seeknulfind wrote:
What was the point of your post Cody? I'm not sure exactly. Was it to tell me how rude I am? Oh well. In subsequent posts there is a thing or two I'd like to mention.
You seem to be someone who can maintain decorum in a discussion. You are the rare exception here. That being said, since I have been ranting about this I have actually seen a change in behavior. Some of the people who were insulting and rude have toned down their rhetoric. I am actually able to have a reasonably civil debate without it turning into insults and accusations and other such political rhetoric. The point here is that if the forum is poisoned with insults and liberal bashing, we can never get to a real discussion and get to the details. There are some common values that we share, and we can never discuss them if we are being offended.
seeknulfind wrote:First is the whole idea of "pro-gun liberals". Notice I did not say Democrats as I do believe there may be a few out there. Much like albino deer, they are rarely sighted and usually go back into hiding. So let's get back to the liberal pro-gunner, shall we?
Well, you are wrong on the facts. There are millions of us. Please see the following links:
http://democratsforgunownership.org/
http://rightdemocrat.blogspot.com/
http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/
seeknulfind wrote:Please correct me if I am wrong but generally speaking, the overall liberal view on government is "more is better - always". Do I misspeak?
Incorrect. This is a Fox News Talking Point to try and label Dems and Liberals as big gov't spenders. The truth is the differences are in the details on gov't spending. Dems/Liberals would like to see less spent on subsidies to big business for instance and many would like to see us spend less on foreign military operations. (I am of the opinion we need to wipe out extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan) The best way to say it is that Dems/Libs want government to be "appropriately sized" to meet the needs of working class families. And, taxes should be more heavily shared by those who make the most profits from American capitalism and American labor.
seeknulfind wrote:As I stated, my own overall view on government is "less is better - usually". If you feel so inclined to substitute "always" for "usually", I understand.
My complaint with that statement is that it is too simplistic. Everyone can agree that "less is better," but the truth is in the details. Less isn't better in the war on terrorism, for instance. Less is better on corporate subsidies. Less isn't better in regulating wall street. Less is better on unnecessary military weapons built on pork. Oversimplifying things allows politicos to pander.
seeknulfind wrote:To me, the foundational liberal premise is at odds with the subject of gun ownership as the very nature of gun control is, well, control. And this "control" is not "individual control" but control by some government entity.
Here you are just plain wrong. Liberals, by definition, want to provide MORE personal freedoms. That is one of the foundations of liberalism. Liberal gun ownership is in perfect harmony with that principal. Most of the gun laws came as an overreaction to serious crime problems or significant events. Those were bipartisan decisions made by both conservatives and liberals. Now, where we might differ is that Liberals also support an appropriate level of regulation by government, and reasonable limits to those freedoms. (We might differ on what we call reasonable, but we one thing about liberals is there are few things that are absolute.) In fact, liberals share a lot of libertarian ideals. However, we don't want to see capitalism unregulated because of the abuses that will inevitably occur. American history is replete with many episodes of corporate and financial abuses and fraud. Those abuses led to the great depression, and the recent wall street failures.
seeknulfind wrote:My own basic premise for gun ownership is, a gun in the hands of a law-biding citizen is no threat to anyone. Just as I am free to buy gasoline without a great deal of government fuss.
We agree on this point. However, I do think there is a limit. We may disagree on the limit, but it sounds like, in principle, we agree.
seeknulfind wrote:While it seems a liberal would contend that, for some reason, guns are inherently dangerous and so the government needs to keep track of who owns what and even obtain permission before buying certain guns and can only buy them under certain circumstances, etc. and so on.
I think there is a misperception here. But I also think that many on the left are not educated about firearms and thus fear them. That needs to be fixed, and I think it is being remedied. However, laws that prevent violent felons and mentally ill from owning firearms should be kept.
seeknulfind wrote:Thus my own conflict between the concepts of "liberal" and "gun ownership". My instincts tell me they don't match up.
I hope that I have showed you how they do match up, and it is just a matter of recognizing that Dems/Libs can be partners on gun liberalization if we can get past the prejudice and insults and turn off Fox News.
seeknulfind wrote:Now I join this forum and I find that not only do many here generally agree with my views on gun ownership, but we are also on the same page on many other issues - at least in principle.
Everyone has a unique set of positions based on their own experiences. No two people are the same. Rather than seeing how we can be more the same, I am interested in how we can find common values and common positions while still appreciating the diversity.
seeknulfind wrote:And then there's you. Not only do I disagree with much of what you believe on non-gun issues, it looks like we may fundamentally differ on many gun issues too.Take the machine-gun or fully automatic weapon thingy. I do not own one and I may never own one. As far as I'm concerned most are ammunition wasters. While I was never privileged to serve in the military, I admire the "one shot, one kill" rule. Spraying lead is akin to throwing money at the problem in my book.
And yet I feel no need to restrict their ownership. If someone wants one and they are law-biding citizens... why stop them?
I can change my position when I see the logic and reasons to do so. However, I am not so quick to pass judgement on laws that were passed to address very serious problems. Those were supported by the constituencies at that time and it is relevant to address the issues present at the time and find out if those issues still justify the limitation or the regulation. So, while my liberalist instinct would be to remove the limitation, my pragmatist wants to know the affect. And, if we draw the line somewhere else, where is that line? Grenades?, Shoulder fired rockets? C4? Tanks, Howitzers, Nuclear bombs...nuclear missiles? Where?
seeknulfind wrote:I'm not sure who said it, but I agree with his point - maybe you should seriously reconsider your position on non-gun issues. The way I see it, your basic beliefs are at odds with the concept of citizen gun ownership.
I hope I have showed you how they are not contradictory.
seeknulfind wrote:It would be interesting if you could look around at your liberal pals and count those who are "pro-gun". And by "pals" I mean the people you hang out with who are also liberals. Maybe you could form a group and actively lobby for less gun control withing the Democratic Party. I checked and Dems4Guns.com IS available.
Enough web sites, as I have listed above. Not a bad thought though.
Dems4Guns