Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

[dems4guns]

Let me give this a try:
All Democrats/Liberals have not been on the gun control side.

Certainly not all, but it is statistically meaningful..

Gunderwood, I suggest focusing on the positive rather than "statistics" that divide us. The past two Democratic governors have supported gun rights in Virginia. My experience is the majority of Democrats support gun rights, but want "reasonable" regulations.

For myself, I used to be a gun control advocate, especially for handguns in urban areas. But over time I realized that trying to control guns is just creating another black market. And black markets put control of the black market products in the hands of mobsters and criminals. (drugs, prostitution, etc.) Guns are no different in how the black market works.

Good for you. I like to point out that the USSR had thriving black markets for food, guns, Bibles, you name it. Anything you weren't suppose to have there was a market for. It's also like Prohibition in this country was. We can agree that alcoholism is a problem, just as we can agree that inter-city violence is also a problem, but taking guns from law abiding citizens isn't going to solve it any more than banning the consumption of alcohol did for curing its abuse. Often, it makes it worse..

You could have just said that you agree...we agree.

Here is an interesting piece of history: Liberalism was founded on free-enterprise and competition.

Yes, but that term has nothing at all to do with modern liberalism. Nothing. Classical liberalism was a move away from centralized state power and modern liberalism is defined by such centralized power.

Statements like this create division rather than help to bring us together. This kind of rhetoric is what helps to create the extreme partisanship and broken government that we have today. I grant you the right to define your politics and what you stand for. Please grant me the right to define my politics and what I stand for. Modern liberalism is not that different...we believe in free enterprise and competitiion....but regulated to make it fair and truly competitive and to keep the systems ethical and healthy and prosperous. Regulation requires government oversight. It is certainly debatable as to how much oversight is necessary to keep the systems fair and competitive and ethical and healthy and prosperous. So, the details are important here. Unregulated industry is bad for business and bad for the economy and bad for The People. I think there is too much regulation of firearms and not enough of Wall Street. Let's take those two...can we agree? (It's okay to agree with a Democrat...really)

Trade Unionists and Socialists were the ones who wanted to restrict competition and control labor markets and control means of production. Classical liberals are not socialists; modern liberals are.

Fixed it for you. If you want to push it I can provide many sources defending that position..

You didn't fix anything. You misrepresented my quote. Please don't do it again. I respect your right to the integrity of your words. Please allow me the integrity of my words. I am a Liberal and I am NOT a Socialist.

[gunderwood]

I wish to point out socialism is an economic model and liberalism an ideology and the two need not occur simultaneously in an individual or in a society.

People seem to forget that.

Yes, but the two go hand in hand. Modern liberalism, as an ideology applied to economics, leads one towards several economic models such as communism, socialism, etc. It just happens to be that a particular flavor of socialism is all the rage right now.

IMHO, it is the egalitarianism principle of modern liberalism which drives them towards such economic models.

It's no different than saying that classical liberalism, as an ideology applied to economics, leads one towards capitalism and free markets. Of course there are variations on the theme and to what extent, but when the underlining principles of the ideology are applied to a problem they generally yield results in those bins.

It's still a statistically accurate statement to say that most modern liberals are socialists and most classical liberals are capitalists. I'm trying to learn to be more concise, so I made that small step of logic.

[gunderwood]

I focused on your quote only because it seems less than satisfactory that a movement, i.e. an ideology that dates back to the 17th Century and arguably earlier can be summed up by a single quote from an economist, altho a brilliant one who didn't like the progression of his own classical liberalism to something more modern.

His problem and the problem of many like him was that it wasn't a progression to something more modern, but rather a hijacking of a term which had positive associations. The policies of the modern liberal and the classical liberal are at odds not over some trivial technicalities, but rather because their core principles and beliefs are 180 degrees of each other.

It's a move that attempts to fool the ignorant masses who don't know the underlining principles and rationale. If you say slavery to the state is freedom, it must be so...right? Same thing with our "capitalistic" system. It's no such thing and demonstrable so! However, it keeps the masses who don't know any better chanting for the next round of statist policies wrapped in nice sounding words.

Words have meaning and it's dishonest to use those positive associations to sell their very antithesis.

[gunderwood]

Gunderwood, I suggest focusing on the positive rather than "statistics" that divide us. The past two Democratic governors have supported gun rights in Virginia. My experience is the majority of Democrats support gun rights, but want "reasonable" regulations.

No they didn't. They just were smart enough to not directly oppose gun rights. They worked hard to make sure that they wouldn't have to publicly make that decision by getting things killed in the houses.

What statistics would those be?

Here is an interesting piece of history: Liberalism was founded on free-enterprise and competition.

Yes, but that term has nothing at all to do with modern liberalism. Nothing. Classical liberalism was a move away from centralized state power and modern liberalism is defined by such centralized power.

Statements like this create division rather than help to bring us together.

Unity over a lie is no such thing and is destructive. For the sake of unity, shall I pretend that the statists do not want to dictate every aspect of my life and leave me with no choice but to do what they want me to do?

Your statement is deceptive and you've been caught. Classical liberalism was founded on those things, but modern liberalism was not. One of the central tenets of modern liberalism is egalitarianism, which is something that classical liberalism 100% rejected. In fact, their rejection of that principle is exactly what led them to free-enterprise, capitalism, and free markets (when applied to economics). That rejection applied to government it's the foundation for limited, constitutional government, individual rights, etc. just as the acceptance of it usually leads to various kinds of nanny statism.

In no way did the beginnings of modern liberalism stem from the classical liberals. Rather, the "first" modern liberals studied the works of those diametrically opposed to the principles of classical liberalism (e.g. Marx) to formulate their ideology. They then hijacked the term liberalism for their ideology because it had been rejected as incompatible with American ideals. They needed the positive associations that classical liberalism had built up over centuries of progressive advances in reducing and limiting government power.

From a classical liberal perspective, modern liberalism isn't progressive it's regressive. It seeks to build up the state, increase it's power and generally undo everything which classical liberalism had accomplished. Any claim that modern liberalism is the pole bearer for the classical liberal ideology is intellectually dishonest and a fraud.

This kind of rhetoric is what helps to create the extreme partisanship and broken government that we have today.

No, it's a direct result of the statist policies, on the left and the right...there's plenty of blame to go around, that reap what they sowed. Read the classical liberals and they warn that we'd get exactly this if we followed such failed and broken statist policies wrapped in new marketing.

The statist policies are fundamentally flawed because they are rooted in a misunderstanding of what government is and what it can do. The classical liberal position on government is diametrically opposed to that of the modern liberal. It depends on the flavor of the two ideologies we are specifically discussing, but generally the classical liberal views the state as the source of many of the problems the people are faced with, while the modern liberal views the state as the solution to those same problems. The two positions are not reconcilable because they are literally inverse statements of each other. To accept and adopt one requires that the claims, rationale, and presuppositions of the other be rejected.

I grant you the right to define your politics and what you stand for. Please grant me the right to define my politics and what I stand for.

It's not my definitions. This statement is a cop out and an attempt to reclassify a cat as a dog so to make cats more acceptable to people who only like dogs. Calling a cat a dog doesn't make it so, but it certainly would deceive a lot of people if they were ignorant on what a cat and dog generally are defined as.

That's really the whole point of this mislabeling. To make something palatable to people who would reject it if it were called what it really is.

You can't say A = B, but A !=B at the same time and still hold any claim to rationality. You can't call a cat a dog and say there is no difference to suit your agenda.

Modern liberalism is not that different...we believe in free enterprise and competitiion....

You say this, but then spend a whole paragraph invalidating the very classical liberal definition of what free enterprise and competition are. You're changing the definition of words which have meaning and positive association to suit a particular agenda, which is the antithesis of those very definitions.

I'm far to educated, having read some of the classical liberal works, to accept that smooth sounding BS. Can you find a quote from a generally accepted classical liberal who says the same thing you are? I bet you can't unless you take it out of context. I can find many that contradict everything you said in that paragraph.

Trade Unionists and Socialists were the ones who wanted to restrict competition and control labor markets and control means of production. Classical liberals are not socialists; modern liberals are.

Fixed it for you. If you want to push it I can provide many sources defending that position..

You didn't fix anything. You misrepresented my quote. Please don't do it again. I respect your right to the integrity of your words. Please allow me the integrity of my words. I am a Liberal and I am NOT a Socialist.

You may or may not be a socialist, but statistically most modern liberals are. Usually they have bought the marketing hype and expose socialist policies and rationale while thinking it isn't that. It's usually a position of ignorance and is required because its just the same failed policies wrapped in a new, nice sounding marketing. Can't be associated with failure though.

[LFS]

Gunderwood, I suggest focusing on the positive rather than "statistics" that divide us. The past two Democratic governors have supported gun rights in Virginia. My experience is the majority of Democrats support gun rights, but want "reasonable" regulations.

No they didn't. They just were smart enough to not directly oppose gun rights. They worked hard to make sure that they wouldn't have to publicly make that decision by getting things killed in the houses.

Actually, you are both wrong. Tim Kaine vetoed multiple gun bills.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/virginia ... -gun-bills
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... ls-despit/

[Reverenddel]

"The past two Democratic governors have supported gun rights in Virginia."

I was going to say "OBVIOUSLY YOU NEVER DEALT WITH TIMMY BOY ON GUN ISSUES!!!!"

He was VENOMOUSLY anti-gun, and as Mayor of Richmond paid for chartered buses for the "Million Mom March". He rejected MULTIPLE GUN BILLS as they crossed his desk. Spoke OPENLY about wanting the "AWB reinstated". Good Riddance to bad rubbish, and I hope never to have him sully VA politics again.

Mark Warner was "neutral", he never really put himself out there on the gun issues, but he hasn't been a "Pro-gun" Senator by any means.

[gatlingun6]

Gunderwood, I suggest focusing on the positive rather than "statistics" that divide us. The past two Democratic governors have supported gun rights in Virginia. My experience is the majority of Democrats support gun rights, but want "reasonable" regulations.

No they didn't. They just were smart enough to not directly oppose gun rights. They worked hard to make sure that they wouldn't have to publicly make that decision by getting things killed in the houses.

What statistics would those be?

Here is an interesting piece of history: Liberalism was founded on free-enterprise and competition.

Yes, but that term has nothing at all to do with modern liberalism. Nothing. Classical liberalism was a move away from centralized state power and modern liberalism is defined by such centralized power.

Statements like this create division rather than help to bring us together.

Unity over a lie is no such thing and is destructive. For the sake of unity, shall I pretend that the statists do not want to dictate every aspect of my life and leave me with no choice but to do what they want me to do?

Your statement is deceptive and you've been caught. Classical liberalism was founded on those things, but modern liberalism was not. One of the central tenets of modern liberalism is egalitarianism, which is something that classical liberalism 100% rejected. In fact, their rejection of that principle is exactly what led them to free-enterprise, capitalism, and free markets (when applied to economics). That rejection applied to government it's the foundation for limited, constitutional government, individual rights, etc. just as the acceptance of it usually leads to various kinds of nanny statism.

In no way did the beginnings of modern liberalism stem from the classical liberals. Rather, the "first" modern liberals studied the works of those diametrically opposed to the principles of classical liberalism (e.g. Marx) to formulate their ideology. They then hijacked the term liberalism for their ideology because it had been rejected as incompatible with American ideals. They needed the positive associations that classical liberalism had built up over centuries of progressive advances in reducing and limiting government power.

From a classical liberal perspective, modern liberalism isn't progressive it's regressive. It seeks to build up the state, increase it's power and generally undo everything which classical liberalism had accomplished. Any claim that modern liberalism is the pole bearer for the classical liberal ideology is intellectually dishonest and a fraud.

This kind of rhetoric is what helps to create the extreme partisanship and broken government that we have today.

No, it's a direct result of the statist policies, on the left and the right...there's plenty of blame to go around, that reap what they sowed. Read the classical liberals and they warn that we'd get exactly this if we followed such failed and broken statist policies wrapped in new marketing.

The statist policies are fundamentally flawed because they are rooted in a misunderstanding of what government is and what it can do. The classical liberal position on government is diametrically opposed to that of the modern liberal. It depends on the flavor of the two ideologies we are specifically discussing, but generally the classical liberal views the state as the source of many of the problems the people are faced with, while the modern liberal views the state as the solution to those same problems. The two positions are not reconcilable because they are literally inverse statements of each other. To accept and adopt one requires that the claims, rationale, and presuppositions of the other be rejected.

I grant you the right to define your politics and what you stand for. Please grant me the right to define my politics and what I stand for.

It's not my definitions. This statement is a cop out and an attempt to reclassify a cat as a dog so to make cats more acceptable to people who only like dogs. Calling a cat a dog doesn't make it so, but it certainly would deceive a lot of people if they were ignorant on what a cat and dog generally are defined as.

That's really the whole point of this mislabeling. To make something palatable to people who would reject it if it were called what it really is.

You can't say A = B, but A !=B at the same time and still hold any claim to rationality. You can't call a cat a dog and say there is no difference to suit your agenda.

Modern liberalism is not that different...we believe in free enterprise and competitiion....

You say this, but then spend a whole paragraph invalidating the very classical liberal definition of what free enterprise and competition are. You're changing the definition of words which have meaning and positive association to suit a particular agenda, which is the antithesis of those very definitions.

I'm far to educated, having read some of the classical liberal works, to accept that smooth sounding BS. Can you find a quote from a generally accepted classical liberal who says the same thing you are? I bet you can't unless you take it out of context. I can find many that contradict everything you said in that paragraph.

Trade Unionists and Socialists were the ones who wanted to restrict competition and control labor markets and control means of production. Classical liberals are not socialists; modern liberals are.

Fixed it for you. If you want to push it I can provide many sources defending that position..

You didn't fix anything. You misrepresented my quote. Please don't do it again. I respect your right to the integrity of your words. Please allow me the integrity of my words. I am a Liberal and I am NOT a Socialist.

You may or may not be a socialist, but statistically most modern liberals are. Usually they have bought the marketing hype and expose socialist policies and rationale while thinking it isn't that. It's usually a position of ignorance and is required because its just the same failed policies wrapped in a new, nice sounding marketing. Can't be associated with failure though.

***************************************************************
An interesting back and forth where you are insisting that dems4guns is someone he says he is not. This begs several questions. Statism is apparently a much favored term consequently you might define it and give a relevant example from today. The same goes for socialism, a term that covers a broad sociological and ideological spectrum. Your use implies that the term has a narrow and always negative definition and connotation as well. Enlighten us please since it's impossible to debate a fuzzy.

When you changed "dem's" statement concerning what entities do not like competition, oddly you left off a key player, Capitalists. Capitalists hate competition and will use whatever means are available, even illegal ones at times, to kill same. Most often; however, they turn to government, that thing of apparent little use, to assist in killing competition. How do they do it? The old fashioned way, by buying favor with legislators, and regulators (The latter if they can get away with it) to promulgate or issue anti-competitive measures. A case in point: The railroads. Until the government put anti-competitive measures in place that allowed consolidation of the industry by a few, rail competition was fierce. So fierce until the landscape was littered with bankrupt railroads.

you summed up by saying "statistically most liberals are socialists". Since social science and even economics are not akin to quantum physics, by whose statistic is that, yours? Or by someone else who is not a liberal, or a progressive?

Throughout you seem to say that the left and the right are the problem, but your direct fire goes towards the left, and not the right. Why?

You don't have to answer, but it would help the conversation if we knew what economic, social, and political camps, if any, you self-profess.

"Be obscure clearly"
Gat6

[Mindflayer]

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Where does that put me?

[Kreutz]

I think the doctoral theses posted here are great, but I will sum up why CowboyT is correct quickly.

We live in a representative democracy. Ergo, politicians care only about votes, which are simply numbers. The more people irregardless of political stripe that support the 2A, the less they will be inclined to tamper with it for fear of unemployment. This is why you see anti-gun crap at the federal level coming from CA and NY; they know they'll get away with it there.

Pages and pages of back and forth, and it boils down to numbers. We need as many people as possible informed of, and executing their 2A rights. Thats all there is to it.

[gatlingun6]

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Where does that put me?

**************************************************************************
Apparently that makes you either invisible or nonexistent. Most posters see a bi-polar country where one is this or that; on or off; 1 or 2; and yes black or white with no shades of gray.

I say it makes you a typical American.

Gat6
"Be obscure clearly"

[gatlingun6]

I think the doctoral theses posted here are great, but I will sum up why CowboyT is correct quickly.

We live in a representative democracy. Ergo, politicians care only about votes, which are simply numbers. The more people irregardless of political stripe that support the 2A, the less they will be inclined to tamper with it for fear of unemployment. This is why you see anti-gun crap at the federal level coming from CA and NY; they know they'll get away with it there.

Pages and pages of back and forth, and it boils down to numbers. We need as many people as possible informed of, and executing their 2A rights. Thats all there is to it.

**********************************************************************
Thanks "Kreutz" for bringing the discussion back to the real world. I would go beyond Cowboy T's original post with which I agree to: We should welcome ALL none gun owners to our cause. Why? Because demographics suggest we'll have a real problem down the road if we don't. Consider the following:
1. Most statistics indicate that less than 50% of households own a gun.
2. Urban dwellers are less likely to own a gun than their rural counterparts.
3. The Urban population continues to grow.
4. Three growing demographics: Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks are less likely to own guns than Whites.
5. Hunting, at least with firearms, continues to decline for a number of reasons.

There are other factors that should give us pause, but I suppose they are arguable. The 2nd Amendment is not a divine right. It's exactly what it says it is, an Amendment written by men that can be undone by men. No court has ruled it is an absolute individual right either. In fact, in the 2 recent SCOTUS opinions the nose of the elephant is now under the tent with the phrase "Reasonable gun regulations". SCOTUS did not define the term, so it's in the to be determined (TBD) category. Ask yourself this: Do you believe a gun owner, and none gun owner would have the same definition of "reasonable" today? While acknowledging the importance of the 2nd A, just maybe we ought to stop bludgeoning people with it.

The last 2 SCOTUS decisions also incorporate the 2d A against the States. State firearms regulations are now within the purview of the Feds and SCOTUS. It also gives force to existing and potentially new Federal firearms regulations since there will be no question that they are enforceable against the States. In effect, fully incorporating the 2nd A transferred firearm regulatory power from the States to the Feds.

Now i'm winging it from personal observations based on extensive travel, and some statistics. Estimates are fuzzy, but it is believed that Americans own approx 280 million guns. Most gun owning households own on average 4.4 guns. Question: Are they owned for self-defense? I say no. There is nothing to suggest that over 100 million Americans are walking around armed either concealed or openly. I would also suggest that most concealed carry permit holders do not routinely conceal carry.

What am I getting at? Perhaps we ought to stop acting like the U.S. is one of the more dangerous places on earth where one is on combat patrol from the time he steps out of the house until he returns home. And that once back at home he sets up his perimeter defense, locks in his final protective fires, and mans his guard post until the next morning.

This line of thought means maybe should also retire the T Jefferson quote Tee shirts because his quote never meant what many of thought. It's been totally taken out of context as T. Jefferson's quotes often are by every imaginable political persuasion to support whatever cause they believe in. What we do know is that T. Jefferson and every other President has not hesitated to crush any and all violent rebellions, sometimes at the expense of shredding the Constitution to do it. The idea that gun owning Americans are the last brake against an oppression government is, for lack of a better word, fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy when you consider that we gun owners in general cheered government assuming more power domestically under the guise of national security. I didn't see gun owners complaining bitterly when the Patriot Act was enacted. When the President essentially decreed that the he had the authority to declare anyone an enemy combatant and subject to arrest and incarceration without a trial we didn't object.

I'm not going to repeat all the police powers now within the authority of the feds. However all of these powers which were directed against foreign terrorists can also be used against any domestic armed group bent on violently over throwing the government. In short, the 2d A is not an option, it's the voting booth instead.

In the end I'm suggesting the indirect approach that education rather than arrogance and anger will better secure gun rights for all time.

Gat6

[dems4guns]

This "namecalling" is useless. I can call Gunderwood a socialist, but that doesn't make him a socialist, does it? These kinds of poison-labels get in the way of having a conversation with respect and integrity about values that we may actually share.

Our positions and our actions are what define us, not the political opposition's rhetoric used for political partisanship. That is a big part of the reason why we have a fractured political system with little bipartisanship. And when that happens, it contributes to poor government.

What I am suggesting is that we show respect for each other and it them becomes necessary in a real discussion to let people speak for themselves and define their own positions and not insult them by misrepresenting what they said or what they stand for. This is a personal integrity issue.

If Gunderwood can have a conversation with integrity and respect, I am willing. Gunderwood needs to show some good old fashioned American neighborliness and respect.

Otherwise it is not worth my time.
Thanks,
Dems4Guns

[dems4guns]

I appreciated Gatlin's reply. I agree with the many good points about firearm politics. I particularly agree with his point about education. I am going to stereotype here, but I think many suburban mothers have a perception about firearms that they are extremely dangerous and should be avoided. Education can help to minimize that fear.

That being said: Very few people are single-issue voters, and firearm laws are not very high on the list for the majority. The fact that the vast majority of Republicans fight for gun liberalization doesn't mean that Democrats are going to cross-over and vote Republican solely on the issue of gun legislation. So, by broadening the base of support and making gun liberalization more mainstream, more favorable gun legislation can be made through more bipartisanship.

I would add this: Gun rights organizations such as the NRA should stop the partisanship and focus more on gun safety and gun sporting and legal hunting and helping to create safe shooting ranges and hunting camps so that the sport of shooting and hunting can be done safely and securely and legally.

There aren't enough good ranges or outdoor target ranges or hunting areas for people to safely and securely practice and enjoy the sport and enjoy the hunt. That involves a lot of local politics for each county.

To get past the labels and the endless debate about what the 2nd Amendment acutally means and leave the Republican v Democrats (or whatever labels) for political debates and focus on the actual values and legislative agendas we can agree on.

Is anyone ready to talk specifics?
Dems4Guns

[gunderwood]

This "namecalling" is useless.

Name calling of any kind is useless, but this isn't name calling at all. It's classification and there are several key distinctions.

Name calling is a last resort of the ignorant. If you can't come up with an argument you call the other person names. On the other hand, classification is done to aid the debate and argument. It's a fundamental component of formal logic. A = cat, B = dog, etc. You can't even begin a debate without defining your terms and as such, classification assists the debate by using and associating arguments with defined systems of thought. i.e. philosophies. As Gat6 correctly notes in another post, there are many different ways to implement a particular philosophy.

The fundamental philosophy (sometimes refereed to as a worldview as it is the foundation through which everything is interpreted) your exposing is Marxism. Your specific implementation of it in the economy is socialism. That's not name calling that's classification.

Another key distinction between the two is what they imply. Classification does not imply a negative association, name calling does. Classifying you as a socialist and then providing the argument and analysis as to why your statements are such is a valid debate. That's very different than the following (for illustration only): your a d@mn, ignorant, socialist who hates America! That's name calling.

I've explored this in depth several times before (last time was with Gat6 I believe) and if you search for words like classification you'll find it. Gat6 ignores such fundamental debates so he can commit the same logical fallacy in future rants. We all must and do classify things all the time in order to discuss them. Any negative association of the term socialists is of your own doing. I don't associate socialistic policies as bad because of the classification, but rather the real world evidence which I have studied and attempt to present to you and others. I suspect that is also why you object to being classified as such, but remain completely incapable of providing any rational argument as to why your stated policies are not socialistic.

At least tell me what system of thought you are from so I can compare your statements to it. To the best of my knowledge I know of no better system to classify you under than socialism. Perhaps if you clarified your arguments I might change my classification, but as of yet I have no reason to do so.

I can call Gunderwood a socialist, but that doesn't make him a socialist, does it?

No it doesn't and I would love to see you back that up. I classified you as such and then proceeded to explain why the classification was correct. If I have made a mistake please correct it with a well informed and sourced argument. If I'm in error I'll gladly retract the classification. So far you haven't even attempted that; you just say NO I'M NOT YOU JERK.

You'll have to do much better than that.

These kinds of poison-labels get in the way of having a conversation with respect and integrity about values that we may actually share.

Without classification there can be no formal and logical discussion. If the label is poisoned it is because of the real world experience of those reading it. E.g. the German National Socialists carries a real world negative association for most people because of the real world experiences.

Our positions and our actions are what define us, not the political opposition's rhetoric used for political partisanship.

Yes, you are correct and I'm stating that your positions and actions are socialistic to the best of the my knowledge which is based on what you write here. I can and have backed it up. I'd be more than happy to dive much deeper into why that is true and start a real debate with you, but if you're anything like Gat6 you'll either continue ranting about how unfair I'm being or just drop it.

I'd much prefer we really get into the details; I'm definitely game. Anyone still have the link to that rationale discussion flow chart so we can set some ground rules?

That is a big part of the reason why we have a fractured political system with little bipartisanship. And when that happens, it contributes to poor government.

You're half right. We have a fractured system because the core and fundamental philosophies are are odds here. You're 100% right that when bipartisanship happens today it contributes to bad government and poor results. That's not because of anything inherent to bipartisanship, but rather to the fact that the core philosophies are at odds and are not compatible. Their fundamentally based on very different presuppositions and as such can not be reconciled rationally. Generally we get the worst of both.

What I am suggesting is that we show respect for each other and it them becomes necessary in a real discussion to let people speak for themselves and define their own positions and not insult them by misrepresenting what they said or what they stand for. This is a personal integrity issue.

How have I not shown respect for you so far? I corrected your statement because it was at odds with the established body of knowledge on the subject. I would do the same if you claimed to have loaded a 230gr .45 caliber FMJ into your .22lr. I've started down the path of explaining why your definition is at odds with the established knowledge and definitions, but you haven't replied to that at all.

All you have asked for so far is the ability to redefine things so you won't be classified with something which you have negative associations with. In essence, you're asking for the right to violate a fundamental presupposition of formal logic and rationale thought. Or put another way, you're asking me to concede and grant you the right to be irrational, yet treat it like a rational thought.

I can't do that because you're right, it is a personal integrity issue. I can't lie to myself and pretend to be arguing intelligently and having a rational discussion based on an irrational assumption. You can't define a dog as a cat and then have any claim to a rational argument concerning cats and dogs. Sorry.

If Gunderwood can have a conversation with integrity and respect, I am willing. Gunderwood needs to show some good old fashioned American neighborliness and respect.

I have and will continue to do so. What I'm completely unwilling to do is let you spin a myth or lie based on a definition you created out of thin air so as to avoid associate with classifications of knowledge which you object too because of their presumed negative associations.

For example, I'm a capitalist not because I claim to be or because I created a definition of Capitalism I like, but rather because I've read some of their works, agree with their presuppositions, and rationale for their stated position. Sure there are several schools of thought and ways to implement it, but I am a capitalist because I fundamentally agree with the existing body of knowledge/system of thought which is classified or defined as capitalistic.

As far as I can tell (i.e. you have yet to give a rationale argument for why I've classified you wrong), you are a socialist because the statements and policies you're arguing for are based on the core ideals and presuppositions of the body of knowledge/system of thought which we consider socialistic. Give me a rationale argument for why I've classified you incorrectly and I'll genuinely reconsider it.

[gunderwood]

To get past the labels and the endless debate about what the 2nd Amendment acutally means...

That's the core of it though. What it means to me, what it meant to the founders who pushed for it (which weren't generally the guys who wrote the Constitution), what it meant to the states and people who adopted it is the central issue.

We can't have a rationale debate about "common sense" gun laws without discussing why the 2nd exists and what it means.

For example, the very politicians and people pushing the anti-gun legislation often also claim to support the 2nd! The core issue here is that their definition of rights is what ever an all powerful government deems ok (more correctly classified as privileges). I, and I think most of us on this forum and by extension most gun owners although it certainly isn't 100%, believe in rights as the classical liberals like Locke, Henry, Mason, and Jefferson defined them; as the Declaration defined them; etc.

Saying let's all just get alone and go with the antis social policies (e.g. "common sense") is rather ignorant and/or naive of what the debate is actually over.

[gunderwood]

I think the doctoral theses posted here are great, but I will sum up why CowboyT is correct quickly.

We live in a representative democracy. Ergo, politicians care only about votes, which are simply numbers. The more people irregardless of political stripe that support the 2A, the less they will be inclined to tamper with it for fear of unemployment. This is why you see anti-gun crap at the federal level coming from CA and NY; they know they'll get away with it there.

Pages and pages of back and forth, and it boils down to numbers. We need as many people as possible informed of, and executing their 2A rights. Thats all there is to it.

Correction. We lived (probably haven't for some time strickly speaking) in a constitutional, democratic, representative republic.

A democracy and republic are very different. Don't confuse process or technique with structure. E.g. using a race car process or technique to tune your valves does not make your car a race car any more than using democratic processes make this a democracy. The representative process is democratic, the structure is a constitutional republic.

This confusion is unintentional ignorance due to the public school system and intentional by those who attack the core philosophical (i.e. classical liberal) founding principles of this country. The easiest way to attack it is convince the masses it's something else entirely. I.e. your rights are the function of the majority.

[gunderwood]

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Where does that put me?

In possibly lots of different classifications possibly. Liberal and conservative are not philosophies, but rather higher level classifications which supports the bi-polar political system. I.e. you try to gather as many people under them as possible so you win elections, but the reality is that there are many philosophies encompassed within that higher classification. Often they are at odds with each other.

For example, the "neo-con" wing of the Republicans is very much opposed to the "libertarian" wing and vice verse. The philosophies which generally comprise those wings (as they themselves are still higher classifications) have presuppositions which are diametrically opposed to the other wing. However, they come together at times to vote for the same candidate. Other times they jump ship and vote third party or not at all. You're seeing a bit of this right now with the republican establishment (who generally are neocons ATM) telling the tea party who can can not win in an attempt to retain power withing the bipolar party structure. One will by necessity become or remain dominate as a house divided can not stand.

You also see this in that what fiscally conservative means to a lot of people. Any fundamental principles of it are really borrowed (and usually inconsistently) from real philosophies. This is also self-evident in the contradictory nature of some of the "conservative" fiscal policies. I.e. they aren't derived from a core set of principles and extrapolate to the situation, but rather a solution is chosen first for its political viability and then rationalized (often poorly) to some perceived set of principles or values. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" do this extensively in the political arena.

You also see this in what people claim is "capitalism." The real definition isn't up for grabs as its been around for a hundred years. You can't redefine it because you want the presumed positive associations (if there are any) to suit any agenda you want. I.e. the presuppositions of capitalism as an economic philosophy are set, you can only extend them to specific problems. If you violation any of those presuppositions you in fact have something different than capitalism...it might be close, but it isn't it.

[dems4guns]

Mr. Gunderwood,
Your response was not neighborly and not friendly. You continue to communicate in a disrespectful and insulting manner. You continue to misrepresent and in fact, lie about me and my positions. You don't know me and I have stated few positions in this forum. You do not allow me to represent myself for what I stand for and you ignore my plea for civility and mutual respect.

Rather than allow for a mutually respectful dialogue and discussion, instead you poison the forum with namecalling and insulting accusations and labels, justifying it as some kind of "classification" that only you get to define. You are not interested in learning anything and instead are interested mostly in attacking and accusing me (and Democrats and Liberals as well) of things that we don't support.

This form of poisoning of the forum prevents us from having a real dialogue about real issues that we find we will agree on. Instead you are biased by the fact that I call myself a Democrat and a Liberal and aspire to liberalism that you can't get past the labels (or "classification" using your dialect).

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.).

As your neighbor, I will continue to appeal to you to stop this poison language and explore the ways in which we as neighbors and citizens, can work together respectfully to come to common ground. When we can, then we can work together to lobby and change things that need changing.

But f your position is that you should not every agree with a liberal and never compromise on anything, then we have nothing more to communicate. BTW, I think it is your duty as a citizen of the United States to work with other citizens to lobby and elect representatives to effect changes in our government. That duty includes making compromises so that we can live together in "domestic tranquility."

Dems4Guns

[gunderwood]

Your response was not neighborly and not friendly.

Being neighborly doesn't mean never disagreeing. Because I don't agree with you I'm a jerk?

You continue to communicate in a disrespectful and insulting manner.

Please elaborate here. I've argued forcefully, but rationally. How is using logic and sources disrespectful?

You continue to misrepresent and in fact, lie about me and my positions.

I've explained them in far more detail than you have. You have still not provided any argument or source to negate my points. Instead you continue to complain.

If your ideas are so good, defend them. Don't complain that someone is attacking them.

You don't know me and I have stated few positions in this forum. You do not allow me to represent myself for what I stand for and you ignore my plea for civility and mutual respect.

I am not a moderator. You have as much power and ability to express anything you want on here as I do. I can't censor you.

Respect is earned. You have to give others a reason to respect you beyond basic human respect. Great artists, generals, thinkers, etc. are respected for a reason. The same is true of average people too. We owe each other a level of basic respect from the simple fact that we are both humans. However...

No respect is owed to your ideas except that which they earn. If you want to argue that 1 + 2 = 7 you are free to do so, but no one owes you any respect for that idea unless you can back it up.

Arguing forcefully is not disrespectful or uncivil. To be able to argue forcefully with another and not resort to name calling, threats, etc. is actually demonstrating a great level of respect for our common humanity...and it should be that way.

Rather than allow for a mutually respectful dialogue and discussion, instead you poison the forum with namecalling and insulting accusations and labels, justifying it as some kind of "classification" that only you get to define. You are not interested in learning anything and instead are interested mostly in attacking and accusing me (and Democrats and Liberals as well) of things that we don't support.

You don't seem to have comprehended any of that previous post. I don't get to define the things we're talking about...those definitions were already set long before either of us were born.

Is it ironic that you are now upset and accusing me of changing "classifications" or definitions after you demanded that you are allowed to participate in such irrational activity?

This form of poisoning of the forum prevents us from having a real dialogue about real issues that we find we will agree on. Instead you are biased by the fact that I call myself a Democrat and a Liberal and aspire to liberalism that you can't get past the labels (or "classification" using your dialect).

Again, you failed to comprehend the fact that rational discussion presupposes that you have a working definition of the thing or idea you wish to discuss. We can't discuss cats rationally without a working definition of what a cat is. Neither of us gets to define what a cat is or isn't...that's already been done and generally accepted. To base an argument off of a contrived definition of a cat which says that nominally cats have eleven legs would be down right silly. Yet, this is what you were trying to do with your terms.

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.).

If you are proposing socialism, why is it a bad thing to call a spade a spade?

Why are you so afraid to associate with the things you proposed? I have no problem being called a capitalist despite that term being less than endearing with the masses. It's what I propose, it's what I am. I didn't make it up (I'm not that smart), but I have studied it and agree with it. Perhaps one day I'll put effort into expanding the capitalistic theory, but I could not do so by violating the presuppositions. I could propose such a theory, but it wouldn't be capitalistic. I'd be laughed out of every serious forum if I proposed that capitalism was really all about communal ownership of property. It would be silly, it would be irrational.



I grow weary of responding to arguments already made and ignored. You can't simply claim I've errored, you must back it up with a rational argument and/or sources.

[LFS]

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...