Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Ah name calling...something invented and used by progressives that they blame us for...

zephyp wrote:"classify" me as an uneducated trailer trash redneck hillbilly...

You too? Welcome to the club buddy!

Yarddawg wrote:

zephyp wrote:"classify" me as an uneducated trailer trash redneck hillbilly...

You too? Welcome to the club buddy!

Heeey...I knowed I werent da onlee wun...

The question I'll ask is.....How can we ask a group that is basically dishonest in their mind set, perspective and have no cancept of truth and honor, to join in what protects the intire Consititution. Liberals/progressives are the cause of the current troubles facing our nation and the threat to Consititution.
Would that not be inviting the rattler into the sleeping bag?

Jim

arkypete wrote:Liberals/progressives are the cause of the current troubles facing our nation and the threat to Consititution.

Without liberals and progressives, who would have rebelled against King George in the first place?

Without liberals and progressives, who would have rebelled against King George in the first place?

Wrong century, wrong definition.
Liberal/Progressives took over the term liberal because of the nasty connotaions of socialist/communist.
You are putting the founding fathers of this nation in the same class as Lenin, Hitler, Mao, which I take offense to. Thank you very much.

Jim

Kreutz wrote:

arkypete wrote:Liberals/progressives are the cause of the current troubles facing our nation and the threat to Consititution.

Without liberals and progressives, who would have rebelled against King George in the first place?

The issue here is that current day liberals and progressives are pushing too far to the left. As far as I can tell most are hoping to see us ensconced in socialism or worse. I dont think that was the intent of the folks you are referring to.

Kreutz wrote:

arkypete wrote:Liberals/progressives are the cause of the current troubles facing our nation and the threat to Consititution.

Without liberals and progressives, who would have rebelled against King George in the first place?

The big government types, which is what nearly all the modern Democrats and a good many of the modern Republicans are, didn't rebel at all. They sided with the King and actively supported his troops. The liberals who rebelled were not anything at all like the modern day ones. In fact, they are nearly 100% opposite of most positions. Things like a national arts foundation were considered and rejected (so defund NPR). So were welfare like programs and provisions (yup, got to toss those too). About the only thing the modern liberal is still on the same page as a Revolutionary War liberal is on keeping our military out of other countries.

The word progressive was not even remotely used in that way until liberals needed a new word because they had so successfully trashed the old word liberal and distorted its meaning to big government controlling your every decision.

zephyp wrote:

Kreutz wrote:

arkypete wrote:Liberals/progressives are the cause of the current troubles facing our nation and the threat to Consititution.

Without liberals and progressives, who would have rebelled against King George in the first place?

The issue here is that current day liberals and progressives are pushing too far to the left. As far as I can tell most are hoping to see us ensconced in socialism or worse. I dont think that was the intent of the folks you are referring to.

Left and right are arbitrary. Both sides push some level of statism over individual liberty, but just in different ways. The problem with pushing left is what being politically left actually means. It pushes government as the solution for all of the workers problems in exchange for power over them. Health care is a mess, so we'll just take all of your decisions and make them for you. Caring for yourself as you get old is hard, so we'll just take money from the younger workers and pay you. Etc.

arkypete wrote:Wrong century, wrong definition.
Liberal/Progressives took over the term liberal because of the nasty connotaions of socialist/communist.
You are putting the founding fathers of this nation in the same class as Lenin, Hitler, Mao, which I take offense to. Thank you very much.

Jim

The loyalists (defenders of the status quo, by default anti-progressive) were staunchly loyal to the Crown.

Progressive is an adjective meaning "Moving forward; advancing.". They definitely did that by rebelling, so progressive they were.

And yes, they were (overall) definitely liberals in the vein of Locke, Spinoza, Montesquieu and others from the very liberal Age of Enlightenment.

The loyalists (defenders of the status quo, by default anti-progressive) were staunchly loyal to the Crown.

Progressive is an adjective meaning "Moving forward; advancing.". They definitely did that by rebelling, so progressive they were.

And yes, they were (overall) definitely liberals in the vein of Locke, Spinoza, Montesquieu and others from the very liberal Age of Enlightenment.

Have a look at what the liberals have brought to the world since the U.S.'s Revolution. Lets start with the French Revolution and come forward. They have shown an enlightened manner of of encouraging the evolution of society.
For the most part liberals and progressives are a rather murderous lot of sociopaths looking to dominate the society that spawned them.

Jim

Kreutz wrote:

arkypete wrote:Wrong century, wrong definition.
Liberal/Progressives took over the term liberal because of the nasty connotaions of socialist/communist.
You are putting the founding fathers of this nation in the same class as Lenin, Hitler, Mao, which I take offense to. Thank you very much.

Jim

The loyalists (defenders of the status quo, by default anti-progressive) were staunchly loyal to the Crown.

Progressive is an adjective meaning "Moving forward; advancing.". They definitely did that by rebelling, so progressive they were.

And yes, they were (overall) definitely liberals in the vein of Locke, Spinoza, Montesquieu and others from the very liberal Age of Enlightenment.

Yes, that is a definition of progressive, but it wasn't in widespread use to define any political movement during that era. That came much later.

In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization...
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... gressivism

In the United States "liberal" means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.
Mises -- Liberalism (1929)

Yes, the founders were liberals, but that term was perverted and no longer means what they believed in. This is a common tactic of such revolutions, latch onto a good meaning word and claim it as your own beliefs. E.g. we do this today with capitalism, but the very things we call capitalistic are antithetical to real capitalism.

Edit: IMHO, it is intellectually dishonest to claim either as we have them today is even remotely similar to what the founders believed.

arkypete wrote:The loyalists (defenders of the status quo, by default anti-progressive) were staunchly loyal to the Crown.

Progressive is an adjective meaning "Moving forward; advancing.". They definitely did that by rebelling, so progressive they were.

And yes, they were (overall) definitely liberals in the vein of Locke, Spinoza, Montesquieu and others from the very liberal Age of Enlightenment.

Have a look at what the liberals have brought to the world since the U.S.'s Revolution. Lets start with the French Revolution and come forward. They have shown an enlightened manner of of encouraging the evolution of society.
For the most part liberals and progressives are a rather murderous lot of sociopaths looking to dominate the society that spawned them.

Jim

Surely you jest, a sociopath would not care about anyone other than themselves. And pray tell who has a liberal murdered for political reasons lately? What would you call the conservatives who murdered the doctors who legally performed abortions, paragons of virtue?

Gat6

(In the United States "liberal" means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.
Mises -- Liberalism (1929))
*******************************************************************************************
Gunderwood: Can you please identify the person who made the above quote?

Gat6

Here we go again defining other Americans as the "other" fellow citizens who are unworthy of even a modicum of decency or respect. We repeat the label, find whatever negative definition we can find or simply make one up with wholly negative connotations. How does that solve anything? No wonder almost half the electorate are not identifying with any political party.

Gat6

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

However, for the rest of the Democrats/Liberals, the overturning of key Brady Bill laws and the Supreme Court ruling on an individual right, I think there is a change occurring in the Democratic demographic. Plus, there are a lot of young people who wish to own firearms and enjoy the sport and shooting, and many are liberal/Democratic.

Here is an interesting piece of history: Liberalism was founded on free-enterprise and competition. Yep, in feudal days the King/Lord owned not only the land, but the means of production and every major trade. So, if you wanted a horse shoed, you were supposed to use the King's blacksmith, and purchase other goods and services from royal-owned stores. Liberalism fought and won for free-enterprise and competition. And, generallly speaking liberals do actually want more personal freedoms, such as marijuana legalization and prostitution regulation, etc.

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.

But getting back to guns: I do think liberals want "reasonable" restrictions on the carrying and use of firearms, but not to the extremes that right wingers claim. Liberals are not "gun haters." Pacifists hate firearms, and while some liberals are pacifists, most are not.

For me, I just enjoy the sport of shooting and the feeling of being empowered to defend myself.

Thanks,
D4G

gatlingun6 wrote:(In the United States "liberal" means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.
Mises -- Liberalism (1929))
*******************************************************************************************
Gunderwood: Can you please identify the person who made the above quote?

Gat6

@gat6

Would you quit trolling long enough to read the post and noticed that you quoted both the person and the work? Mises, as in Ludwig Von Mises in a work entitled Liberalism in 1927 (I typoed 1929) which was originally in German. You can find ISBN numbers here if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_(book)

dems4guns wrote: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.

dems4guns wrote: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.

dems4guns wrote: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.

dems4guns wrote: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.

dems4guns wrote:But getting back to guns: I do think liberals want "reasonable" restrictions on the carrying and use of firearms, but not to the extremes that right wingers claim. Liberals are not "gun haters." Pacifists hate firearms, and while some liberals are pacifists, most are not.

Your thought are contradictory to my experience with most democrats. I'm sure it's true of a few, but not the majority. By and large their definition of "reasonable" has not been met yet, while mine has been greatly exceeded.

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.

gunderwood wrote:

gatlingun6 wrote:(In the United States "liberal" means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.
Mises -- Liberalism (1929))
*******************************************************************************************
Gunderwood: Can you please identify the person who made the above quote?

Gat6

@gat6

Would you quit trolling long enough to read the post and noticed that you quoted both the person and the work? Mises, as in Ludwig Von Mises in a work entitled Liberalism in 1927 (I typoed 1929) which was originally in German. You can find ISBN numbers here if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_(book)

********************************************************************
My bad there Gunderwood, I apologize for missing that. Having said that it seems that what Cowboy T originally said has morphed into something else, which is fine btw.

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.

I can't name any politician who thinks government is omnipotent, or that government is the answer to EVERY problem. If you can, please put up that quote.

It's also a strange argument going back in an attempt to rewrite history. What the framers created was a "Liberal Democratic Republic", that is what we are as a nation.

The same can be said of conservatism: For example; there are social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Christian conservatives, classical conservatives, Neo-conservatives, Paleo-conservatives, Reagan conservatives, compassionate conservatives, evangelical conservatives, tea party conservatives, libertarians, authoritarians, and on and on. I think social scientists identified roughly 20 different types of conservatives.

the fact is today's conservatism is a far cry from the conservative philosophy of Edmund Burke, who modern conservatives attempt to claim as part of their early history.

In my opinion only the most rigid ideologue self identifies themselves in one of these groups. Most of us are some of this and some of that with a sprinkling of something else.

To me these labels are intended to divide and enforce loyalty to a particular point of view. They serve to divide groups that should be natural allies. For that reason I try, not always successfully, to steer clear of labeling others.
Gat6