The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Wabatuckian wrote:This is exactly what Conservatives say about Liberals.

I've noticed this.

Wabatuckian wrote:(Disclaimer: I do not believe that the United States was founded by Christians, and neither do the Conservatives I know. Most founders were Deists.)

Nice to hear somebody from what is ostensibly "the right" say this.

Wabatuckian wrote:I do not like being a slave. Neither do the conservatives. As far as I know, the liberals don't like it, either.

The difference I've seen is that conservatives think the only place slavery comes from is the government, and the only place liberals think slavery comes from is big business.

Personally, as an anarchist, I think that the union of government and big business is the greatest single driver pushing our slavery, and it's manipulating Democrats and Republicans to facilitate this process.

Wabatuckian wrote:Conservatives I know are all for alternate energies and are angered by big business (oil, especially) stopping legislation supporting it.

I actually don't see this from conservatives I know. I have a very conservative family, both immediate and extended, and they are all constantly criticizing any sort of alternative energy program. They don't like electric cars, or hybrid cars, or solar panels, or windmills, on and on.

Wabatuckian wrote:The Conservatives I know believe in global warming as a natural process.

The Liberals I know believe in global warming as a man-made process.

I believe that we are still warming up from the last ice age. This is scientifically supported. I also believe we're contributing to it, speeding it up. I do not believe that fossil fuels have as much to do with it as flatulence and just general overpopulation.

Look at it this way. The fossil fuels we've been burning for the last couple hundred years, between coal and oil, represent nearly a hundred million years of carbon trapped in decayed biomass. And we're burning all that trapped carbon over a very short period of time, releasing it back into the environment. That would have to have some kind of effect. Yes, it was warmer in the past. Then all this carbon got trapped. Now we're burning that carbon. There will be a price to pay. Additionally, our current system of food production and distribution relies on the environment staying stable and similar to what it's been for the last couple centuries.

Wabatuckian wrote:I'm not trying to stir the pot. Just another attempt (from a long line of attempts!) to understand a science that seems a bit beyond my abilities.

I appreciate that you're doing this.

Personally, as an anarchist, I think that the union of government and big business is the greatest single driver pushing our slavery, and it's manipulating Democrats and Republicans to facilitate this process.

This!!! Walmart, Government, and China (they're supposed to be our enemies... not the slaves, er, citizens, but the current regime).

I thought everyone knew this. Except the anarchy part. I believe that some government is necessary. However, I'm for States' Rights over the Federal Government.

Why?

If I don't agree with something the Federal Government does, I'm sort of stuck.

If I don't agree with something Indiana does, it's not a huge problem to drive an hour or two down to Indianapolis on the weekend and talk to them about it, or at least protest.

The National Guard can be Federalized in time of national crisis. Also during time of national crisis, the unregulated militia can be drafted.

At such time, I believe the states should come together under the national government, and go back to being sovereign or semi-sovereign after the crisis is over. Negotiations between states should take the place of Federal regulation of trade etc between states. Each state will try to get what's best for its citizens (being more easily controlled by said citizens) and compromises will be reached.

I have a feeling it would work something like the recent reciprocity of handgun carry licenses.

As far as I can tell, none of the existing platforms or pseudo-platforms have anything close to this.

Regarding militias: There's the organized militia in the forms of independent militias and the National Guard. The unorganized militia is all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 to 45. I'd like to see more organized militia out there.

The Swiss undergo training and keep their weapons at home. I'd like to us provide our own weapons as we likely know them better than any WWII or Vietnam-era government-issue anyway. Of a Sunday, they hold target practice after church.

Something like the Appleseed program would teach marksmanship. If I can make rifleman with a bolt action, anybody with a 10/22 shouldn't have any sort of problem!

Artillery and explosives would be kept by highly trained crews of course, but remember the history of the Molotov Cocktail..?

In other words, give us the chance to work things out for ourselves before going about trying to control it via a national government hundreds or thousands of miles away from most of us.

Does any party have these ideals, or anything close?

Regards,

Josh

P.S. Skin color, creed, sexual orientation, etc should have nothing to do with it. My cousin was in the SEALS, and eventually made it to SEAL Team 6. This is one of the real ones, not just a fake claim for status or whatever. Know something else? He is now a she. If I had any reservations about homosexuality up to that point, I no longer do. J.S.

I actually don't see this from conservatives I know. I have a very conservative family, both immediate and extended, and they are all constantly criticizing any sort of alternative energy program. They don't like electric cars, or hybrid cars, or solar panels, or windmills, on and on.

The conservatives I know could be called environmentalists, I.E. They take the passage "be good stewards unto the earth" seriously. So it might come from being overly religious but at least they're looking out for the earth.

My dad's always saying, "the suns right there, why can't we just use that if it's possible?"

Edit: now if I could just get these ultra neo cons and get them to take Ezekiel 16:49 Seriously.

I thought everyone knew this. Except the anarchy part. I believe that some government is necessary. However, I'm for States' Rights over the Federal Government.

This would be lovely. My state could fare much better in a global economy if it wasn't carrying other states with the money its citizens send to the federal government. We could have proper election finance rules. We could make our own laws regarding controlled substances. We could choose not to spend more than we needed to on the military. We could fucking thrive.

Too bad conservatives only invoke the concept of states rights when they want to keep social control of women by forced births as punishment for exerting sexual autonomy. Or they invoke states rights when they want to be sure that those filthy faggots don't dare expect to have a life as equal human beings; that they don't dare to mistake themselves for real people.

You start a movement to diminish the power of the federal government and increase the autonomy of the states, I'll join you in a second. When it isn't just cover for financial and environmental fuckery and a dogwhistle for reducing federal protections of folks who should know their place, I'm in.

Wabatuckian wrote:I thought everyone knew this. Except the anarchy part. I believe that some government is necessary. However, I'm for States' Rights over the Federal Government.

Classical anarchy isn't a destruction of rules, but a destruction of power. It's rule by the people of the people, at the lowest and smallest level possible. In some cases, not even the state, but the local and county level. The more government you have, the more corrupt it can be, and the more business power you have, the more corrupt it can be.

The guy in my avatar picture is Kropotkin, you may be interested to read his book, free on Amazon for the PC Kindle reader: The Conquest Of Bread. It was one of the earliest works on anarcho-syndicalism.

Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery, and state or private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions.

Additionally, anarcho-syndicalists regard the state as a profoundly anti-worker institution. They view the primary purpose of the state as being the defence of private property and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, even when such defence denies its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it. In contrast to other bodies of thought (Marxism–Leninism being a prime example), anarcho-syndicalists deny that there can be any kind of workers' state, or a state which acts in the interests of workers, as opposed to those of the powerful. Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism holds to the idea that power corrupts.

Basically, I'm opposed to people having power over other people.

I like your militia idea, and I think we should go with that and dismantle our standing army, a concept to which many of the Founding Fathers were strongly opposed.

Progurt wrote:

Wabatuckian wrote:I thought everyone knew this. Except the anarchy part. I believe that some government is necessary. However, I'm for States' Rights over the Federal Government.

Classical anarchy isn't a destruction of rules, but a destruction of power. It's rule by the people of the people, at the lowest and smallest level possible. In some cases, not even the state, but the local and county level. The more government you have, the more corrupt it can be, and the more business power you have, the more corrupt it can be.

The guy in my avatar picture is Kropotkin, you may be interested to read his book, free on Amazon for the PC Kindle reader: The Conquest Of Bread. It was one of the earliest works on anarcho-syndicalism.

Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery, and state or private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions.

Additionally, anarcho-syndicalists regard the state as a profoundly anti-worker institution. They view the primary purpose of the state as being the defence of private property and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, even when such defence denies its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it. In contrast to other bodies of thought (Marxism–Leninism being a prime example), anarcho-syndicalists deny that there can be any kind of workers' state, or a state which acts in the interests of workers, as opposed to those of the powerful. Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism holds to the idea that power corrupts.

Basically, I'm opposed to people having power over other people.

I like your militia idea, and I think we should go with that and dismantle our standing army, a concept to which many of the Founding Fathers were strongly opposed.

The Articles of Confederation with it's state militias and a tiny standing army in the frontier forts (plus 11 state navies and the United States Revenue Marine) didn't work worth a shit in a world when it took a couple weeks to get a military force to another continent. We dumped 'em for the current Constitution in 1789.

The more people you have, the more difficult it is to exercise your rights without violating someone else's, so the more rules you need. We had 4,000,000 people then. We're coming up on 311,592,000 or so.

Then the country is too big and needs to be broken up.

If a large country is why we need to have our liberty restricted, we should have small countries. Maybe break the states up into countries with mutual defense agreements and a shared currency.

This country had 13 states all along on coastline when it was formed. Who says we need to have 50?

Progurt wrote:Then the country is too big and needs to be broken up.

If a large country is why we need to have our liberty restricted, we should have small countries. Maybe break the states up into countries with mutual defense agreements and a shared currency.

This country had 13 states all along on coastline when it was formed. Who says we need to have 50?

So which state gets to be Greece? I nominate Illinois for Italy.

eelj wrote:So which state gets to be Greece? I nominate Illinois for Italy.

These ones:

1. South Carolina
2. Mississippi
3. Florida
4. Alabama
5. Georgia
6. Louisiana
7. Texas
8. Virginia
9. Arkansas
10. Tennessee
11. North Carolina

eelj wrote:

Progurt wrote:Then the country is too big and needs to be broken up.

If a large country is why we need to have our liberty restricted, we should have small countries. Maybe break the states up into countries with mutual defense agreements and a shared currency.

This country had 13 states all along on coastline when it was formed. Who says we need to have 50?

So which state gets to be Greece? I nominate Illinois for Italy.

I expect Vermont will be Switzerland. Texas can be Saudi Arabia. Or Turkey, it has plenty of turkeys already.

I seriously think that breaking up the US would be one of the best options going into the future. And it may wind up happening whether we want it to or not. I think the country has gotten too damn big, and will be torn apart by internal pressures if nothing else is done to relieve that tension. It's not perfect, but I think it's a good idea. Think about it, instead of monolithic national political parties, the parties would be of the same size as state parties are now. You as an individual could have a real and genuine say in the political process, and in the laws that apply to you.

Fukshot wrote:

eelj wrote:So which state gets to be Greece? I nominate Illinois for Italy.

These ones:

1. South Carolina
2. Mississippi
3. Florida
4. Alabama
5. Georgia
6. Louisiana
7. Texas
8. Virginia
9. Arkansas
10. Tennessee
11. North Carolina

Texas is still part of the US of A and we're pulling and biting at the leash. Once we get loose its across 8 lanes of traffic straight to the Middle Ages.

Simmer down wrote:

Fukshot wrote:

eelj wrote:So which state gets to be Greece? I nominate Illinois for Italy.

These ones:

1. South Carolina
2. Mississippi
3. Florida
4. Alabama
5. Georgia
6. Louisiana
7. Texas
8. Virginia
9. Arkansas
10. Tennessee
11. North Carolina

Texas is still part of the US of A and we're pulling and biting at the leash. Once we get loose its across 8 lanes of traffic straight to the Middle Ages.

I just listed the original Confederate States, but you're right that I shouldn't have left you out

Paladin wrote:It is also hard for a liberal to answer what is a good idea the government should not do.

Government should keep their noses out of private life.

Fukshot wrote:

eelj wrote:So which state gets to be Greece? I nominate Illinois for Italy.

These ones:

1. South Carolina
2. Mississippi
3. Florida
4. Alabama
5. Georgia
6. Louisiana
7. Texas
8. Virginia
9. Arkansas
10. Tennessee
11. North Carolina

Given all the medical marijuana dispensaries here, and the fact we have not one, but three marijuana legalization laws on the upcoming ballot, I say Colorado should be Amsterdam.

Progurt wrote:Then the country is too big and needs to be broken up.

If a large country is why we need to have our liberty restricted, we should have small countries. Maybe break the states up into countries with mutual defense agreements and a shared currency.

This country had 13 states all along on coastline when it was formed. Who says we need to have 50?

We'll need our guns in Cascadia when SoCal comes for our water.

SwampGrouch wrote: We'll need our guns in Cascadia when SoCal comes for our water.

They'll be out of the game before they get to the water. They'll be done when they come for our weed.

All those basement grows in Vancouver BC...they'll be part of Cascadia too!

just sayin

DEATH TO CEASARS LEGION!!!!!!!!

SwampGrouch wrote:

KVoimakas wrote:My wife had never been out shooting before me.

Mine swore there'd never be a gun in a house she lived in. Then she married a cop.

,my wife told me I had to make room for hers when we moved in together,but she was a country born and bred farm girl .
as far as falling left or right I came to this board as a "conservative" but I quickly realized that I wasn't as far to right as I thought but I am not all the way to the left either,I think corporate and political greed has ruined our country and the talking heads in govt have created a constant shitstorm to keep us "peasants" in our place.
I think the gov should let us live our lives with as little interference as possible,we pay our taxes and I'm fine with that but I don't understand tax returns when our budget is in the shitter,the gov should keep it.
I blieve in social issues like a liberal though,although I admit I am not as sharp on womens rights as I should be,it's not that I am not sensitve to the issue,just uneducated.
I pretty much like evryone here and am learning or relearning things from the members here as much as I can.
I have an open mind and do not argue or flame very much if at all,yes most of us here have varied views on various things but I think we all know the direction the government id going is not the right one,agreeing on the fix is another thing though,,
whew!,long post for me,hope I didn't bore anyone to bad

Stepping into the conversation late, I'd like to add my two cents on States Rights. My Great, Great, Grandfather held God's children in bondage and had an overseer motivate them through pain and suffering to provide his family with a profit while they sat upon a veranda and drank some lemonade. When the heathen Yankee abolitionists were gathering forces to reverse this exercise of States Rights, my ancestor and his buddies started a war that killed three quarters of a million people to preserve this God given States Right. Thank God, they lost. That did not stop them. They put on white sheets and started killing the coloreds and the Yankee sympathizers for States Rights. Most of that killing stopped in the late sixties but it still goes on. A few young men just having a good time dragged a black man behind their truck on a gravel road in Texas untill he was jelly. That was in the 1990s. Some folks in Wyoming or one of the neighboring states crucified a gay man on a barbed wire fence back in the nineties while a preacher man shouted "God Hates Fags" at their trial. I have seen very little good come from States Rights. Usually folks want to exercise States Rights when they don't like the behavioral restrictions placed on them by the Federal Government.

Here are a few things that might help you understand liberals a little better.

Most liberals:
1. Believe that the sole purpose of the military is self defense and not diplomacy by force.
2. Believe that in the eyes of the law, "All People are Created Equal" regardless of whether we like them/understand them/or not.
3. Believe that the government is a tool that can be used to help better provide for the people. This means health care, social security, and a safety net.
4. Believe that we are all going to die and this wonderful planet is not the sole property of the present. It is the property of all people of all time and we are caretakers for the future. We are the caretakers for now and we will pass on this responsibility when we pass on. Therefore we believe in the conservation/preservation of resources.
5. Believe in the rights of people and the best definition and protection of these rights is the Bill of Rights. It isn't perfect but we believe it is the best accomplishment of history. It probably won't be perfect until people decide not to hate their neighbor or desire to dominate them.
6. Believe in Mercy.

There is a lot of difference between the individual thought and philosophy of liberals but I think these are six things that most liberals can agree upon. If you study these things you will find we are a far cry from most conservatives.

punkinlobber wrote:everything that needed to be said

Thank you, sir.

Fukshot wrote:

eelj wrote:So which state gets to be Greece? I nominate Illinois for Italy.

These ones:

1. South Carolina
2. Mississippi
3. Florida
4. Alabama
5. Georgia
6. Louisiana
7. Texas
8. Virginia
9. Arkansas
10. Tennessee
11. North Carolina

IMO these states should secede any fucking way. And any stupid ass tea bagging redneck who lives in the rest of the Union, can move the fuck out, to one of those states. I wouldn't miss any one of them one bit.

Certainly, Minnesota would be Norway.

DenistheMenace wrote:IMO these states should secede any fucking way. And any stupid ass tea bagging redneck who lives in the rest of the Union, can move the fuck out, to one of those states. I wouldn't miss any one of them one bit.

They tried once. That's where the list came from.