Talk-Polywell.org

In matters ranging from financial derivatives to education to gun control, the Left believes that we face a choice between a masterful state and a Hobbesian war of all against all. For all of the smart set’s vaunted and self-congratulatory nuance, it is this absolutist vision, this Manichean horror, that forms the foundation of progressivism. This, and not the threat of uncontrollable crime, is really at the hear of the suburban progressives’ abomination of firearms. [...]

To use lethal force in self-defense is the ultimate declaration of independence, a kind of momentary secession from the authority of the government whose laws and prisons and police officers have, in that moment, failed the citizen. To acknowledge the right to self-defense–and the concomitant right to be forearmed against aggressors–is to acknowledge that some things are outside the state and its authority, or at least that some moments are outside the state and its authority."


Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).

I emboldened the bold parts. Cannot find a permalink, but here's a page link.

http://interested-participant.blogspot.com/

Diogenes wrote:

In matters ranging from financial derivatives to education to gun control, the Left believes that we face a choice between a masterful state and a Hobbesian war of all against all. For all of the smart set’s vaunted and self-congratulatory nuance, it is this absolutist vision, this Manichean horror, that forms the foundation of progressivism. This, and not the threat of uncontrollable crime, is really at the hear of the suburban progressives’ abomination of firearms. [...]

To use lethal force in self-defense is the ultimate declaration of independence, a kind of momentary secession from the authority of the government whose laws and prisons and police officers have, in that moment, failed the citizen. To acknowledge the right to self-defense–and the concomitant right to be forearmed against aggressors–is to acknowledge that some things are outside the state and its authority, or at least that some moments are outside the state and its authority."


Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).

I emboldened the bold parts. Cannot find a permalink, but here's a page link.

http://interested-participant.blogspot.com/

There's plenty on the right who hate guns for the same reasons, particularly Chiefs of Police Associations, and the Brady Campaign is founded and run by Republicans. Likewise the NRA aka the National Republican Association aka National Rifle Association has a pretty squalid record on doing deals to compromise individual 2nd and 1st amendment rights in order to perpetuate its own power. Friends of mine attending an NRA convention on county property were arrested for "trespassing on private property" because some NRA executives didn't like them handing out flyers about the Libertarian Party and the Free State Project outside the convention center, in public, on public property.

IntLibber wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

In matters ranging from financial derivatives to education to gun control, the Left believes that we face a choice between a masterful state and a Hobbesian war of all against all. For all of the smart set’s vaunted and self-congratulatory nuance, it is this absolutist vision, this Manichean horror, that forms the foundation of progressivism. This, and not the threat of uncontrollable crime, is really at the hear of the suburban progressives’ abomination of firearms. [...]

To use lethal force in self-defense is the ultimate declaration of independence, a kind of momentary secession from the authority of the government whose laws and prisons and police officers have, in that moment, failed the citizen. To acknowledge the right to self-defense–and the concomitant right to be forearmed against aggressors–is to acknowledge that some things are outside the state and its authority, or at least that some moments are outside the state and its authority."


Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).

I emboldened the bold parts. Cannot find a permalink, but here's a page link.

http://interested-participant.blogspot.com/

There's plenty on the right who hate guns for the same reasons, particularly Chiefs of Police Associations,

Among this splinter group that tends to lean right, you are correct. However, there is a difference between a small group (who believe they are looking out for their own specific interests) and a base. The rightwing base is fully in favor of Private ownership of guns, while the leftwing base is very much against it.

IntLibber wrote: and the Brady Campaign is founded and run by Republicans.

That's not quite fair. James Brady had nothing to do with this until after he was shot in the head and suffered brain damage. This campaign was spearheaded by his wife, Sarah Brady, who is hardly representative of Republicans. (I and others actually protested her when she came to OU back in the 90s. )

I used to quip that the Brady campaign proves you have to have brain damage to support gun Control.

IntLibber wrote: Likewise the NRA aka the National Republican Association aka National Rifle Association has a pretty squalid record on doing deals to compromise individual 2nd and 1st amendment rights in order to perpetuate its own power. Friends of mine attending an NRA convention on county property were arrested for "trespassing on private property" because some NRA executives didn't like them handing out flyers about the Libertarian Party and the Free State Project outside the convention center, in public, on public property.

On this, you may have a point. I have seen evidence that the NRA is willing to make deals that compromise their stated principles, and therefore I am nowadays quite suspicious of their motives and actions. Though I haven't kept up with this issue for years, I have always heard that Gun Owners of America was by far the more steadfast in terms of principles.


Anyway, to reiterate my point, those people who favor statist control of things, oppose individuals EVER being independent of the power of the state, be they the rather uncommon statist minded republicans, or the all too typical Democrat.

I'm a pro gun liberal and I have lots of friends. I do not recognize anti or pro gun dems or libs in any of the OP statements. Even amoung my conspiracy theory friends.
Harry Ried just put in an exemption to stop insurance rate increases for home owners who own guns.

Roger wrote:I'm a pro gun liberal and I have lots of friends. I do not recognize anti or pro gun dems or libs in any of the OP statements. Even amoung my conspiracy theory friends.
Harry Ried just put in an exemption to stop insurance rate increases for home owners who own guns.

To be fair, there is a large constituency in the Democratic party that is Pro Gun. Democrat Senator Frank Shurden is responsible for initiating the law in my state allowing citizens to carry guns legally. A lot of Democrats have always been pro-gun, but most of these were not the main power brokers in the party. A lot of them came from states with large rural populations where gun ownership and usage is a no brainer.
These people hardly count as leftests, and in fact, most of them are probably not even aware of the concept. They often vote traditionally, and for whatever reason they feel like, not in accordance with some ideology.

I've recently read further articles that many Democrats are expressing sighs of relief after the recent Supreme court ruling that the Second Amendment means what it says. Now they no longer have to feel worried about being attacked on this particular issue from either the pro gun side, or the rabid anti gun side. The issue has effectively been taken off the political table.

However, the Historical left, the intellectual left, the socialist leaning left, Academia, Entertainment Media, Limousine LIberals, etc. are still by a huge margin anti gun. But now that they are forced to deal with the latest Supreme court pronouncement, I expect their noises to wane substantially. (at least on this issue.)

I look forward to a time when most Americans can agree on some fundamental rights and principles.

Just for kicks and grins, I found this yesterday.

I like Jews For The Preservation of Firearms ownership.

MSimon wrote:I like Jews For The Preservation of Firearms ownership.

I made a mobile bill board (12' X 8') using their famous Poster campaign back in 1993. We parked it along Highway 7 and Highway 62 (we moved it around) while Clinton was pushing the "Assault" gun ban. (10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.)

This is sort of what it looked like. They don't seem to promote it the way they did back in the 90s.




The sign would get attacked quite a bit. I guess some people who had reading or comprehension problems thought we were promoting Hitler or something. (either that, or they were REALLY against people owning guns!) People tried to set it on fire, but didn't use enough gasoline, people chopped a hole through it with an ax. We just kept fixing it.

Anyway, we included the phone number and address for JFPFO on the sign, and I sent pictures of it to them. I also spoke to the guy running the organization at the time, several times. They were a wonderful resource in my online discussion with others. Their literature was very helpful.

Diogenes,

I convinced JPFO to change their stance on the Drug War. The rationale: the violence caused by an unregulated market is causing violence (see Prohibition, Alcohol) and that violence is being used as a stick against gun owners.

MSimon wrote:. is being used as a stick against gun owners.

I agree. Call it demonizing.

Another area you can never trust Republican politicians on gun control is on CCW reciprocity, i.e. that your CCW license should be as portable from state to state as your drivers license, esp given carrying is a right and driving is only a privilege.

Also, try to talk to them about allowing all law abiding Americans to fly armed, that the only homeland security America needs is the 2nd amendment. They will suddenly get all Big Brother anti-terrorist jack booted thug on you.

MSimon wrote:I like Jews For The Preservation of Firearms ownership.

You like Jews for Anything!

It is a division of labor: for the most part.

In the Progressive Era - around 1900 - Moral Socialism and Economic Socialism combined in one "Party" - the Progressives.

Now we have a division of labor: Democrats (mostly) handle the economic socialism and Republicans (mostly) handle the moral socialism.

It is one of the reasons we have so many politicians of each party supporting the initiatives of the other:

Moral socialists: "A little Economic Socialism can't hurt. Besides it accords with my belief in government power."

Economic socialists: "A little Moral Socialism can't hurt. Besides it accords with my belief in government power."

We are so screwed.

There was a day (around 1900) when Conservatives stood against all socialism. No more.

There used to be bright line tests. i.e. no matter how good the idea - if the Constitution doesn't support it, it was not an allowed Federal activity. Now all we have is a mush of a Congress - log rolling - "I'll support your moral socialism if you support my economic socialism."

KitemanSA wrote:

MSimon wrote:I like Jews For The Preservation of Firearms ownership.

You like Jews for Anything!

Especially for sex. Hey, my mate is Jewish. That reminds me.....

MSimon wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

MSimon wrote:I like Jews For The Preservation of Firearms ownership.

You like Jews for Anything!

Especially for sex. Hey, my mate is Jewish. That reminds me.....

Uh-oh; now we've lost him for 10 minutes!

KitemanSA wrote:

MSimon wrote:

KitemanSA wrote: You like Jews for Anything!

Especially for sex. Hey, my mate is Jewish. That reminds me.....

Uh-oh; now we've lost him for 10 minutes!

I have an excuse. I'm not as young as I once was.