans Nature to try and Dominate others throught the use of Force or Die in the Act of trying . This will Never Change even in a Far Distant Imaginable Future where some might Believe otherwise.........





posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


And to be sure, its not a big enough issue for them NOT to vote liberal.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


From rocks, to sticks, to the bow and arrow, the sword, to the gun mankind is the same as it ever was.

Wonder why no one wants to ban those,but only the gun?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Good thread OP.
I think this was a provocative subject to take to ATS.
Good for you for bringing this idea up for discussion.

I'm liberal, I'm for back ground checks and for the right
to own guns. Back ground checks are probably a good idea,
don't most of you agree? Yes I know "No!" but that's really
an unrealistic large civil society stance. So if the line has been drawn
that far right in the sand that I'm anti-gun because I'd like a background
check first, wow....

And yes push liberals far enough and you get Leftist Guerillas.
Major Pains in the sides of Governments throught out centuries.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by solomons path
 


Support background checks and firearms licensing?

Inquiring minds want to know.


No . . . Shall not be infringed is pretty clear no?

Feel free to check my posting history on this subject, if you don't believe me.

This is why I don't support the NRA. They are idiots or in on it. This should be a party neutral pro-freedom fight against tyranny. Not trying to match boogeymen (video games) or agreeing with the gov about tactics (mental health).

Read your Sun Tsu . . . stand united and resolute!
edit on 1/26/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Because Certain Guns have become the Best Weapon today for Killing from a Distance . If you see the Enemy coming for you , they give you Percious Time to decide whether to Fight or Flee........



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Alright then show mean a "liberal progressive leftist" who does not support firearm licensing, and background checks,

Like i said point a liberal,progressive,leftist who is not anti gun?.


Okay I need perspective.

If I understand your wording correctly.

It's all or nothing.

If one of these liberals agrees with 1 then they are anti-gun. I mean that's fine. That's your take on things.

In my case I do not side with the majority of the propositions of anti-gun control and therefore I consider myself on the pro-gun side. Apparently you don't see it that way.
edit on 26-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Well Well as I live and breathe more elusive than the lockness monster




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Yeah well all gun owners are dangerous and all those evil guns need banned, they need restrictions!

All or nothing right?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I just think you are American. That's okay, as I am too, but in this country the "liberal" moniker was taken on by the progressive movement around about FDR's time. Democrats are not liberals. Liberal doesn't mean entitlements and spending . . . hell a true liberal is even opposed to taxes. Here in America we call tyrants "liberals" and "liberals" domestic terrorists.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 


sealing, not really questioning you intent, but there have been many many threads on the 2nd and I cant remember one time a person saying they were some shade of left but didnt support the current weapons ban proposal.

I watch carefully and my gut tells me this vain of thinking is simply a new twist to the left stratagem....now that they have seen how hard headed the 2nd amendment supporters are they are trying to find the proper tone with witch to sway those crazy gun nuts.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


" Unfortunately anarchism is not understood or appreciated on ATS. "


This is Not true . Anarchists promote Chaos from Order . The Exact Opposite of what an Ideal Social Order of Civilization can Espire to , a Stable Peace and Prosperity for All who Embrace it . A Fair Order........



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I hear you. It irritates the poo out of me when guns are being discussed and out of nowhere someone starts talking about the 'damn liberals', trying to shovel blame at them. Gun rights aren't only appreciated by people who vote Republican and not all Republicans are pro gun. It's ridiculous to assume someone is going to feel a certain way about a specific topic just because more often than not they align with a particular party.

I think it's very important than when discussing the various issues we face we realize people we may disagree with have a different frame of reference, but at the end of the day they're standing up for what they believe is right and what they think is the most beneficial thing for society. It does no good to sling mud and label everyone. Patiently explaining your position is a much better approach than throwing out blanket statements condemning whole groups. If I say all Democrats are scumbags that want to disarm me, it's only going to widen the divide and people that were willing to listen will most likely feel defensive and go to the other side of the fence.

Good thread kali, even if you are a stinking liberal.

I have a feeling some people should be urged to look up what Anarchy actually is, even though that's not at all the point of the thread.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I don't support that.

and I am 'left'.

You asked to show one, and I believe I did.

I don't even support banning fully automatics. Where does that fit in with your liberal stereotype?

Certain things that are anti-gun I agree with. I try and evaluate each one individually for merit. I think critical thought discourages taking a black and white, this side or that side stance...instead beckons thoughtful consideration on each point.

It just so happens the majority of anti-gun to me seem ineffectual towards saving lives, and infringe on freedom via guilty until proven innocent mentality. I am not a die hard constitutionalist like many here ergo I am definitely a "progressive", so I don't necessarily cringe if back-ground checks are in violation. My priority is bettering the World, not upholding tradition, and sometimes that calls for foundation changes.

I think I represent something worse in your eyes than even most liberals here to be honest
But I will continue to view myself as a pro-gun person even if you do not.
edit on 26-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 



This is Not true . Anarchists promote Chaos..


Like I said. Hardly understood.

If you equate anarchism with chaos you're not educated on anarchism.

I don't have interest in debating anarchism right now. I think it would drift too off topic anyway.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 





I don't even support banning fully automatics. Where does that fit in with your liberal stereotype?


Class 3 firearms are legal "fully automatics" .




Certain things that are anti-gun I agree with. I try and evaluate each on individually for merit. I think critical thought discourages taking a black and white, this side or that side stance...instead beckons thoughtful consideration on each point.


Part time constitution part time 2nd,4th,5th,9th and 10 amendments, but those should be working all of the time.




It just so happens the majority of anti-gun to me seem ineffectual towards saving lives, and infringe on freedom via guilty until proven innocent mentality. I


This is true since human behavior can not be legislated it only punishes after the fact.




I am not a die hard constitutionalist like many here ergo


Shame an attack on one is an attack on all.




I am definitely a "progressive", so I don't necessary cringe if back-ground checks are in violation


Give an inch they take a mile




My priority is bettering the World, not upholding tradition, and sometimes that calls for foundation changes.


Can't better the world never will be able to better the world, and there is nothing wrong with the foundation its the glass houses the current generations have built upon it.




I think I represent something worse in your eyes than even most liberals here to be honest But I will continue to view myself as a pro-gun person even if you do not.


Feel free.
edit on 26-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


" If you equate anarchism with chaos you're not educated on anarchism. "


Coming from someone who dosen't know me Personally , I find that quite Funny...........



i297.photobucket.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Thanks but I'm not a Liberal

Ideologically, I'm an Anarchist... though not 100% as I do believe that basic, non-intrusive laws and governance are still needed. I'm not a fan of throwing children into the ocean to teach them how to swim, I believe it takes time... hopefully we get there but so far we can't even get them in the water.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 



This is Not true . Anarchists promote Chaos..


Like I said. Hardly understood.

If you equate anarchism with chaos you're not educated on anarchism.

I don't have interest in debating anarchism right now. I think it would drift too off topic anyway.





Lunacy . . . it's a problem of perception in this country (US). Just as the heavy handed progressive movement of the early 20th adopted the "liberal" moniker to make them seem like "good guys of the people", the "anarchist" moniker in America is equated with the Italian Facists of this same time period who were blowing everything up and assinating people. One of which coincidently allowed the US's first progressive pres Teddy Roosevelt to take the reigns only a couple months in. Bad groups corrupt good ideologies by taking on their name . . . and it works for decades, both to deceive the public for support and ruin the rep. Kind of the same thingto the tea party. Real conservatives and libertarians fed up with the progressive Neo-Cons rose up . . . not even a decade later that movement is crushed under the influence of sabbators.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Almost all of the obviously stereotypical "right-leaning" pro-gun (and by that I specifically don't mean everybody pro-2nd amendment) posts on ATS that I've seen recently show extreme symptoms of psychological "splitting"; that is dividing an issue/population/etc up into two extremes (black/white, right/left, good/evil) and insisting those are the only two that exist in a meaningful way. It's a very fallacious way of viewing the world.

I consider myself fairly liberal, perhaps a left leaning-centrist. That means I'm automatically bait to have insults hurled at me on many ATS boards these days.

I don't like the idea of taking away anyone's existing liberties without a really good reason; that's supposed to be what 'liberalism' is all about. That applies to the second amendment as well (plus I'm also a gun owner). I've never particularly approved of the democratic supposedly "default" position on gun control.

That being said, the world is not black and white; it never has been. We accept some limits on the first amendment and we accept some on the second (no speech only for the purpose of immediate harm and no automatic weapons or heavy military weaponry).. For both of these we have, as a society, determined that they do not, can not, be absolute. We have created an artificial line on both of these rights where one side is acceptable and the other side isn't. Sometimes those lines have to be adjusted a little bit.

I would hope we don't need to "move the line" on the limitations we place on the second amendment, I'd much prefer to see the other measures put in place first (100% background checks, etc).

However, if congress does decide to "move the line" (and it can only be done by congress+president) that doesn't mean it's going to lead to complete illegalization of gun ownership. The Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy! We, the people, can decide it goes no further, it stops here as long as we have a free press and free speech. If some type of federal legislation is put in place as a 'stepping stone' and then further along there comes additional attempts push it down the slope I'll be the first one organizing people to make serious noise/change in congress.
edit on 26-1-2013 by jsipprell because: spelling





 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join