Liberals, Progressives, 'Leftists' and Guns

Show me a true "anarchist" and I'll show you someone who still lives w/ Mommy. Anyone who lives in the real World for any length of time will quickly figure out how delusional a system it is.

It's great that we live in a time where people are free to believe whatever they want, at least there's that.

reply to post by ecoparity

Show me a true "anarchist" and I'll show you someone who still lives w/ Mommy. Anyone who lives in the real World for any length of time will quickly figure out how delusional a system it is. .

As was pointed out by OP this isn't a thread about anarchism itself. But okay I will bite...

First to even know what a 'true anarchist' is you would have to understand what anarchism is. You would have to understand the intellectuals that support it, both old and modern. You equating them to mere teenagers living with 'mommy' is highly suggestive you haven't illuminated yourself in the topic matter.

But let's pretend you do understand what anarchism is.

What qualifies as a 'true anarchist'?

Someone that forsakes their friends, family, loved ones, and retreats to a cave or an island to practice anarchy??

You can believe in a political or socio-economical ideal and not have a means to express it fully. The inability to manifest it could be a restraint placed upon the fact the majority of the World enforces something counter, or it could simply be someone sacrifices their wants/desires to appease those close to them. I believe in transhumanism! Yet...I don't have a robot body, I haven't signed up for cryogenics, etc. Does that mean I don't believe in it? I believe in a technological utopia...yet what do I contribute towards it? Not much, I don't have the funds yet.

Anyone that holds a belief in an ideal should do what they can to support it. And by can I mean within their means. To be an anarchist, or any other ideology, means being educated in it and supporting a grass roots movement in its behalf. This truly applies to any ideology that differs enough from the ebb and flow of the current structure. You do what you can. Sometimes all you can do is have a discussion. Sometimes you can do more.

If you want to disregard that and believe all "true anarchists" are angst-filled pimply faced teenagers that is your prerogative. But I would love to see you one on one with the old fart Chomsky when you make that claim.

After reading through the thread I felt I must comment.

To all liberals, progressives, leftists who support and defend the Constitution and the "Right" to bear arms (not the privilege to bear arms) thank you.

Thank you for not following your party or affiliation blindly. Thank you for breaking free of the stereo-typical mindset that has infested the country.

We should unite on issues. The government tries to divide so that they can claim a mandate. Our current administration uses division to gain ever increasing control and authority in every aspect of our lives.

Draw a line in the sand.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Chomsky? If I want comedy I can think of several professionals who will do a much better job. For that matter if I want a prostitute I could find much better service elsewhere.

Anyone who thinks they could truly live as a so called "anarchist" is a self delusional fool. It's a philosophy for mediocre musicians / cafe poets, assassins, the mentally ill and kids who live in Mom's basement. There are no true anarchists, just people who think it impresses others to label themselves as such, IMO. At least Satanists freely admit being driven by selfishness, that puts them slightly ahead in the clown parade if nothing else.

Then again, most definitions of political alignment are just as useless. They really serve no purpose anymore other than to provide a means to control people and limit their thinking. It's much easier to convince people how they think and feel when you've already convinced them they are aligned with some label.

I reject the paradigms and useless labels, they don't define me and like most people, my core values and beliefs don't fit into a convenient package to be neatly categorized and placed on the proper shelf.

One of the most dangerous things a society can do is to take moral and political stances based on which "group" they choose to label themselves as being a part of. Surrendering one's liberties because you are a liberal / democrat / leftist / etc, for example. Or more accurately, calling for the others who do not feel the same way you do to surrender theirs in the misguided belief it will accomplish something.

I am a liberal. I don't support guns in any shape or form. It is a crime against all that is good and holy, if you are forced to pull the trigger. A sad, sad thing...but it does happen. That's why, even as a liberal, I don't support the banning of all guns. I particularly appreciate the phrase "the only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun."

Ban guns, and only the bad guys will have guns. But then again...who are the bad guys? The ones who are disarming us, or the ones who still have their weapons? Because let's face it - America has a lot more to lose if the people it's screwing over are able to defend themselves. So at this point in time, I don't know who the bad guys are. Not anymore.

reply to post by Logarock

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 would suggest you simply didn't see them for whatever reason.

I watch carefully and my gut tells me this vain of thinking is simply a new twist to the left stratagem

It's lovely that you think you can define us better than we can define ourselves. Indulge us; What is our stratagem? I don't feel particularly diabolical, personally.

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.

Gosh. Busted! You are quite clever to see through the ruse, that 'we' can't possibly support the Constitution or the 2nd amendment. Thank-you again for defining us as we're clearly either incapable or deceptive. I'm not sure whether to feel guilty, exposed or stupid... can you tell me which I'm supposed to feel?

I obviously severely underestimated your ability to read minds and to see how we vote, what we write to our Senators and Representatives about, what we talk to our friends and families about and amongst ourselves.

How silly of me to try to show the fallacies of assumption and the demonization of would be allies. Should my next thread subject be repealing the 2nd in order to coddle such fallacies er I mean admit such truths?

I can understand that some liberals would seek a sort of absolution for their departure from the foundations of the republic and that insurance to our liberites the constitution.

Seeking absolution? My, my... you really think we're quite evil don't you? Can you outline our departure? And again, which are we? Stupid and mislead, evil and manipulative liars, or are we now contrite and sorry for the error of our ways?

The noble quest that has been the foundation of every rise to power of every bloodsucking mass killer form Hitler to Pot

Your point of bringing up Dictators of extreme Right ideologies is what? Oh dear, the words Communist and Socialist confused you, didn't they?

Considering the lame results that background checks have demonstrated thus far in their efforts to keep guns out of the hands of felons, that such an argument would be considered in the realm of reasonable discusion only shows that logic has escaped from our grasp here.

Can you qualify that statement?

reply to post by Zanti Misfit

Anarchists promote Chaos from Order

Even though this is off topic, somethings just can't go ignored. What is it with the majority on the political forums of this site, telling people what they think and feel... insisting on defining people outside of their own ideologies instead of recognizing them or taking them at face value? You can disagree with what we think and feel without condemning us as mislead or liars.

Hmm... What do Anarchists do after they Win their Hard Fought Revolution ?


....Put away their XBox and go to Bed.........

What revolutions are you referring to? I really think that if you are going to enter a thread that is in part discussing an Anarchist view on an issue and simply just attack Anarchism, you really should be better versed.

Do you disagree with the essay I provided an excerpt of, written by an Anarchist on the topic of gun control? His stance is that there shouldn't be ANY gun control.

reply to post by ecoparity


See directly above.

reply to post by beezzer


I know you were trying to be a nice guy here, I'm not trying to pick on you though it may come across what way. This isn't something to say thank-you for and in fact it's a bit patronizing to do so. This is a personal issue above all else. It isn't a left/right issue, it isn't a liberal/conservative issue but by continuing these assumptions we are allowing it to be a democrat/republican issue and thus it serves to keep us hating each other and divided.

I reject the notion of token liberals and token leftists in order to prove one doesn't categorically reject. "She's a _____ but not like them other ones"... sound familiar?

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by jsipprell
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.

Very clever post. I can understand that some liberals would seek a sort of absolution for their departure from the foundations of the republic and that insurance to our liberites the constitution. Considering one must be fallacious in their views, that being the underpinnings, to attempt to subvert the document while shielding this intent with "meaningful" views of the world not yet know....but in fairness.... in the noble quest for a utopia....The noble quest that has been the foundation of every rise to power of every bloodsucking mass killer form Hitler to Pot....and these foundations you would make it easier for such men to lay with your confounded dissimilation of the word freedom.

Yeah. I claim Godwin's Law; especially in light of exactly the type of absolutism I was alluding to.

Thats not absolutism my man thats liberty speaking. You have stated your position and I mine. Still want to talk?

In light of the extreme irony of your response, equating my worldview with being a slippery slope to totalitarianism, I suspect you don't actually have the faintest notion of where I'm coming from. But you sure do think you've got everyone nailed down.

You retreated instantly to Hitler when we weren't talking racial politics, national socialism or even totalitarianism; that's the very essence of Godwin's Law & Corollary. It also means no further useful dialog can be accomplished. This conversation is over.

Good day.

Originally posted by sealing

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?

That is for individual states to decide for themselves, not Big Soviet style federal government.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
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.........

While it may be true that some rank and file "liberals" want "peace, love and enlightenment"(whatever that means), it is certain that the elites who are Big Soviet style government statists, certainly do not, but promise the rank and file that they will give them "peace, love and enlightenment" in order to brainwash them into submitting to the totalitarian control.

Elitist lies are the opiates of the masses.

Originally posted by Kali74


reply to post by beezzer

 

I know you were trying to be a nice guy here, I'm not trying to pick on you though it may come across what way. This isn't something to say thank-you for and in fact it's a bit patronizing to do so. This is a personal issue above all else. It isn't a left/right issue, it isn't a liberal/conservative issue but by continuing these assumptions we are allowing it to be a democrat/republican issue and thus it serves to keep us hating each other and divided.

I reject the notion of token liberals and token leftists in order to prove one doesn't categorically reject. "She's a _____ but not like them other ones"... sound familiar?

edit on 27-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Fair enough. How's this.

It's good to see people come together on issues important to them, regardless of party/political affiliation.

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp


Then logic dictates that they are Statists not Liberals etc...
Dontchathink?

reply to post by beezzer


*Hug*?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

*Hug*?

*Hug*

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

Then logic dictates that they are Statists not Liberals etc...
Dontchathink?

Yes, that is why I submit that the term "liberal" as applied to these leftist, elitist statists is a misnomer and usurpation of the term as a means of deception, as per Orwellian doublespeak.

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

Yes, that is why I submit that the term "liberal" as applied to these leftist, elitist statists is a misnomer and usurpation of the term as a means of deception, as per Orwellian doublespeak.

So you're calling out the usurpation of a word by furthering the usurpation of the definition of a group of ideologies? Interesting but what does it have to do with Libs and Lefties supporting gun rights?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

Yes, that is why I submit that the term "liberal" as applied to these leftist, elitist statists is a misnomer and usurpation of the term as a means of deception, as per Orwellian doublespeak.

So you're calling out the usurpation of a word by furthering the usurpation of the definition of a group of ideologies?

How am I doing that?

Interesting but what does it have to do with Libs and Lefties supporting gun rights?

The point is, even those who are labeled as "Libs and Lefties" are often mislabeled.

The classical definition of "liberals" would apply to libertarians.

The definition of genuine "Leftists" are Big Centralized government of totalitarian statists.

Most who are labeled in those groups are not either. Rather than using a broad stroked brush, more precision needs to be used. Its a matter of using misnomers where terms have been usurped and redefined, as per Orwellian doublespeak for use in deception.

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

The definition of genuine "Leftists" are Big Centralized government of totalitarian statists.

No, that is the definition of Statists. Leftists are small state/anti-state.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

The definition of genuine "Leftists" are Big Centralized government of totalitarian statists.

No, that is the definition of Statists. Leftists are small state/anti-state.

Never mind, I see you redefine terms to mean whatever you want them to mean.

Can't have a rational discussion with such irrationality and intellectual dishonesty.

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp


I'm sorry you feel that way.
I'm curious though, how you came to that conclusion.

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

The classical definition of "liberals" would apply to libertarians.

My particular brand of liberalism, which may or may not have anything to do with a '"classical" definition (or anyone else's), is "adult libertarianism". In other words, as much libertarianism as possible. Not everything fits the mold of "property rights" -- like the airwaves for example. Yes, I would like less obtrusive government but I don't think I should be able to buy weapons-grade plutonium just because I have the money.