RightWingers Only Interested in Trashing Dems/Liberals

[allingeneral]

Unfortunately, although you may be a liberal who wants to see firearms laws relaxed, the party that you are allied to is completely and totally against you.

Let's say that you, a liberal, happen to become a US senator. You have viewpoints about gun laws that the leadership of the Democratic part will not allow. If you try to buck their system by voting the way you truly feel, you will be black-balled and run out of town.

Anyone who wants to see gun laws "liberalized" is foolish to vote for a democrat (generally speaking).

Harry Reid, Democratic Leader of the Senate is a strong pro-gun advocate:
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs ... Letter.pdf

http://democratsforgunownership.org/

http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/

http://rightdemocrat.blogspot.com/

You are wrong about the FACTS of Democrats who hold traditionally conservative positions. But really, gun liberalization is closer to home that most issues because we like Personal Freedoms. Gun rights gives us more personal freedoms.
Dems4Guns

First - thank you to Jake for looking up the Harry Reid thing. I knew it was a lie, but didn't have a chance to dig it up myself.

Second - I clicked on of the links that you suggested, and then I went to read an article on that site. Here's what I found that almost made me quit reading the article, but I read it all anyway. This was the lead-in:

That's a typically enlightened sentiment that I seldom find on the right: to actually respect a point of view you don't agree with, rather than denigrate it, throw fear bombs at it, use propaganda-like smears and name-calling to defame it. If there's a political energy extant today in our national "dialogue" that's straight out of Nazi Germany, it comes directly from the radical right, not progressives and liberals and people of reasoned thought and open minds.

Propaganda smut throwing is the way the radical right demonizes liberals - in the same way the Aryans demonized the Jews.

Seems like the trashing is a two-way street, my friend... everywhere you go.

[zephyp]

If we wanna highlight how the left loves to get nasty two big examples immediately come to mind...the left constantly berated Bush...called him pretty much everything but a white man....accused him of pretty much everything except abusing his daughter...he left with a wave and a big smile.

The better example that makes me chuckle is Palin. The left froths from their mouth at the mere mention of her name. They have tried to trash her and her family to no avail. My favorite is the recent escapade of digging through all the e-mails released and the NY Slimes enlisting their little minions to help....what did they find...that she is an honest hard working family woman proud of her beliefs and strongly in love with God, country, and family....HA!!!!! I love it. I wish she would jump on the ticket...maybe with Bachman as VP...

What a 16 year stint that would make

Palin/Bachman 2012-2020
Bachman/Palin 2020-2028

[gunderwood]

Once Democrats are in office they are often willing to barter support for gun liberalization with their favorite legislation. That is how it works...and it works both ways.

Exchanging gun liberalization for your favorite socialist program isn't supporting gun rights. If they supported gun rights they would liberalize them without requiring something in exchange.

Even with Obama's medical care, you still have the FREEDOM to choose any doctor you wish to choose....insurance will not pay for it, but nothing is stopping your choice.

Yes, so I have less freedom than I did before. Before Obamacare I could choose my doctor and have insurance pay for it. Here you go creating a new definition to fit your social program...freedom == less choice...or at least state sponsored punishment for choosing other than your masters desired.

You don't know my friends, so please don't prejudge. That is one of the primary points here is that people here generalize that liberals and democrats are all the same, when WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME!....for the last time.

We know what you told us and you told us you support and like the current administration, as well as the previous liberal governors of our state. All of which have not been gun friendly and at best simply struck down progun initiatives.

You are correct that all individuals in a group are not the same. However, the whole point of groups, associations, classifications, etc. is to categorize different things where profound similarities exist. You have spent every political thread defending those liberal policies, including "common sense" gun control. The only deviation from the typical anti-gun liberal stance was you said it took years for you to figure out that gun control doesn't work in the inner cities because of black markets. Other than that you sound like old Nancy.

Also, Democrats in Virginia are supporting guns rights because they want to be in the political middle.

If they actually supported gun rights they wouldn't have killed all those pro-gun bills in the VA Senate the last two years...against the Senate rules I might add. The last session they didn't even bother to show up at the kangaroo board they created. They sent aids with orders to vote no on everything. That's not support, that's contempt.

It's more like some Democrats have learned to avoid being outright contemptuous of gun rights since the middle now supports them. I should note that it took decades of the middle learning about facts to overcome your sides rampant lies, deceptions, demagoguery, and emotionally biased, but logically flawed arguments. Now that they have wised up to your sides nonsense, Dems have to appear to be pro-gun during elections, but avoid or fight every liberalization effort once they are elected.

Edit: Consider this. Can anyone name a single pro-gun bill that was drafted/sponsored by a Democrat for VA or the USA? There may be one, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[gunderwood]

Unfortunately, although you may be a liberal who wants to see firearms laws relaxed, the party that you are allied to is completely and totally against you.

Let's say that you, a liberal, happen to become a US senator. You have viewpoints about gun laws that the leadership of the Democratic part will not allow. If you try to buck their system by voting the way you truly feel, you will be black-balled and run out of town.

Anyone who wants to see gun laws "liberalized" is foolish to vote for a democrat (generally speaking).

Harry Reid, Democratic Leader of the Senate is a strong pro-gun advocate:
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs ... Letter.pdf

http://democratsforgunownership.org/

http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/

http://rightdemocrat.blogspot.com/

You are wrong about the FACTS of Democrats who hold traditionally conservative positions. But really, gun liberalization is closer to home that most issues because we like Personal Freedoms. Gun rights gives us more personal freedoms.
Dems4Guns

As far as Harry goes, there was a big uproar over the NRA playing politics to get him reelected. As Jake notes later in this thread (after your OP, obviously earlier than mine), Harry's record until it looked like he could loose was abismal. Then he courted the NRA and did lots of showy "pro-gun" things in an attempt to win his seat. It was a tit for tat exchange; NRA helps Harry win so they have a bit of pull with him to block radical anti-gun bills. Personally I'm against making deals with the devil on principle, but the NRA leadership wasn't.

Don't go overboard with the "deal with the devil" comment...it's a common colloquialism, I'm not actually calling Harry the devil.

[gunderwood]

@dems4guns - the position you defend is untenable. Essentially the same as telling everybody that they should be happy since the cage is clean and the bars are pure gold. Could be but its still a cage.

Regarding health care - your statement about still being able to choose your own doctor is pitiful. Its not about health care or doctors or cost of medical care....its about the federal government mandating that I as a private citizen must purchase something or pay a penalty....thats a big line they crossed. Whats next?

No different than requiring you have car insurance. In Virginia if you don't get insurance you must pay a $600 uninsured motorist fee.

In most states there are penalties for not holding car insurance.

Other examples too, but that is the most similar.
Dems4Guns

Big big difference sport. One is federal government and the other is state government. Read the Constitution. Congress has enumerated powers which dont include mandating that I buy anything. Please see the 10th Amendment that says powers not specifically granted to congress are granted to the states.

Its a matter of Constitutionality....federal government mandating I buy anything is unconstitutional...state mandating I buy car insurance is not...

+1

States were suppose to have much more power than the Feds. The intent was to let each State be a sort of social experiment when it came to more delicate matters. E.g. what exactly is protected speech?

There is another huge difference. With health insurance it is I who bear the risk or at least did until the Feds stepped in and mandated care for everyone regardless of their ability to pay for the services. Now don't go bonkers. The reality was that most hospitals already took care of those who really needed it. The only people who were turned away were those who were attempting to use the ER as their primary care physician. However, once the Feds mandate care they had to even care for those who are essentially commuting fraud. Of course that also increased the number of people doing it (illegal immigration that the Feds refuse to stop isn't helping either) so that we have reached a point were hospitals are going bankrupt treating little things in the ER for people who game the system. If you know anything of game theory you should realize it was inevitable...I suspect there were conniving politicians who knew that too.

IIRC, VA only requires that you carry a policy to protect against harm you may cause others. Full coverage is not mandated! You can still bear the risk for yourself and your property, but as a matter of practicality (and that's debatable...I'm just explaining the rationalization) the state has decided to mandate that you carry minimal coverage or you pay a fee. As DK pointed out, states have more power than the Feds. They can limit and require more of their citizens than the Feds can. However, that doesn't make it necessarily right and that's a whole separate thread.

The car insurance argument is very childish. Since you're always on about manners and what our parents taught us, didn't your's ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? That's the car/health insurance liberal argument in a nutshell. Look over there! The states are already doing this for cars, so it must be ok for the Feds to do it for health care. Nonsense!

[gunderwood]

There are certainly a few Democrats that are pro gun rights. The NRA supports these Democrats in general elections. The problem comes in the courts. Currently the liberals do not have enough votes in Congress to get anti-gun bills passed, but they do have enough support in the courts to get things done the way they want. We currently have a 5-4 split on the Supreme Court in regards to gun rights. The lower courts even with the Heller decision are trying to limit the 2nd amendment rights as much as possible (well except Puerto Rico). We hope these reverses in the district and appeals courts will make it to the Supreme Court before one of the pro votes retires or dies. The pro gun Democrat Senators have not shown any reluctance to voting for obvious anti-gun nominees in the past, I do not see that changing. At the local level the Democrats in the State Senate have stalled many very good pro-gun bills in the last couple of years. They do not have enough power to kill everything, so some liberation has occurred. Even if the particular senators that are troublesome can not be defeated, due to heavily liberal districts, their buddies in more conservative areas can. If the Republicans retake the Senate these Senators have almost no power left. For that reason I would vote for a republican over a democrat almost always.

The real problem is the stupid rule that allows ANY Senator to block the appointment of ANY person who the President recommends for judgeships or adminstrative positions. That rule needs to go. Then, with Harry Reid in charge, pro-gun judges and appointments would be endorsed.
Dems4Guns

Does not compute!

Dems support liberalization of gun laws (or so you claim), but we have to do away with a rule that lets Dems prevent pro-gun appointments to the court? Why is it the rules fault rather than the Democrats who were elected to office which hate guns? Seems the better solution to me is to get rid of the gun haters, eh?

[gunderwood]

Second - I clicked on of the links that you suggested, and then I went to read an article on that site. Here's what I found that almost made me quit reading the article, but I read it all anyway. This was the lead-in:

That's a typically enlightened sentiment that I seldom find on the right: to actually respect a point of view you don't agree with, rather than denigrate it, throw fear bombs at it, use propaganda-like smears and name-calling to defame it. If there's a political energy extant today in our national "dialogue" that's straight out of Nazi Germany, it comes directly from the radical right, not progressives and liberals and people of reasoned thought and open minds.

Propaganda smut throwing is the way the radical right demonizes liberals - in the same way the Aryans demonized the Jews.

Seems like the trashing is a two-way street, my friend... everywhere you go.

He finally cites a source and chooses to cite an insulating, divisive, unneighborly, and political source. What happened to the great civility that Dems4Guns has been on about in every political thread?

[dems4guns]

No different than requiring you have car insurance. In Virginia if you don't get insurance you must pay a $600 uninsured motorist fee.

In most states there are penalties for not holding car insurance.

Other examples too, but that is the most similar.
Dems4Guns

Big HUGE difference. I only have to buy car insurance if I choose to own a car (and all the is required is a policy to protect others not myself). It is not required of anyone who does not own a car. I am perfectly free to have a bike/use public transportation/walk and not ever pay a cent to the state or to any car insurance policy. This would require anyone 18 and up that fogs a mirror to pay for a service that they may or may not use.

Not a difference. You pay for highways even if you choose not to drive. And, you pay for highways and insurance through the products you purchase to transport the goods you consume. You are a part of the process and the system of insurance anyway you look at it.

I think it would be stupid, but you can refuse medical services for yourself if you are an adult. You don't have to participate.

While there are Constitutional limits on how far government can go, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to be entirely free from government. There is nothing wrong with the Representative government deciding that for the "General Welfare" of the United States, everyone is required to pay into a health insurance plan to cover your medical costs.

We are not separate from the society we live within. That society needs infrastructure and those who are healthy now will need health care when they grow old, and those that are healthy now can get sick. Health and Car insurance programs won't work if they only insure people who are healthy and wreck-less. That is an economic model that doesn't work. We all have an obligation to our fellow citizens and to our families and our communities and supporting mandatory health care is no different.
Dems4Guns

[dems4guns]

You are an incorrigible and ignorant child. May you die on your knees, as you will clearly not fight for anything.

Unnecessary and insulting. Find some decency.

I will fight for gun rights along with you IF you can stop insulting me and the other half of the country. It has to be one step at a time and you need to stop the insults....that will not play in politics.
Dems4Guns

[dems4guns]

.........Also, Democrats in Virginia are supporting guns rights because they want to be in the political middle.
Dems4Guns

If you are on the Right, you are conservative.
If you are on the Left, you are liberal.
If you are in the middle, you are ROAD KILL.

Generalizations obscure our ability to see the INDIVIDUAL as a unique person who holds unique positions on guns and politics and demeanor.

Generalizations also impair our ability to understand the complex relationships that politicians have to manage. The vast majority of politicians are still mostly driven by their constitutencies and not their own personal agendas.

In one sense EVERYONE is in the middle because all us hold at least one position in the middle or on the other side.
Let's stop generalizing and making fun of politics and that allows us to talk about specifics and debate real issues and not generalizations.
Dems4guns

[Chasbo00]

Dems4guns, the Al Gore of Global Whining.

[dems4guns]

Second - I clicked on of the links that you suggested, and then I went to read an article on that site. Here's what I found that almost made me quit reading the article, but I read it all anyway. This was the lead-in:

That's a typically enlightened sentiment that I seldom find on the right: to actually respect a point of view you don't agree with, rather than denigrate it, throw fear bombs at it, use propaganda-like smears and name-calling to defame it. If there's a political energy extant today in our national "dialogue" that's straight out of Nazi Germany, it comes directly from the radical right, not progressives and liberals and people of reasoned thought and open minds.

Propaganda smut throwing is the way the radical right demonizes liberals - in the same way the Aryans demonized the Jews.

Seems like the trashing is a two-way street, my friend... everywhere you go.

Two wrongs do NOT make it right. They are just as wrong as the trashing going on here, and I will tell them so.

I was addressing the argument that I am some kind of loner Democrat that supports gun rights and gun liberalization. I am not alone, that was the point of those links.

I can only speak for myself, and I will continue to ask that we act with decorum and good manners and in a way in a neighborly manner. I did not write anything on those web sites, so I cannot be responsible for what others wrote.

As gun owners, I believe we have an obligation to be MORE POLITE than the rest of the body politic and you should NOT act to incite people just because you have an arsenal to back you up.

Dems4Guns

[dems4guns]

Dems4guns, the Al Gore of Global Whining.

Real intelligent argument, there dude.
Dems4Guns

[gunderwood]

Not a difference. You pay for highways even if you choose not to drive.

No, the highways are suppose to be paid for with the gas tax. If they aren't it's because of corrupt politicians. You can even get farm use fuel which doesn't have that tax because in theory you aren't using the roads. Try again.

And, you pay for highways and insurance through the products you purchase to transport the goods you consume. You are a part of the process and the system of insurance anyway you look at it.

Now you're being purposefully obtuse. You paid for a good or service. The use of the highways is not required for that good or service unless the provider, person or company you purchased the service from, decides it is a competitive advantage for them. You aren't paying for the road, they are because they are using it because they believe that it allows them to compete better than not using it.

Just because I filled up my car yesterday doesn't mean I paid for some Saudi's palace. Sure, some of my money probably eventually got there, but I didn't pay for a palace. I paid for gas and others through their own free use of what's now their property (I paid them remember...it's not mine anymore, I realize that's hard for liberals to understand) the money I possessed at one point in time may or may not have been used to pay for a palace.

By this logic I can claim you support illegal human/drug trafficking as there is a high probability that if you have ever bought anything with cash that those bills were or will be used in illegal activity. Your responsibility and claim only goes as far as the first purchase. Once you trade it away, you no longer own it and others will do with it as they please.

I should note that this is exactly why gun tracing is so stupid and practically has been useless in the reduction of crime.

I think it would be stupid, but you can refuse medical services for yourself if you are an adult. You don't have to participate.

Red herring because you don't have an actual argument. As a side note you can refuse the service, but you can't refuse to pay for the mandated insurance without a fine.

While there are Constitutional limits on how far government can go, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to be entirely free from government. There is nothing wrong with the Representative government deciding that for the "General Welfare" of the United States, everyone is required to pay into a health insurance plan to cover your medical costs.

You make the last sentence sound more reasonable by creating a false bias with a strawman. The government exists to protect the freedom and rights of the people, not to decide or mandate what they must do. It's central to the whole political philosophy that founded this country; it's part of what made America so very different from the old world. You could argue that to violate a central precept of our American ideals is un-American. So yes, there is a problem with government doing that under our Constitution.

We are not separate from the society we live within. That society needs infrastructure and those who are healthy now will need health care when they grow old, and those that are healthy now can get sick. Health and Car insurance programs won't work if they only insure people who are healthy and wreck-less. That is an economic model that doesn't work. We all have an obligation to our fellow citizens and to our families and our communities and supporting mandatory health care is no different.
Dems4Guns

By this logic there is nothing under the sun which can not be decided or mandated by government. You take a general statement that nothing exists without influencing or impact another thing (d@mn trees producing oxygen again and consuming our precious carbon dioxide!) and than make a profound leap of logic to suggest that because of that government can now control literally everything. The government exists to secure the liberties of the people from those who would do harm. Harm is a very different statement than saying we all influence each other simply by living together.

[gunderwood]

Two wrongs do NOT make it right. They are just as wrong as the trashing going on here, and I will tell them so.

Interesting that you avoid my argument, but reference it anyways. Slick.

I was addressing the argument that I am some kind of loner Democrat that supports gun rights and gun liberalization. I am not alone, that was the point of those links.

Yet you repeatedly have argued for more "common sense" gun laws and attacked those who made any argument for the removal of useless restrictions. You even went so far as to attack them with grand hyperbole such as wanting nukes and such. How is that pro-gun in any way?

Then why use them? If you don't agree with them and their rhetoric, why post them as sources? I disagree with Marx and I wouldn't dream of posting him as a source even if he and I agreed on something. Why? Because his ideas were so convoluted, self-contradictory, and devoid of rational thought that even if he happened to make a good argument, I have no use for it at all! Using Marx to make a point of mine would degrade any argument I am making because the authority of the source being cited is very, very poor IMHO. Was it so hard to find a reasonably good source to back up your points? Or was it about being unneighborly and ill-mannered again?

I can only speak for myself, and I will continue to ask that we act with decorum and good manners and in a way in a neighborly manner. I did not write anything on those web sites, so I cannot be responsible for what others wrote.

Which you consistently fail to show by using blatantly false and misleading arguments. When those are pointed out to you, you simply continue the personal attacks and don't address the central argument; I suspect because you can't. IIRC, this is the first thread you have even attempted to make a sound, logical argument. Failed, but at least attempted.

Yes, people are comparing your ideas with those of similar persuasion, but that's after you stated them. They are your ideas, you must defend them. You make an argument for what usually amounts to more government control (aka gun control) and then claim that's liberalization. There have been precious few times you have actually argued for less gun control. For example, you said you would want to allow people to carry in their cars (their personal property) even if they aren't allowed to do so in the building. E.g. like the employer carry law from last session. However, people point out that a bunch of Democrats shot those bills down with absolute contempt and you ignore the argument and continue exposing how pro-gun those very Democrats are and that's why we should support them. It's silly, people see right through it.

As gun owners, I believe we have an obligation to be MORE POLITE than the rest of the body politic and you should NOT act to incite people just because you have an arsenal to back you up.

Ah, the usual liberal psychological projection of violence again. I certainly have never threatened you and I don't recall anyone else doing so either. Tweaker may have come the closest by referencing the "die on your knees" phrase used to associate real government tyranny with the practical results of it. That's not my opinion. Governments have killed far more people worldwide than us mere civilians.

No one here is asking that you back up your claims, your arguments, with your guns. You are the first person to suggest that...which usually means it a projection thing. On the contrary, we want you to back it up with a sound logical argument.

[zephyp]

While there are Constitutional limits on how far government can go, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to be entirely free from government. There is nothing wrong with the Representative government deciding that for the "General Welfare" of the United States, everyone is required to pay into a health insurance plan to cover your medical costs.

Cody -- the purpose of the Constitution is broadly twofold --

1. A set of the rules for the government to abide by - which they rarely seem to do

2. A set of rights for us citizen which the government constantly restricts

Regarding your notion that there is nothing wrong with representative government deciding what the general welfare clause means is a dangerous one indeed for this is the very idea they use to further restrict our rights...gun rights in particular.

Your arguments are baseless and not well thought out. You are an anathema and pose a real conundrum to our collective beliefs.

If you truly and honestly want to retain and enjoy what gun rights and freedoms we currently have I strongly recommend you check your other beliefs and make some serious changes....not trying to insult you just being as honest as I can...

[gunderwood]

While there are Constitutional limits on how far government can go, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to be entirely free from government. There is nothing wrong with the Representative government deciding that for the "General Welfare" of the United States, everyone is required to pay into a health insurance plan to cover your medical costs.

Cody -- the purpose of the Constitution is broadly twofold --

1. A set of the rules for the government to abide by - which they rarely seem to do

2. A set of rights for us citizen which the government constantly restricts

Regarding your notion that there is nothing wrong with representative government deciding what the general welfare clause means is a dangerous one indeed for this is the very idea they use to further restrict our rights...gun rights in particular.

Your arguments are baseless and not well thought out. You are an anathema and pose a real conundrum to our collective beliefs.

If you truly and honestly want to retain and enjoy what gun rights and freedoms we currently have I strongly recommend you check your other beliefs and make some serious changes....not trying to insult you just being as honest as I can...

Today just became a bad day...

[zephyp]

Today just became a bad day...

Why is that?

[Chasbo00]

Dems4guns, the Al Gore of Global Whining.

Real intelligent argument, there dude.
Dems4Guns

It was a complement, not an argument. I thought you would be pleased to be likened to such a notable democrat. How could anyone argue with your infallible logic and political acumen? Any such an effort would surely be bordering on idiotic.

[dems4guns]

If we wanna highlight how the left loves to get nasty two big examples immediately come to mind...the left constantly berated Bush...called him pretty much everything but a white man....accused him of pretty much everything except abusing his daughter...he left with a wave and a big smile.

The better example that makes me chuckle is Palin. The left froths from their mouth at the mere mention of her name. They have tried to trash her and her family to no avail. My favorite is the recent escapade of digging through all the e-mails released and the NY Slimes enlisting their little minions to help....what did they find...that she is an honest hard working family woman proud of her beliefs and strongly in love with God, country, and family....HA!!!!! I love it. I wish she would jump on the ticket...maybe with Bachman as VP...

What a 16 year stint that would make

Palin/Bachman 2012-2020
Bachman/Palin 2020-2028

I will not be criticizing Palin or Bachman and I am praying and hoping they get the nominations. They will be soooooo easy to beat, especially with the crazy record they have already on the books.

Run Palin, Run!, Go Bachman!

Dems4Guns