Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

LFS wrote:dem4guns,

Your first mistake was to argue with Gunderwood. Your second mistake was to continue arguing with him. And your third mistake was believing he'd give up before you.

When it comes to arguments, especially about economic or political philosophies, this is his house, he sets the rules, and there's no cheating he won't catch.

Now don't feel bad. You aren't the first to run into the brick wall that is Gunderwood, and you probably won't be the last. Heck, even I have been a few rounds with him. I think one time we went for 2 weeks until I had to leave town (on business, but that's beside the point).

My suggestion to you is to relax, sit back and have a beer. Take it all in. Its all in good fun and fellowship. I'm sure Rick will be sending you out the complimentary "I tangled with Gunderwood and all I got was a 10 page thread on VGOF" t-shirt. (I've almost got one for everyday of the week.)

See ya around...

touché!

LFS wrote:dem4guns,

Your first mistake was to argue with Gunderwood. Your second mistake was to continue arguing with him. And your third mistake was believing he'd give up before you.

When it comes to arguments, especially about economic or political philosophies, this is his house, he sets the rules, and there's no cheating he won't catch.

Now don't feel bad. You aren't the first to run into the brick wall that is Gunderwood, and you probably won't be the last. Heck, even I have been a few rounds with him. I think one time we went for 2 weeks until I had to leave town (on business, but that's beside the point).

My suggestion to you is to relax, sit back and have a beer. Take it all in. Its all in good fun and fellowship. I'm sure Rick will be sending you out the complimentary "I tangled with Gunderwood and all I got was a 10 page thread on VGOF" t-shirt. (I've almost got one for everyday of the week.)

See ya around...

Well since we dont have smileys I'm looking for to reply to this one I'll just type them out.....

snicker guffaw choke on coffee laughing slap knee slap Young's knee guffaw choke on more coffee

@dems4guns - LFS (and gunderwood) nailed it....please relax and have fun...and remember sometimes you get the bear, but if the bear's name is gunderwood then he always get you...well, almost always...

dems4guns wrote:This kind of poisoning of the forum is a means by many to prevent Democrats and Liberals from having the floor in a way that allows us to actually make reasoned arguments and sway opinion in a direction in which you don't agree. So, rather than allowing a smart and respectful debate of the issues, instead you call us names (socialist, marxist, big-government spenders, etc.).

But...I am a socialist.

I appreciate the wise words about Gunderwood. And, I will sit back and have a drink. My drink of choice is Captain Morgan instead. It will have to wait until after trap shooting this afternoon.

1) Mr Gunderwood, and others like him, expect to be respected. (Maybe they don't care if they are respected...that is always possible...although crazy.) All I expect is that it work both ways. So far, that respect is not extended.

Words do matter....we all know what to say when our wife/girlfriend asks "How does my hair look?", Or, "Do I look fat in this?"

2) If Mr. Gunderwood wishes to debate, I am game, but he thinks he can define the rules and the word definitions, and the logic and be the judge. That is not a fair debate and certainly not an enjoyable discussion, much less an enjoyable debate.

3) Mr. Gunderwood is stuck in what I call "belief syndrome" where he believes what he wants to believe and no fact, rationale, debate or discussion will ever be allowed to change his belief. His belief is as fundamentalist as it comes. Once you have decided to twist any fact or rationale or reason to fit your own belief structure, then nothing can be learned.

That also means it makes it nearly impossible to compromise in order to work together as a community to agree on how things should change. Mr. Gunderwood's participation in creating a solution or a compromise will become impossible. He becomes the angry old guy and everybody knows what he thinks, but nobody cares. He is also very negative person. (No reason to bother with DC...they are subhuman.)

Until Mr. Gunderwood can learn manners and how to show respect, I will have nothing to do with him.
Dems4guns

dems4guns wrote:1) Mr Gunderwood, and others like him, expect to be respected. (Maybe they don't care if they are respected...that is always possible...although crazy.) All I expect is that it work both ways. So far, that respect is not extended.

Respect is one facet of another's opinion of you; you don't and can't own it, but rather it is the person whom is offering that does. A basic level of respect to all humans is all that is due, the rest is earned by words and deeds.

dems4guns wrote:Words do matter....we all know what to say when our wife/girlfriend asks "How does my hair look?", Or, "Do I look fat in this?"

Of course they do...that's why its important that we stick to reasonable and accepted definitions of them. Otherwise, communication becomes difficult or impossible.

More on this later...

dems4guns wrote:2) If Mr. Gunderwood wishes to debate, I am game, but he thinks he can define the rules and the word definitions, and the logic and be the judge. That is not a fair debate and certainly not an enjoyable discussion, much less an enjoyable debate.

Again, no, it's not my definitions. I'm using the generally accepted definitions of those terms and classifications. Also, formal logic and informal logical fallacies are not up for grabs either. They are what they are and it's irrational to ignore them.

dems4guns wrote:3) Mr. Gunderwood is stuck in what I call "belief syndrome" where he believes what he wants to believe and no fact, rationale, debate or discussion will ever be allowed to change his belief. His belief is as fundamentalist as it comes. Once you have decided to twist any fact or rationale or reason to fit your own belief structure, then nothing can be learned.

So much for respect, eh? I'm not twisting anything...and I'm going to prove it.




So, let's get to the bottom of this...your original post (without my correction, which is what you took offense too when I classified modern liberalism as a wing of socialism) was:

dems4guns wrote:Trade Unionists and Socialists were the ones who wanted to restrict competition and control labor markets and control means of production. Liberals are not socialists.

You took offense because I made a correction which changed it to state that liberals are socialists.

Now for an outside source. Sure, Wikipedia is not the best source, but it's something we both have access too. I can, if you like, break out the books and give you quotes from real academic sources. Particularly those of classical liberals. Let's start at the beginning. I've underlined key phrases for comparison with the ideas of classical liberalism. I've also bolded key terms we will need to explore.

First, what is the generally accepted term for liberal in the United States today?

In North America, unlike in Europe, the word liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism in contemporary politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Like I said in my first post, not all, but most...that's very much in line with "almost exclusively."

How about some more background:

Modern American Liberalism is a form of Social Liberalism developed from Progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It combines Social Liberalism and Social Progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. American Liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, gay rights and government entitlements such as education and health care.[1]

Keynesian economic theory has played a central role in the economic philosophy of American liberals.[2] The argument has been that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy, to keep unemployment low, inflation in check, and growth high.[2] John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows:“ ...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'.[3] ”


Most American liberals support a mixed economy because they fear the extremes of wealth and poverty under unrestrained capitalism; they point to the widespread prosperity enjoyed under a mixed economy in the years since World War II.[4][5] They believe that all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life and they champion the protection of the environment.[6][7] Modern American liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_lib ... ted_States

So what is "Social Liberalism?" Let's find out.

Note: we can ignore "Social Progressivism" as that's about morality and for at least now let's ignore the moral aspects of socialism and focus on it's economic and political use. Also, a comparative historical analysis of the various economic schools of thought is outside the scope as well. However, Keynesian economic policies generally lend themselves to the modern socialist.

Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes it to be a legitimate role of the state to address economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[1] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[2] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[3][4][5][6][7]

A reaction against social liberalism in the late twentieth century, often called neoliberalism, led to monetarist economic policies and a reduction in government provision of services. However, this reaction did not result in a return to classical liberalism, as governments continued to provide social services and retained control over economic policy.[8]

The term "social liberalism" is often used interchangeably with "modern liberalism".[9] The Liberal International is the main international organisation of liberal parties, which include, among other liberal variants, social liberal parties. It affirms the following principles: human rights, free and fair elections and multiparty democracy, social justice, tolerance, social market economy, free trade, environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

So we add "Social Justice" to our list of things to research, but we get a nice consistent definition which correctly notes that social liberalism differs from classical liberalism. Also, it's useful to note that social liberalism and modern liberalism are practically interchangeable...as I asserted when I corrected your post.

Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Progressive taxation and income redistribution are central tenants of the modern Democrat. I've noted this several times before, but egalitarianism is a also a central tenant of the modern Democrat...i.e. it's the philosophical foundation upon which policies like progressive taxation are based upon. To avoid continuing down the rabbit hole, economic egalitarianism is the equalization of economic outcomes rather than opportunities.




So, to summarize we have:

Modern American Liberalism, which is comprised mostly of the Democrat party, is "almost exclusively" associated and practically interchangeable with Social Liberalism. Social Liberalism is a belief that the state should muck around with education, health care, unemployment, etc. It also liens heavy on or encompasses Social Justice, which is a belief that the state should work towards economic egalitarianism (equalization of economic outcome). Particularly with such social polices as progressive taxation and income redistribution (e.g. the welfare state).

How does this compare with Socialism? Well, to be fair, Socialism covers a huge spectrum of thought, but there are some central ideas. The first and foremost is state control of the economy in some form or fashion. That control can be direct control of production (e.g Soviet Union) to Market Socialism where the output of the market (aka "profits") are used for social purposes (e.g. China) to a "mixed economy" where mostly indirect control is leverage to influence or punish those not working towards the social desires of the government (e.g. United States).

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. State socialist currents of socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism; while social democrats advocate public control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism# ... of_outcome

The underlined portion described the "mixed economy" of the United States rather well and it jives with the "social liberal/democrat" discourse above. I.e. indirect control of production through the control of capital (e.g. bailouts, progressive taxation, welfare/income redistribution, subsidies for "socially desirable" jobs and activities (e.g. green jobs/tech), etc.). The goal is indirect state control of the market to promote a social agenda. It's also very heavily based in "class warfare" (aka Marxism), but that's another discussion. Just so you can't claim I'm making up a definition, which you are so apt at doing, here it is:

A mixed economy is an economy that includes a variety of private and public control, reflecting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism.[1] Most mixed economies can be described as market economies with strong regulatory oversight, in addition to having a variety of government sponsored aspects. See elements of a mixed economy.

There is not one single definition for a mixed economy,[2] but the definitions always involve a degree of private economic freedom mixed with a degree of government regulation of markets. The relative strength or weakness of each component in the national economy can vary greatly between countries. Economies ranging from the United States[3] to Cuba[4] have been termed mixed economies.

The economic freedom side includes privately owned industry for reasons including individual freedom, economic efficiency (most especially the allocative efficiency provided by the invisible hand of markets), and the incentive to innovate provided by competition. The government regulation side addresses concerns that the private sector cannot be (or at least has never yet been) well equipped to address, such as environmental protection, maintenance of employment standards, and maintenance of competition. In some mixed economies, it even includes various degrees of centralized economic planning, that is, state ownership of some of the means of production for national or social objectives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

I should note that the previous quote noted that US Liberals/Democrats promote this sort of "mixed economy." The last underlined section is important as it's the bailout, "green tech," "nationalization" of health care (aka single payer), etc. Pick a Democrat economic and/or social policy and they all are socialistic; they all desire state control, directly or indirectly. They compromise and only implement baby steps, but that's only because they have too. E.g. we'd have single payer health care if they thought they could get it passed. In nearly every way, Democratic economic policy would implement a full blown Market Socialism. The only reason it's "mixed" is because the other half of the country doesn't want Socialism in any form. However, each compromise brings us closer to it.

Thus, excluding "all" (which I noted in the first reply to you), it is proper to say that most Liberals/Democrats in the United States are Socialists. Not all in the same way mind you, but they generally all advocate increased state control (directly or indirectly) for social policy reasons. Thus, my correction of your statement was valid.

It's also fair to say that Republicans sometimes implement socialistic policies too...but it's usually because their too ignorant about economics to distinguish between the two and get duped by politicians. Than again, the same thing could be said about Democrats who think these "new" politics are not the same old thing that the evolutionary socialists (those who prefer gradual change rather than revolutionary change...e.g. pre 1859 Marx IIRC) have been pushing for over a century.

Edit: Newsweek seems to agree with me too.

gunderwood wrote:Respect is one facet of another's opinion of you; you don't and can't own it, but rather it is the person whom is offering that does. A basic level of respect to all humans is all that is due, the rest is earned by words and deeds.

So, you think you can dispense with the personal issue of respect with a single sentence? I am not asking for you to hold me in high esteem, as in "earning his respect." I am demanding respect as you would any good neighbor and patriotic American. (FYI, I am a Vietnam Veteran, so be careful here.) I am demanding the respect and dignity to allow me to define myself as an individual and a member of a group, such as Democrats and Liberals. I am demanding the respect of civil and dignified debate, collegial discussion and a willingness to seek common ground. Another area of respect you need to learn is related to the use of the history of great American struggles, as in the Jim CRowe reference. Comparisons to the Civil War and WWII and Civil Rights and The Depression and Civil Rights better be dignified and appropriate. Your comparison of Jim Crowe to the struggle of gun owners was disrespectful and undignified. (You have a hard time admitting you are wrong, don't you?)

gunderwood wrote:Of course they do (words matter)...that's why its important that we stick to reasonable and accepted definitions of them. Otherwise, communication becomes difficult or impossible.

Here is a perfect example of how you expect to be the definer and judge of what Democratic and Liberal and (fill in the blank) mean. You are putting words into our mouths that were not said, or if they were said you take one incident and turn it into a generalization. THAT is disrespectful, and doesn't give people the integrity they deserve to define themselves. Generalizations (Socialist, Communist, etc.) are thrown around in the media and by citizens and by politicians and by PAC's to the point where they mean nothing anymore. You expect to win the debate by controlling the definitions and slapping poisonous labels on groups that don't deserve it. THAT is disrespectul and rude. More importantly, it doesn't allow us to get to the real meat of the debate: Medical CAre, The Economy, Gov't Spending, Wall Street Abuses, Crime and Punishment, Gun Liberalism, etc. Dispense with the gerneralizations and stop putting words in my mouth and we can discuss real issues, starting with gun regulations and laws. One last thing...I have an open mind and am willing to learn and you need to come to the table with the same willingness to learn something new about your neighbors and fellow citizens that may be Democratic and liberal. I think if you stop insulting us with poisoned labels and have an open mind, you will find many areas of agreement.

I may enjoy engaging you in a debate about politics, but you have to agree to some ground rules first, and show respect appropriate to this endeavor. (Or do you get to be the judge of the level of respect required, too?)
Dems4Guns

Errrr, uhhh........is it just me or does is seem that dem4guns just ignored gunderwood's entire post.

jim100 wrote:Errrr, uhhh........is it just me or does is seem that dem4guns just ignored gunderwood's entire post.

I too ignored gunderwood's last post...more like several pages from a tome mixed with diatribe, facts, trivia, and a few other bits of stuff...just too darned long to read and try to absorb when you're scanning the whole board...

My Daddy always told Me that Respect was earned by the measure of the person and not to be given Freely!

Look Cody, if you really want to earn the respect your are demanding back your statements up with something other then just your Feelings. I have read posts and I am not saying I agree or disagree with your views as I have my own, but facts speak loudly.
Just some thoughts
Good luck

Vern

+1 Vern and respect, ya don't earn it, ya don't get it... period.

Call me a sucker if you will, but I just finished reading this whole thread, complete with Cowboy's OP. Just trying to wrap my brain around the ideas posited here...

Couple of random thoughts:

If all of the active voting population of the US were to seek the truth as zealously as gunderwood does, we wouldn't even need to discuss this topic.

2A is but one facet of the liberties We the People are letting slip through our fingers.

Huge portions of the current American population have been raised with no comprehension of how the Founding Fathers intended this system to work, and no inherent drive to seek the Truth and to uphold It.

To me, it's no different than spreading the Gospel, if the Truth falls on deaf ears, then shake the dust from your feet and move on.

You can lead a horse to water, blah blah blah...

jim100 wrote:Errrr, uhhh........is it just me or does is seem that dem4guns just ignored gunderwood's entire post.

Yes, but it's been going on for nearly all the posts in this thread.

dems4guns wrote:

gunderwood wrote:Respect is one facet of another's opinion of you; you don't and can't own it, but rather it is the person whom is offering that does. A basic level of respect to all humans is all that is due, the rest is earned by words and deeds.

So, you think you can dispense with the personal issue of respect with a single sentence? I am not asking for you to hold me in high esteem, as in "earning his respect." I am demanding respect as you would any good neighbor and patriotic American. (FYI, I am a Vietnam Veteran, so be careful here.) I am demanding the respect and dignity to allow me to define myself as an individual and a member of a group, such as Democrats and Liberals.

If you bothered to read the links I sourced (which are not my creation or my definitions), you would have noticed that modern liberalism is not classical liberalism and in the US it is politically indistinguishable from Democrat. Furthermore, the method of implementing the grab bag of philosophies encompassed is generally a form of socialism. Now most is not all, so please do tell me what your economic school of thought is.

As a gesture of mutual respect and fairness, I'll tell you what I am. Politically I'm Classically Liberal and economically I'm a Capitalist of the Austrian school.

As for respect, you presume you've been a good neighbor. In several posts you've impugned my character by making specific statements about me. I've made statements about your politics and groups which you belong too (and provided lots of source material to back it up). It's not my opinion of you being expressed, but rather classification of your statements and the groups which you claim to be a member of. In the end it makes no difference because your opinion of me or of anyone else is yours and in typical classical liberal vs. modern liberal fashion, I make no claims on that which is yours.

Now the whole patriotic American and VV statement would scare most people, but I'm not most people. I ask and answer tough questions for a living; an intellectual coward I don't think I am, so I'll play.

Why bring it up at all? Does being a patriotic (whatever on earth you think that means or doesn't mean) somehow grant you access or a claim on others respect any more than someone you define unpatriotic? How is that any different than simply despising a group which is different than you? It seems to me that in American politics this is usually just another way to peddle hate under the guise of country first.

Furthermore, do I somehow owe more respect to my American neighbors than I do to the legal resident alien neighbor from Germany or any other country? What should I do if I assume they are American and show them more respect and then find out that they are in fact a foreigner not worthy of it? No, their nationality should have no bearing on if they are worthy of respect or simply respected for their humanity.

Now the the VV FYI is particularly interesting to me. Actions, such as serving the military, may or may not command additional respect. However, that isn't the issue with the FYI, of which there are several. First, it reads mostly like a threat. That's not very respectful. Are you somehow above question or reproach on your demand for additional respect? Second, what on earth does it have to do with this thread? I can't verify your claim in the slightest. Lastly, it's an odd thing for a real vet to do. I grew up military (ya, you can't check up on that either) and I've worked with or known real vets who have done some serious sh*t (or that). In my experience, those who have done serious stuff and deserve tremendous respect for it don't go around claiming to be anything special. They did what they did in service to the country and don't expect anything more in return. They don't bring up their tours or medals or whatever unless its relevant to the thread. It's been my observation that scammers usually make such claims and rely on the fact that it's virtually impossible to verify.

Now don't go off the deep end simply because I asked some questions about your apparent threat. I have not made any claims as to your character or claimed service. I've simply noted that it was an odd thing to say and why I thought it was. If you wish to retract it as a "in the heat of the moment thing," I'll grant you that and won't bring it up again unless you do.

dems4guns wrote:I am demanding the respect of civil and dignified debate, collegial discussion and a willingness to seek common ground.

I've let you get away with this for far too long. Appealing to the middle ground is an informal logical fallacy called arguing to moderation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation). It presumes that there is something inherently better simply because it's in the middle to two positions. Of course, you can't say that the middle is inherently bad either. Being "common ground" or in the middle is neither good nor bad in of itself. The argument behind it and experience determines that.

dems4guns wrote:Another area of respect you need to learn is related to the use of the history of great American struggles, as in the Jim CRowe reference. Comparisons to the Civil War and WWII and Civil Rights and The Depression and Civil Rights better be dignified and appropriate. Your comparison of Jim Crowe to the struggle of gun owners was disrespectful and undignified. (You have a hard time admitting you are wrong, don't you?)

Here we go with the ad hominem attacks again. You make a lot of claims, but don't back them up with anything. I provided you rationale for why I did so and you have not provided any in return as to why your position is better than mine. Until such an argument exists and is valid there simply is nothing to admit to.

dems4guns wrote:

gunderwood wrote:Of course they do (words matter)...that's why its important that we stick to reasonable and accepted definitions of them. Otherwise, communication becomes difficult or impossible.

Here is a perfect example of how you expect to be the definer and judge of what Democratic and Liberal and (fill in the blank) mean.

Wait a minute! Because I ask that you not fabricate definitions to "prove" some point I'm being unreasonable? Certainly there is some disagreement, particularly in practice as the world almost never aligns itself cleanly with our abstraction of it, but it's irrational to do what you're asking for. Again, that's not my claim either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thought

dems4guns wrote:You are putting words into our mouths that were not said, or if they were said you take one incident and turn it into a generalization. THAT is disrespectful, and doesn't give people the integrity they deserve to define themselves. Generalizations (Socialist, Communist, etc.) are thrown around in the media and by citizens and by politicians and by PAC's to the point where they mean nothing anymore.

You're being contradictory again. Do words have meaning or not?

I provided you an argument as to why my original statement was correct. You have not provided me a single argument in this entire thread. All you've done is complain.

dems4guns wrote:You expect to win the debate by controlling the definitions and slapping poisonous labels on groups that don't deserve it. THAT is disrespectul and rude.

This is laughably ironic! You demand the right to fabricate definitions to suit your purpose and then accuse me incorrectly of doing the same. Yes, I somehow influenced and controlled philosophers, politics, and economic schools of thought which were formulated centuries before my birth. Hang on a second, I need to prove my previous reference on the laws of thought and logic by manipulating Aristotle...there, all done. Hey look, I just made myself right!

dems4guns wrote:More importantly, it doesn't allow us to get to the real meat of the debate: Medical CAre, The Economy, Gov't Spending, Wall Street Abuses, Crime and Punishment, Gun Liberalism, etc.

Unless there are some agreed upon definitions and classifications we can't even have a rational discussion much less a debate. You gave up all claims to rationality when you demanded the ability to fabricate your own definitions while ignoring those which pre-existed and generally created by those who came up with the ideas. See the previous reference.

dems4guns wrote:I may enjoy engaging you in a debate about politics, but you have to agree to some ground rules first, and show respect appropriate to this endeavor. (Or do you get to be the judge of the level of respect required, too?)
Dems4Guns

This isn't even a debate, it barely qualifies as a discussion. You have not provided any arguments at all. You have not cited any sources. The difference between you and I is that I'm asking you abide by the rules of logic, rationality and thought. You want to contradict those. You keep ignoring every source I cite showing that I'm not making up the rules, but at the same time you demand the ability to make them up yourself. Hypocrisy?

I suspect that you have never actually participated in any formal debates or had any formal logic or philosophical training. I certainly am far from perfect and am sure I've made tons of mistakes (formally), but you haven't even presented a counter argument.

Palladin wrote:If all of the active voting population of the US were to seek the truth as zealously as gunderwood does, we wouldn't even need to discuss this topic.

At the risk of being argumentative, I don't think that's quite right. We'd probably have more interesting and useful discussions, but there certainly is plenty of room for disagreement. If the logic is sound it's because we assumed different things. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong. The validity and experience with those assumptions played out in the real world generally lead us to the opinion of good or bad.

For example, I personally think that Marx's definitions and assumptions about people are flawed and contradictory. I can argue that point too. Experience bares that out as well. That's why most people associate such things classified as Marxist as bad, but not all do. If you're selling the same ideas as Marx, you're a Marxist and I won't apologize for correctly noting either; however, if you can show me how I've errored than I'll recant.

The founders had lots of disagreement as they assumed slightly different things, but there formed a general consensus around what was mostly generalized as classical liberal thought. There were Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates after all. I object to redefining the original intent to suit an agenda. If you disagree with the founders, by all means let's debate that and you may be right. They were men and were fallible, as are we. That's exactly why we have the power to change things. However, lying that the founders were anti-gun or something is a downright despicable attempt at deception. The fabrication of definitions to gain positive associations is very dishonest.

Palladin wrote:2A is but one facet of the liberties We the People are letting slip through our fingers.

Huge portions of the current American population have been raised with no comprehension of how the Founding Fathers intended this system to work, and no inherent drive to seek the Truth and to uphold It.

To me, it's no different than spreading the Gospel, if the Truth falls on deaf ears, then shake the dust from your feet and move on.

You can lead a horse to water, blah blah blah...

+1

grumpyMSG wrote:They are like the two rails of a railroad track, they seem to just keep going and going, neither is going to bend and accept the other's position. I would think after 8+ pages of posts, if you couldn't get your point across, chances are it wasn't going to happen on page 9 or 10. Maybe by page 15 (I still don't think it will happen).



But hey, I am one of those Capitalist pigs that actually believes socialism works (In a limited environment, where all involved partys voluntarily participate. The best examples of this are Israeli Kibbutzes and closer to home Amish and Mennonite farming communities).

One small note. Voluntary participation invalidates the need for government to have control over the means of production. Remember Marx claimed that socialism was necessary to bring about communism. Before 1859 he was evolutionary (i.e. capitalism was evil, but just a step in the economic progression towards socialism which was a necessary evil on the way to communism). After that period, he became revolutionary and demanded the overthrow of governments to achieve it.

If it's voluntary you don't need the force of government to uphold it. In essence it's a mutual agreement which benefits all parties and strictly speaking is no different than any other voluntary exchange. Socialism is the use of government force and manipulation to achieve those ends...that's very different.

gunderwood wrote:

Palladin wrote:If all of the active voting population of the US were to seek the truth as zealously as gunderwood does, we wouldn't even need to discuss this topic.

At the risk of being argumentative, I don't think that's quite right. We'd probably have more interesting and useful discussions, but there certainly is plenty of room for disagreement. If the logic is sound it's because we assumed different things. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong. The validity and experience with those assumptions played out in the real world generally lead us to the opinion of good or bad.

I don't always get the context of my thoughts through the keyboard...

Sure, there will always be differences and disagreements. The truth seeking part of my comment should have said we don't hold our elected representatives to the level of integrity that the FF were working with. I daresay there's but a handful if any on Capitol Hill that contemplate their Sacred Honor as they go about their daily activities...

You can't change attitude. You can only point out bad behavior and ask that it stop, and incentivise good behavior and encourage it when you observe it. I learned that by raising teenagers. They are respectful and well-bahaved.

I impugne no one here, but when people insult me or think they can put words in my mouth, then that is bad behavior. I will ask it to stop and use the power of my words or my silence. I will also appreciate good behavior.

I will not engage in a debate with Gunderwood because his rules are rigged and subject to Gunderwoods sole judgement as to whether it meets his criteria for "proper classification," his rules of logic, etc., etc.

You are all bantering about THEORIES. But theories don't pay the bills and theories don't get our gun laws changed. Persuasive words and action is what makes change happen. Insulting behavior and alienating people gets us into conflict. And anyone who has been in a conflict knows it is destructive.

The Title of this thread is why should welcome liberals to the cause of the 2nd Amendment?
Here is my answer: We have the right to self-defense just like conservatives and every other person, and we want to ensure our liberties as well. And, liberals need to balance the growing threat from a well-armed right wing that is angrily blaming Obama and liberals for anything from bedbugs to the National Debt.

The reason I am holding my line with Gunderwood is that his speech continues to poison the forum that allows us to work together peacefully for a solution. This reminds me of something a politician from W.Va said, "What is the difference between a lynching and an execution?.....Process....There is a process that we use to determine guilt and determine punishment and execute the punishment."

Without a fair and civil discussion and debate, we end up with a lynching. And people like Gunderwood are leading the crowd with accusations of "Socialist!....Communist!....Liberal!...."

There needs to be a national effort to bring back civility in public discourse. Is anyone game?
Dems4Guns

Cody,
I think you have missed the point that we have been trying to get across to you. It is fine that you think "Persuasive words and action is what makes change happen" , but the only way that I know to be persuasive here is to back up what your saying with independent, reliable and trusted sources. From what I have seen so far you have yet to counter any of gunderwoods sources yet or brought forth any of your own to counter his. I guess this is because Socialism and Progressive Liberalism is so well documented that you know that he is right in their definition. If this is what you believe and you are firm in your position that is fine; I can respect that and you have shown determination in your discussion, but you should solidify it with solid sources to back your position up.

Keep trying

Vern