WHY BE AN ARMED LIBERAL?

The Armed Liberal ^ | Monday, June 03, 2002 | Armed Liberal

[tarawa]

It's amazing that a single person can be this on base, and so far out in left field at the same time....

Know your enemy and all that I suppose....

[tarawa]

ping

[Still Thinking]

WHY BE AN ARMED LIBERAL?

Well, you know, all those hateful white male conservatives, of course.

[Lurking Libertarian]

People who attack me or mine need to be stopped. If the only way I have to effectively stop them is to kill them, so be it. Once I am out of danger, I am happy to consider what it will take to improve education and job opportunities in the central cities, or to talk thoughtfully about helping the Palestinians figure out how to become a nation and a state.

I dunno, I kinda like this guy...

[WIMom]

What? You haven't contributed to Free Republic yet?

Did you know Free Republic is funded solely by us?

Don't wait until it too late! Do you part, contribute if you can,

or bump the fundraising thread.

A Tribute to Freepers - Summer Freepathon! Thread 2

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

[greydog]

I think that this writer has a dual personality disorder and lives in Massachusetts.

[lavaroise]

I am pretty dubious about the apocalyptic fantasies of those who believe that a cadre of deer hunters could stand up against the armed forces of the U.S. or some invading army.

It is hardly a fantasy when we see a government fantasizing about the sinlessness of itself when it justifies shooting down with a F16 airliners, but cannot find pilots too sinful to carry fire arms as a last line of defense in a war.

Admitedly, doomsday people tend to be self righteous, but gees, I wonder what feeds this self righteousness? Could it be the government and liberals are setting an example?

[MissAmericanPie]

I think he is a closet conservative.

[lavaroise]

(typo)I am pretty dubious about the apocalyptic fantasies of those who believe that a cadre of deer hunters could stand up against the armed forces of the U.S. or some invading army.

It is hardly a fantasy when we see a government fantasizing about the sinlessness of itself when it justifies shooting down with a F16 airliners, but CAN find pilots too sinful to carry fire arms as a last line of defense in a war.

Admitedly, doomsday people tend to be self righteous, but gees, I wonder what feeds this self righteousness? Could it be the government and liberals are setting an example?

[Billthedrill]

The only logical inconsistency I can find in this gent's arguments is that the obligation of a government to improve its citizens' lives is generally regarded by liberals as a declaration of its primacy in matters of personal defense as opposed to the individual's, hence the subordination of an individual's rights to self-defense to the collective. Further, that such a right exists only in the form more properly termed a privilege, subject to revocation by the collective if its state agents consider that it is advantageous to the collective to actually replace that right with a "right" to a state-provided defense and only that.

It is the interposition of the state that comstitutes the fundamental difference between liberal and conservative (at least in their modern American definition). And as firearms possession is an individual right this fellow, although well-intentioned, must sooner or later come up against that.

[Warren]

I stopped reading after
"I’m also a liberal"

[Billthedrill]

comstitutes = constitutes. Illiterate...liberal!

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Why would a liberal invoke morality as a reason for doing anything?

[headsonpikes]

"Know your enemy..."

He seems to share the same view of government as many on this site...."I'm also a liberal, who believes that the government has the obligation, not just the right to work to make our society, nation and world a better place."

There are so-called 'conservatives' posting here who have a similar view.

How anyone could see governments as having 'rights', or how anyone could imagine a government making any part of the world a 'better place' is beyond me.

But millions disagree. ;^)

[William Tell]

From the article: "I am pretty dubious about the apocalyptic fantasies of those who believe that a cadre of deer hunters could stand up against the armed forces of the U.S. or some invading army."

Many members of the armed forces, though not all unfortunately, understand that they are not a police force. It would be a mistake to assume that the military could be used effectively to settle domestic disputes. The few times the military has been used, they ended up recognizing that they were in the middle where they didn't belong. The Bonus Army, the guardsmen at Kent State, the military who supplied equipment used at Waco, etc. As the incidents unfold, there are significant numbers of the military who will recognize the evil that has been unleashed and will resist.

US Military know that they are not protected by claiming "I was just following orders". I said on a different thread that F-16 pilots must refuse the duty of responding to a hijacking by shooting down an airliner whose crew has been disarmed by the F-16 pilot's Commander-in-Chief. They must make it clear that it is not their job to kill victims who have disarmed by the government.

[hoosierboy]

I’m also a liberal, who believes that the government has the obligation, not just the right, to work to make our society, nation and world a better place.

What an a$$ , why bother learning to defend yourself, just sit back and let the gubmint take care of you!

[harpseal]

While the author of this piece has found some truth regarding the issue arms what he has yet to discover is the princples of truth contained therin permeate all issues. Clearly it is impossible for a government to protect all members of a society. Thus the greatest good is achieved by limiting the government involvement recognizing the natural right of citizens to keep and bear arms in their own defense. This is the genius of our Constitutional form of government as set down in the US Constitution it allows the people to develop in every way the best society they can. When government tries to do good on its own thelimitations of a rigid hierarchy and organizational administration are so inherently inefficient that the situation that results is usually worse than what would result from citizens left to thier own devices and our Constitutional governece being allowed to function as written.

He has made his forst step on the road to Damascus there are more steps coming.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[Neil E. Wright]

Here's an indexing bump to the *bang_list for 2A issues.

Click on the image to visit the tribute page

---

±

Toward FREEDOM

[RogueIsland]

I’m also a liberal, who believes that the government has the obligation, not just the right, to work to make our society, nation and world a better place.

This typical liberal thinking reminds me of a scene in the latest Star Wars film. Annakin is talking to Padme and when she points out that in a democracy, people will always disagree, Annakin tells her that government should "make them agree". She tells him that that is dictatorship, not democracy, and he replies "Whatever works". That just about sums up liberal thinking. I'm glad this guy gets it on guns, but he doesn't get it on the role of govt. in general.

Oh, and government has no "rights" under the Constitution.

[Destructor]

We should welcome the "armed Liberals" with open arms! We should be kind, patient, and tolerant of these fellow shooters. Afterall, this is America, and freedom of choice is among the many freedoms that we enjoy as Americans! If these people choose to be Liberals, then that is their Right.

The last thing we need to do is to become pushy, and intolerant- like most Liberals! Shooting can be an in-road to Conservatism for these folks. If we Conservatives show ourselves to be good, and decent people of character.