Why a gun

[gunny]

From another forum.


Why The Gun In Civilization?
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[grifscoots]

And plinking is very stress relieving.

[javandyke]

Excellent! If only more people understood this.

[info]

Agree. I just wish I could find a more comfortable way to carry.
Most of the time, except for travel, I leave it home.

[hallzee]

Gunny, you've obviously never tried a good, solid, village group hug. :)

My parents are both in their late seventies - niether are ever going to be the 'victim' of a home invasion. Mom was once the California Women's Sharpshooting Champion; Pop still has a CW permit, and usually carries a little 'heat' with him. Anyone ever forces their way into their house, they're getting their a$$ blown off.

[Bobnoxous]

From another forum.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

The gun is a great equalizer. Before gunpowder, medieval overlords ruled the kingdom. Anyone who wasn't born into money and/or power was a peasant. The disparity between the haves and have nots was huge. After gunpowder, a peasant with a few days training could kill an armored night who had been training for years. No longer was force exclusively controlled by the government and its deep pockets, or rogue bands of thieves (sometimes, there's really not much difference). People had to be dealt with in a more fair way.

People need to think more about the principle behind their decisions, instead of just trying to do something "here and now", without regard to the future.

[rixchard]

As a lover of gun restrictions I find that argument.....interesting.

[Lonewuff]

Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

Thanks Gunny!!!

[zippy_gg]

As a lover of gun restrictions I find that argument.....interesting.How can you restrict a gun???:confused: :rolleyes:

[Lonewuff]

How can you restrict a gun???:confused: :rolleyes:

Vote Liberal :eek:

[humplatch]

Great argument. I also find that I am far more likely to avoid a confrontation when I am carrying a weapon. I know I can't be confrontational or antagonistic because I do hold the trump card...and having to play it is something I want to avoid at all costs (well, almost all costs).

[KMC1]

This shirt says it all!


http://www.cafepress.com/buy/ted+kennedy/-/pv_design_prod/pg_2/p_storeid.45761737/pNo_45761737/id_10840349/opt_/fpt_/c_360/

[rixchard]

.....but flawed. the argument assume there will be no escalation in fire power. Yes you have your pistol, but I have an uzi, or a snipers rifle or a morter. It also assume that the gun itself is the equalizer, when in fact it is a persons skill with the gun that would be the equalizer.

to parapharse: guns don't protect people, people protect people

The unsaid statement here is that an armed society is a polite socity. I think Gaza, the west bank, and other places where armed folks walk the street s with immpunity would falsify that statement

[petepeterson]

Jeeeez :cool: :cool:
You got a hand gun I got an uzi............ You have no clue do you?????
Your " Guns don't protect people,, People protect people" is stupid!!!! You meet me on the street at night after supper with your wife,,,"" I break your nose, then break your leg then beat your wife and strangle her and you will do your best to talk me out of it?????????????? STUPID The stub nose 357 that you can carry legally would have saved your wife's life,,,,, but nooooooo You atre going to be civil about it and expect me to discuss my actions with you............STUPID............
Try,,,Really try to remember " god created man,,, Colt made them equal"........................Pete

[grifscoots]

The unsaid statement here is that an armed society is a polite socity. I think Gaza, the west bank, and other places where armed folks walk the street s with immpunity would falsify that statementMan, I have to disagree here. Them folks have been killing each other for centuries. Give them rocks and sticks and they will face off and have it. Also, they're tribal and think different than we do.

My momma didn't raise a victim and I don't believe there is a verbal argument in the world that can ever talk me out of giving up my guns. That, "pried from my cold, dead fingers" applies here.

Come talk to me after you lose a loved one because a gun wasn't handy. My wife carries today because of that circumstance.

[RaffyK]

Check your PM Griff for pictures of my collection.

[Bobnoxous]

You got a hand gun I got an uzi............ You have no clue do you????? Your " Guns don't protect people,, People protect people" is stupid!!!! Pete, I agree with your views, but you don't accomplish anything by attacking people and not ideas. Shutting down discourse is best used when a position cannot be justified. Not the case here.

As for the Gaza example, the assumption is that I see violence, I see guns, guns cause violence. How about, I see an ambulance, I see an accident victim, ambulances cause accidents. Of course this is silly, but you get the idea of cause and affect. People in Gaza aren't violent because they have guns, they have guns because there's violence.

As for why Gaza is violent, there are a lot of reasons. People waring over the same land, some backed by the Israeli government, some back by Hamas. People forcibly having their homes taken, or their families beaten, or the friends killed in a bombing, cultural hatred. Warring on both sides. This happened before gunpowder too.

Take away all the guns, all the knives, all the rocks and sticks. Oppress a people so completely that they can do nothing but shut-up and hope to survive, and you still have violence; the repressed kind, the kind that happens when a thief demands your money and you give it to him to avoid a violent repercussion. That's called slavery. It's violent.

Ah, but there are no guns.

[rixchard]

I see you are very familiar with the word stupid. Are you familiar with the phrase civilised discourse" ?

[meese]

Is it time for another gun thread already? I didn't see it in the recurring threads calendar. Sigh.

Let's see how long this one can remain civilized, or have we passed that point already?

[Zotter]

Nope, don't think it's crossed over - was headed that way, but got re-railed.

One other 'minor' difference between someplace like Gaza and the US:
"Over there", most are looking to get someone.
Over here, I'm looking to prevent someone getting me!

Basic difference between aggression and defense. In a perfect world, I could count on civil authority to do that for me - but since they can't. I take responsibility to fill in the void.

Much easier paradigm to grasp when an individual's motivation is the perceived difference. Not the tools at hand.

[danbrown]

congratulations! gunny you sure know how to stir up the pot. i love it.

[doug816]

Thanks sooo much for that disortation. I too carry a gun, legally, because I just don't want to be bothered with. The other reason is that I would like to think that wherever I am, everyone around me is more safe, weather they like it or not, because I will put my life on the line for me and mine, and those around me.

[SilverBuffalo]

I see you are very familiar with the word stupid. Are you familiar with the phrase civilised discourse" ?
I clearly remember the thread where you did all the name calling,
so what's changed? Or have you become civilised since then?

[meese]

May I offer a humble suggestion? How about we take a hint from the FJR Forum and create an NEPRT forum? That way, all the Never-Ending Pointless Recurring Threads will have a safe and happy home. We can include guns, tires, oil, politics, religion, off-color jokes, and pretty much anything else that gets hashed out over and over again, with no real consensus reached. Sure would save a lot of time, and those folks who tend to get worked up over and over again can simply choose to ignore that forum. Or they can just post a link to the exact same post that was made 2 days, 2 weeks, or 2 years ago and save themselves a lot of typing and possible carpal tunnel. It's a win-win for everyone. :)

[midwilshire]

May I offer a humble suggestion? How about we take a hint from the FJR Forum and create an NEPRT forum? That way, all the Never-Ending Pointless Recurring Threads will have a safe and happy home ... It's a win-win for everyone. :)
I suspect that you're suggestion is not so "humble." Your complaints about repetitive topics are becoming... well... repetitive. If folks want to talk about guns or bibles or Hilary, why not just quietly click on the next thread. That's truly a "win-win for everyone."

[Texas42]

Vote Liberal :eek:

As a Liberal that believes in individual rights, I have and CHL and carry. More Liverals should, we have to be able to defend ourselves as well. :)

[Lonewuff]

As a Liberal that believes in individual rights, I have and CHL and carry. More Liverals should, we have to be able to defend ourselves as well. :)

Here here!!! ;)

You ready to run for public office? :rolleyes:

[KMC1]

As a Liberal that believes in individual rights, I have and CHL and carry. More Liverals should, we have to be able to defend ourselves as well. :)

It's an interesting point being made here I feel, in that the moniker "liberal" really doesn't apply if you are a gun rights advocate. The two don't go together, nor do individual rights as opposed to socialism or even marxism being the hallmarks of the liberal agendas.
I myself have some very conservative views, but there are issues where I break from the traditional conservative.
In short, I think the whole "red state / blue state" thing is a way for the mainstream media to package "news" into a soundbite so people will bother to read it, just like the "latino vote, black vote, white vote" etc nonsense, as if all latinos, blacks and whites are the same and all think alike.
I don't think the majority really fit neatly into any of the categories, except maybe independent.

[Bobnoxous]

I don't think the majority really fit neatly into any of the categories, except maybe independent.I agree. I think the majority are not represented well by either party. And since our political system has essentially locked in those two parties, many don't vote. It's hard to get excited about choosing the lesser of two evils, and in my opinion, both of the major parties are truly evil.

[Texas42]

I don't think many Liberals in the US would believe that socialism or marxism are part of their agenda. Just as I don't think that most Conservatives believe that fascism or monarchy are part of their agenda.

[petepeterson]

Well,,, Stupid isn't a word I use very often.... I relate stupid and ignorant together,,, you know ignorant is temporary, you can always be taught the right way,, but stupid is forever..... Plus I felt stupid was more politically correct instead of using,,,,idiot.......

And no I haven't a clue as to what civilized discourse is........ Is that how people dress in big cities or something?????

You need to refresh yourself on the amendments to our Constitution,,,,The 1st thing our founding fathers did was to make sure everyone knew about their freedom of speech........
THEN they realized that the 1st amendment would never stand the test of time so they wrote the 2nd amendment to GUARANTY that the 1st amendment would not fall.......And they invented the Marine Corps so people like me can proudly serve to protect your right to say any stupid thing you want... To me my 20 years was time well spent,,,, after all nobodies closed this thread yet even thou Mr. LET ME REPEAT MYSELF Meese would like it to be.....................Regards To All Pete

Well Bobnoxous, Note being overly educated I really try to type my words as if we were all standing together in a conversation,,,The words I type here are what you would hear.... The only thing here that doesn't show up is tone.... Which for me is always cordial with as much humor inserted as possible....

[KMC1]

I don't think many Liberals in the US would believe that socialism or marxism are part of their agenda. Just as I don't think that most Conservatives believe that fascism or monarchy are part of their agenda.

I disagree for the simple reason that the wellfare state as well as the nanny state are two of the main results of the far left movement over the last 50 years. And as for conservatives wanting fascism or monarchy, that's as derisive as you can get, especially since conservatives are the reason that there is no fascism in Europe. If it were left to the left leaners, we would have stayed out of WWII until we were alone in the world against fascism.

Conservatives don't want fascism, which is why most are against the wellfare and nanny states, the exact opposite of your example.

[Bobnoxous]

... since conservatives are the reason that there is no fascism in Europe. If it were left to the left leaners, we would have stayed out of WWII until we were alone in the world against fascism.Clearly you got your history education in a government run school. At the time of WWII, the US president was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a democrat. He desperately wanted to enter WWII and had to work hard to convince the American public to support it (which is probably why he pulled the Pacific fleet out of the southern Pacific, but that leads to a whole other discussion). If you believe WWII was a just war, thank the democrats.

Historically, democrats have been the war mongers. In the past, republicans were actually fiscally conservative. It's good to see that the current republican party has adopted a lot of the left's agenda, and vice versa. Just refer to either party as republicrats (or demicans?).

But, we've moved way beyond gun control. These threads sure are fun.

[KMC1]

Clearly you got your history education in a government run school. These threads sure are fun.

And clearly it's just not possible for there to be discussions without resorting to personal insults/attacks on our "refined" BMW board.

I think you have to read more closely, you are equating democrats during WWII with liberals, which as you later go on to contradict, is not actually the case. democrats today are more usually equated with being liberals. At the time of WWII and prior, the United States was a very industrialized country, but was primarily a farming society. And the general consensous was to stay out of the war as it didn't concern us. Now if you think about those two things, a democratic war-hawk and a farming seperatist movement, and then read what I wrote, which is the effects of liberalism over the last 50 years, you will start to see that roles and contexts have changed since WWII which means you can't use current contexts to compare WWII era monikers.

[cfell]

Gunz iz funz!

We all know or have know "scofflaw" people... such as the Klintons... there are many other fine examples of humanity... Snoop Dog, Paris, Michael Moore, Mayor of New Orleans, Hanibal, Jason (Halloween movie star) etc....

Now, how many of them do you think walk around armed and dangerous? Answer carefully...

Interesting that "the people" are the only ones "targeted" as incapable of doing anything correctly....

.... that can mean only ONE thing... the Gov. IS afraid of us....

Good.

[meese]

I agree. I think the majority are not represented well by either party. And since our political system has essentially locked in those two parties, many don't vote. It's hard to get excited about choosing the lesser of two evils, and in my opinion, both of the major parties are truly evil.Now that's easily the most truthful thing that's been said here.

[KMC1]

Here's a good reason to carry as well:
http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=124291#videoid=124291

I hope it was worth the 25 bucks or whatever Subway keeps in the cash register. :rolleyes:

[Bobnoxous]

conservatives are the reason that there is no fascism in Europe.And clearly it's just not possible for there to be discussions without resorting to personal insults/attacks on our "refined" BMW board.
My apologies, Kevin. I wasn't attacking you per se; I just took the opportunity to take a poke at the socialized school system, which seems much better at indoctrinating people with statist propaganda than actually teaching things like history. The school my kids go to is really only interested in attendance and not flunking, so they can get money. They don't really teach much, and the testing has gotten so lax you will likely pass by just showing up.

In my defense, I'm a victim of public schools too, which is why I enjoy history now. It's amazing all the things I didn't learn and how slanted the presentation was of what I was taught.

Besides, Pete went to war to protect my uncivilized discourse. I do agree with you Pete that we have the right to say whatever we want, in that the government shouldn't interfere. But, it's perfectly okay for others on this board to chastise us, or the owner of the board to ban us (it's their property, not ours). Free speech goes in all directions.

That said, the constitution did not create the marine core. I believe the relevant sections are:
From article 1, section 8: Conressional powers
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use sall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;
A navy is provided for, but not a standing army for more than 2 years outside of war. Or maybe it just means the budget has to be approved every two years. I've heard both arguments. The founders just weren't real clear on a lot of things (like the 2nd amendment, that started this thread). But in any case, the constitution certainly does not require a standing army, but is required to provide for a navy.

The worldwide conflicts we're embroiled in have more to do with our foreign policy than everyone "just hating us" for some strange reason. If we didn't have a foreign policy, most of our problems would go away. What's left, an armed citizenry could take care of. That's what the framers intended. We're not supposed to be meddling in the rest of the world's affairs.

I think you have to read more closely, you are equating democrats during WWII with liberals, which as you later go on to contradict, is not actually the case. democrats today are more usually equated with being liberals. At the time of WWII and prior, the United States was a very industrialized country, but was primarily a farming society. And the general consensous was to stay out of the war as it didn't concern us. Now if you think about those two things, a democratic war-hawk and a farming seperatist movement, and then read what I wrote, which is the effects of liberalism over the last 50 years, you will start to see that roles and contexts have changed since WWII which means you can't use current contexts to compare WWII era monikers.
Valid points. Even the party names have changed over time. As Churchill said, history is "just one damn thing after another". Funny, but poignant. You cannot take a piece out of history and understand it. You have to know the context: what led up to WWII, why did people feel that way, what were people's fears, and why. It seems that it's impossible to really understand history because you have to know everything, from the beginning of time, to understand how we got to the present. Frustrating, but enlightening.

One thing I've come to understand. There's no such thing as "things just happen". Everything has a cause, a history, and enabler of some kind. Hitler could only come to power under the right circumstances. What were they, and who created them (hint: treaty of Versailles was the main enabler)? 9/11 didn't just happen. It was in response to something. Nothing ever just happens, no matter how much Bush tries to say it does. "They hate liberty". Total BS. They hate us. Why? There is a reason.

Our continued violence in foreign lands make us less safe here. There will be another attack someday. I hope my government allows me to carry a weapon to defend myself, and possibly my country, if I'm in the vicinity where the next attack occurs. But, the government is more afraid of their citizenry than the terrorists. Hmm.

[KMC1]

Wow Bob, I think I just found my soul mate in you! :D
I pretty much agree with everything you just stated, and I really appreciate you making the effort to be civil, I really enjoy civil debate as it's such a great learning tool. Noone knows everything, and as you, I've gained an appreciation of learning over time, for instance I would just have loved to see someone get me interested in learning about particle physics in High School... LMAO! Now however, I read at least one article per month on the subject.
I love to learn about History as well, and the Churchill quote is pure gold! I think I may just have to get something made for my wall with that on it!
Anyway, enough blathering about me, me, me... Great post and keep em coming!

[BCDon]

Geee, I never knew that when a mugger came after you he won't do anything as you reach for your gun. Guess they say "oh you have a gun, I can see you reach for it, OK I won't do anything" BULLSHIT!

A mugger stops you, you go for your "gun" and you're dead (assuming the scum can hit you). Or do you walk around with your gun drawn all the time.

Car Jacking, same thing. You are minding your own business listening to music and suddenly there is a gun at your temple. Do you get out or try to reach for your firearm whereever it is and get blown away?

Now, that's one on one. Someone coming into a crowded store and drawing a gun well yes, with others carrying he / she can quickly find themselves outgunned.

So, having an armed population can only be a deterrant when they don't get the drop on you.


Second major point is the first article is wrong, there are THREE ways. Violence and Force for 1, argument and convincing as another and altruism as the third. Yes, there are some folks who will do things for other without being forced into it. Oh and force does NOT always work. How many POWs gave ONLY name rank and serial number - you disgrace them when you state that FORCE will make them do what they don't want to.

Having said all that I'd still like to purchase a firearm when I cross the boarder.

[gunny]

Geee, I never knew that when a mugger came after you he won't do anything as you reach for your gun. Guess they say "oh you have a gun, I can see you reach for it, OK I won't do anything" BULLSHIT!

A mugger stops you, you go for your "gun" and you're dead (assuming the scum can hit you). Or do you walk around with your gun drawn all the time.

Car Jacking, same thing. You are minding your own business listening to music and suddenly there is a gun at your temple. Do you get out or try to reach for your firearm whereever it is and get blown away?

Now, that's one on one. Someone coming into a crowded store and drawing a gun well yes, with others carrying he / she can quickly find themselves outgunned.

So, having an armed population can only be a deterrant when they don't get the drop on you.


Second major point is the first article is wrong, there are THREE ways. Violence and Force for 1, argument and convincing as another and altruism as the third. Yes, there are some folks who will do things for other without being forced into it. Oh and force does NOT always work. How many POWs gave ONLY name rank and serial number - you disgrace them when you state that FORCE will make them do what they don't want to.

Having said all that I'd still like to purchase a firearm when I cross the boarder.

You ain't got a clue do you?

[Bobnoxous]

So, having an armed population can only be a deterrant when they don't get the drop on you.I don't know if you're trying to say guns should be restricted or not. In any case, certainly someone "getting the drop on you" lessens the likelihood you can defend yourself, but so what? Don't I have the right to decide if I'm willing to take that chance? To take that away from me by some law is to use force against me (all laws are, in essence, force) for my own good. Who are you to decide what is good for me, and threaten force against me if I don't do what you say?

Nevertheless, if I'm a car jacker, and 10% of the population is packing, I know the likelihood of me getting shot is more likely than if guns are banned. Things can go wrong even if I "get the drop". It does increase the cost of crime, so it will happen less.

BTW, thanks for the kind words Kevin. I figure I must bore many with my diatribes. They do take some time to sort out, and I'm glad some people enjoy them, even if they don't agree.

[brianbeemer]

Would someone please explain to me exactly why Americans in particular seem to be obsessed with not being classified as 'liberal'? The definition of liberal is below (from the Internet, dictionary) and I can't quite understand why anyone would reject these definitions - as it seems to me that my experience of 'American-ness' is totally liberal in outlook and expression - and to me that, and these definitions, are all positive, imo. :confused: :confused: :confused:

liberal

adjective

1. Not narrow or conservative in thought, expression, or conduct: broad, broad-minded, open-minded, progressive, tolerant. See attitude/good attitude/bad attitude/neutral attitude, wide/narrow.
2. Favoring civil liberties and social progress: liberalistic, progressive. See politics.
3. Characterized by bounteous giving: free, freehanded, generous, handsome, lavish, munificent, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting. See give/take/reciprocity.

noun

A person with liberal political opinions: liberalist, progressive. See politics.

[KMC1]

Have you ever heard the adage (OLD adage I might add) that you can't always believe what you read??
Point 1) Liberals are NOT open minded OR tolerant, they are liers of the worst kind, showering flowery adjectives over their viewpoints, while painting any opposing viewpoints as being "ignorant, racist, bigoted". Funny how liberism and a superiority complex always go together, yet liberals consistantly shout down those with opposing views with screams of "nazi" or "supremacist". I guess it is always easier to launch an intellectually lazy ad-hominem attack upon your opponent rather than foster real, constructive debate. Of course it helps that liberals always cast themselves as holding the moral and intellectual high-ground concurrent to those same attacks. Reminds one of how soldiers can emotionally detach themselves from the killing they're doing, by reducing their opponent to a thing instead of a human. There's a certain irony there.

Point 2) The United States Of America is a Democracy, and a Capitalist one at that. Liberalism is by definition diametrically opposed to this structure, in that it is promoting Socialism, or a little further to the Left, Marxism. You can say you are a Liberal if you want to coddle people in a wellfare statehood, which of course makes people even MORE dependent on the Government (you) which of course means BIG Government. (And being from the U.K. I will make the assumption that you know the circumstances of the founding of this country - think Highland Clearances, Potato Famine, taxation without representation and so-on) This means that as a result of our legacy, the MAJORITY of Americans are against Big Government. It also truly depends on your definition of "progress", in what respect? In respect to natural resources? Population control? Civil Rights? By and large both groups (all people for that matter) have shared common interests in all of these, where Liberals diverge and where you can see the most damaging evidence of Liberalism, is in the Political Correctness Movement. Again, being from the U.K. and I would assume a first hand witness to the emasculation of society, you would clearly understand why it is important to not forget that first and foremost, we all need to be personally responsible for our actions, and not expect the Government to regulate out every thought, or our every action. Liberals say they are fighting to "celebrate" our cultural differences, when in fact, they are moving us all in the direction of becoming a monolithic society where our most private thoughts and feelings are being legislated away from us.
Point 3) Liberals are people, and people as a group DO NOT fit into this characterization. As individuals, yes, but not as a group. point 3 is the definition of "liberal", not "a liberal" or "what is a liberal".

HTH

[grifscoots]

Would someone please explain to me exactly why Americans in particular seem to be obsessed with not being classified as 'liberal'? Think "Hilary Clinton" for awhile.

[Bobnoxous]

I have friends who love to be called liberals. I really think they're socialists, but that's my opinion.

The meaning of the word has changed over time. As a term starts to gain traction, everyone lays claim to it. A few years ago, some kid in a high school somewhere threatened another kid. Was he charged with assault? No. To 1990s. It was a "terrorist threat". This sells much better, and you can get homeland stupidity involved. Lots of power in that word. Guarantees more taxpayer funds.

Likewise, when being liberal was a good thing, the democratic party started calling themselves liberals. They weren't really, at least not in all facets, but it was a sellable term.

Hence, truly liberal minded people had to come up with a new term, or be confused with democrats. The term Libertarian was invented. Alas, that too is now becoming popular and is being co-opted by various, non-libertarian groups. It's the price of success.

English is a living language. You cannot stop people from using words anyway they see fit.

[tkramer]

Would someone please explain to me exactly why Americans in particular seem to be obsessed with not being classified as 'liberal'? The definition of liberal is below (from the Internet, dictionary) and I can't quite understand why anyone would reject these definitions - as it seems to me that my experience of 'American-ness' is totally liberal in outlook and expression - and to me that, and these definitions, are all positive, imo. :confused: :confused: :confused:

liberal

adjective

1. Not narrow or conservative in thought, expression, or conduct: broad, broad-minded, open-minded, progressive, tolerant. See attitude/good attitude/bad attitude/neutral attitude, wide/narrow.
2. Favoring civil liberties and social progress: liberalistic, progressive. See politics.
3. Characterized by bounteous giving: free, freehanded, generous, handsome, lavish, munificent, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting. See give/take/reciprocity.

noun

A person with liberal political opinions: liberalist, progressive. See politics.

Dang Brian! Looks like you got ye one a them thar English dictionaries. What you need is an American dictionary.

You see, we U.S. Americans (as opposed to Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc. who could also technically call themselves "Americans") are a simple lot. Public discourse is not very sophisticated here. So, in order to get a point across without taking up too much of our time watching "reality TV", even the most complex of concepts and political ideas must be distilled into bite-sized, easily digestible verbal nuggets: "liberal", "conservative", "racist", "right-wing", "culture of life", "cut and run", "the war on [insert naughty behavior of choice here]". We particularly love imbuing words with more meaning than they really have. Especially if we can do so smugly without letting the hearer/reader in on what exactly what those additional meanings might be.

Being cut off from the mother country of our language, we've allowed it to degenerate as we're not particularly proud to be English speakers, (just proud to not be French speakers ;) ). The English, on the other hand, love their language and are very particular about the meaning of their words, even slang. Your puzzlement at our use and abuse of words is no surprise.

No doubt your politicians use double-speak. But, we're more apt to perfect the skill since the general populace is less inclined to know what the real meaning of a word is in the first place.

[brianbeemer]

Think "Hilary Clinton" for awhile.
So, Hilary is:
1. Not narrow or conservative in thought, expression, or conduct: broad, broad-minded, open-minded, progressive, tolerant. See attitude/good attitude/bad attitude/neutral attitude, wide/narrow.
2. Favoring civil liberties and social progress: liberalistic, progressive. See politics.
3. Characterized by bounteous giving: free, freehanded, generous, handsome, lavish, munificent, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting. See give/take/reciprocity.

Sounds like a pretty nice lady to me. :)

KMC1 - Calm down! You missed my point completely and appear to be "shouting down my question with screams....". I took the definition from an American dictionary so I guess I shouldn't assume that it is correct? The OED is similar but adds to the US definition with such words as 'munificence, freedom from prejudice' and so on. Why is that bad??? Incidentally, the cause of most of the problems in your Point 2 was capitalism......

Bob - have you noticed my tongue sticking through my cheek yet? I agree it's a living language, but it is confusing to be separated by a common language at times! I think the noun 'Shit-stirrer' is the same both sides of the pond?

Incidentally, being Liberal in the UK at least is being to the right of socialists but not quite as far to the right as the conservatives, so they occupy the middle ground...

[KMC1]

KMC1 - Calm down! You missed my point completely and appear to be "shouting down my question with screams....". I took the definition from an American dictionary so I guess I shouldn't assume that it is correct? The OED is similar but adds to the US definition with such words as 'munificence, freedom from prejudice' and so on. Why is that bad??? Incidentally, the cause of most of the problems in your Point 2 was capitalism......

So your response to my points is to insult me and make it sound as though I'm the one who's unreasonable and out of control, and to portray Capitalism as the Devil???
Wow. You ARE a liberal! :p

Too bad it's not the law to have to argue things point to point, but I doubt there's much chance of that happening as long as Liberalism is in vogue.......

[Bobnoxous]

Incidentally, the cause of most of the problems in your Point 2 was capitalism......Hi Brian.

I have to disagree with you on this. What examples in point 2 are you blaming on capitalism? The potato famine? Because the fungus came on ships from the US to England? There was a lot of government involvement in shipping, but either way, I see the famine as simply an accident, unless the solution is to stop all international trade. Can't speak to the highland clearances, but the taxation without representation is clearly a government thing, and something that is now again quite fashionable in the US. :(

Capitalism is becoming a bad word even in the US. I heard about a school that was saying capitalism is bad, but what they were describing was mercantilism. It's hard to keep everything straight, but if they're going to teach it, they should try a little harder.

We don't really have true capitalism in the USA. It's more like corporatism. That is, the corporations tend to run the country through the government. The government has the guns (via laws). Through contributions, corporations and other special interests have a much more significant influence over our congressman than us poor little folk. They pass laws that lock out competition (licensing and zoning is great for this), increasing the cost of those products and services to us. You only have to look at this years federal spending bill to see all the pork and favors that go into it. It's no wonder our deficit has exploded in the last 30 years.

If there was no government-granted favors, people would have to compete in a truly free market. Most capitalistic ills couldn't occur without government intervention. Capitalism is a very good thing. Unfortunately, it's much more scarce than people realize.

[Bobnoxous]

Bob - have you noticed my tongue sticking through my cheek yet? I agree it's a living language, but it is confusing to be separated by a common language at times! I think the noun 'Shit-stirrer' is the same both sides of the pond?Educate me, Brian. Is a "shit stirrer" someone who "stirs things up", or is this used strictly as a deragtory term. If the former, I want to be one!

Also, what do you mean by "tongue sticking through my cheek"? Don't laugh. I'm just trying to understand the subtleties of the language. I grew up in Wisconsin. Please make the necessary allowances. :D

[Texas42]

I am a Liberal and I am none of the things that you claim, I am however what the definition says. Liberals can believe in capitalism, I do and I do very well at it. I think that we should quit stepping on individual rights with government intervention. Our economy did better under Bill than it has under either of the Bush boys think that over for a while.

[grifscoots]

Sounds like a pretty nice lady to me. :)

You take the professional politician thang out of the mix and I reckon she is a very nice lady.

[Bobnoxous]

I am a LiberalYou live in a city called Flower Mound. Of course you're a liberal. :D

[Texas42]

You live in a city called Flower Mound. Of course you're a liberal. :D

In Lake Forest, CA you must be surrounded by Liberals and Tree Huggers too.

[Bobnoxous]

In Lake Forest, CA you must be surrounded by Liberals and Tree Huggers too.Hey now, I'll have you know there is no lake (just a man made pond) and no forest (at best, a grove).

But I do live in the people's socialist republic of CA. Yes, I am surrounded by liberals. Republicans too, since I'm in OC. Very dangerous territory. I try to look inconspicuous.

[KMC1]

I am a Liberal and I am none of the things that you claim, I am however what the definition says. Liberals can believe in capitalism, I do and I do very well at it. I think that we should quit stepping on individual rights with government intervention. Our economy did better under Bill than it has under either of the Bush boys think that over for a while.

I would have to believe that the more closely you analyse your position on different issues, you'll find you really don't fit the liberal mold. You sound more moderate to me. Liberalism and Capitalism are diametrically opposed.

[doug816]

Gunny, I think you will agree after all these posts, that with a lot of people, if you have to explain why it's important for us to keep our GOD given right of self defense with our 2nd amendment, they just will not ever understand. And that's all I got to say about that! P.S. I'll stand by your side anytime, anywhere to defend these rights!

[gerryrenstrom]

Boy, you guys must really be board. I hope you know each other and this isn't just a long distance pissing match.

[Heracleitus]

. . . if you have to explain why it's important for us to keep our GOD given right of self defense with our 2nd amendment, they. . .

I don't think He wrote the U.S. Constitution. I looked for His name in the signatory list, but didn't find it. Although it could have been obscured by the signature of Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer. That guy must think his name should be Handcock or something!

Disclaimer:
I own guns
I won't let you take'm.
They're all registered and legal-like, too!

[Texas42]

I would have to believe that the more closely you analyse your position on different issues, you'll find you really don't fit the liberal mold. You sound more moderate to me. Liberalism and Capitalism are diametrically opposed.

Even being called a moderate anywhere but Texas makes me a Liberal down here. Maybe Communism is diametrically opposed to Capitalism, and if you are calling me a Communist, now those would be fightin' words.

[brianbeemer]

Educate me, Brian. Is a "shit stirrer" someone who "stirs things up", or is this used strictly as a deragtory term. If the former, I want to be one!

Also, what do you mean by "tongue sticking through my cheek"? Don't laugh. I'm just trying to understand the subtleties of the language. I grew up in Wisconsin. Please make the necessary allowances. :D
I make lots of allowances and am not derogatory unnecessarily. :D

I don't generally make any allowances for extremists, though, especially those of the political persuasion. I would class myself as slightly right of centre politically and if that makes me a Liberal rather than a moderate Tory I'm insulted!

[mantan]

From another forum.

Why The Gun In Civilization?
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it..

I have nothing against carrying a gun, I will do it myself when I feel necessary and the law allows it but the above st. has got to be a real stupid one.

First of all, there are not "only two ways". There is clearly a third way, that is to leave each other (who are in some conflict/disagreement) alone.

Every human interaction does not fall into one of these 2 categories, unless one only has 2 or less brain cells.

Generalizations are often bad but I wonder how this foolish major deals with children? Does he pulls a gun on them if they are not convinced by reason? If not, he is a hypocrite without a doubt, unless he does not count interaction with children as "human interaction".

God save us from such fools.

[KMC1]

I have nothing against carrying a gun, I will do it myself when I feel necessary and the law allows it but the above st. has got to be a real stupid one.

First of all, there are not "only two ways". There is clearly a third way, that is to leave each other (who are in some conflict/disagreement) alone.

Every human interaction does not fall into one of these 2 categories, unless one only has 2 or less brain cells.

Generalizations are often bad but I wonder how this foolish major deals with children? Does he pulls a gun on them if they are not convinced by reason? If not, he is a hypocrite without a doubt, unless he does not count interaction with children as "human interaction".

God save us from such fools.

Hmmm... I like your approach. I think you should try it sometime should you and your SO ever become the victims of a heinous attack. Sounds pretty reasonable, I would say your chances are pretty good of having it work well for you. :rolleyes:

[KMC1]

Even being called a moderate anywhere but Texas makes me a Liberal down here. Maybe Communism is diametrically opposed to Capitalism, and if you are calling me a Communist, now those would be fightin' words.


Nope, I don't think you're all the way left of center like that. I actually think you're in the middle somewhere. (closer to right than it sounds like you'd be happy to realize :p )

[midwilshire]

God save us from such fools.You've twisted the Major's words and, using the illogical result, called him a fool. If it weren't for your hubris, I would have ignored this intellectual dishonesty.

First of all, there are not "only two ways". There is clearly a third way, that is to leave each other (who are in some conflict/disagreement) alone. This is what you've offered in reply to the Major's claim that, "If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force." But your reply twists the scenario. If you reread the quote, you'll notice that the Major recognizes that other people who want him to do something have these two options available. His argument is that by equalizing the potential for force, the efficacy of force is diminished and the use of reasoned argument is encouraged.

This scenario is limited to that situation where someone else wants him to do something, and within the scope of that scenario, I think he's right. If this third party were merely to leave him alone - the third option you've given - the Major would continue his course of action unchanged, and the third party has failed to get the Major to do anything.

I think you'd like us to believe that the Major is advocating for using force to interact with people. But that is inconsistent with both the logic of his argument and his clear statement, "Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction."

I wonder how this foolish major deals with children? Does he pulls a gun on them if they are not convinced by reason? If not, he is a hypocrite without a doubt, unless he does not count interaction with children as "human interaction".You've attempted to show that the Major's line of thought leads to absurd conclusions. Even though the Major is not advocating for the use of force in human interaction, let's pretend for the moment that he is and see whether your lines of thought withstand the same sort of reductio ad absurdum attack.

You've stated that the Major would be a hypocrite "without a doubt" if he didn't use a gun when dealing with children. That assumes that the only force one may use is a gun. Now, if you want to start the engine on your motorcycle, you need to use force (you're not going to talk it into starting). If a gun is the only force one may use, you've got to pull a gun on your motorcycle whenever you want to ride it. That's absurd. Aren't there lower levels of force available to people?

You're a proponent of leaving people alone. If a child were running toward a busy intersection, you'd want the parent to stop that child, right? The parent could try reasoned argument, which any parent will tell you is absurd in practice. Or the parent could try force -- oops, no, that's not an option you support. So that leaves us with only one available option: leaving the child alone. Just stand there and watch the carnage. Well, that's criminal negligence, and to recommend that would be absurd. So there must be some place for force in dealing with children. Not only is your child-example an inapposite contrivance, it doesn't work.

God save us from such fools.We're working on it.

[Bobnoxous]

Wow, Michael! That's an excellent analysis. I read this and figured you must be an attorney. The analytical approach reads like some of the court briefs I've been reading.

[jayjacobson]

....if you are calling me a Communist, now those would be fightin' words.
Well, if the shoe fits, Cinderfella!
....But I do live in the people's socialist republic of CA....
Bob, I've lived in the People's Socialist Republic of Kommyfornia for so long now that I'm totally numb to it! Nothing surprises me now.
....I am a Liberal and I am none of the things that you claim....
Doesn't mean that you're a bad person....
....Hilary....Sounds like a pretty nice lady to me.
Umm--sure! In sort of a mad, sick, Dr Jeckel, Ms. Hyde, kind of way.
....either party as republicrats (or demicans?)....
Bob, you've swerved into something, sir. About the only difference is that if we voted straight republican, we would go broke about 30 min's after we would if we had voted straight democrat!
As a lover of gun restrictions I find that argument.....interesting.
How can you restrict a gun???:confused: :rolleyes:
Vote Liberal :eek:
Correct, Gentlemen! All the so called "gun laws" are just restrictions on honest citizens trying to protect themselves from the criminals that have no such restrictions. 110% feel good, group hug, symbolism over substance.

[brianbeemer]

Umm--sure! In sort of a mad, sick, Dr Jeckel, Ms. Hyde, kind of way.


Guess you didn't read the American Heritage Dictionary definition of 'Liberal' then? :rolleyes: I don't understand where the Jekyll/Hyde bit fits with Hilary though (note correct spelling of the good doctor's name, hehehe). :confused:

[jayjacobson]

Guess you didn't read the American Heritage Dictionary definition of 'Liberal' then? :rolleyes: I don't understand where the Jekyll/Hyde bit fits with Hilary though (note correct spelling of the good doctor's name, hehehe). :confused:
Oh, I read it very , very carefully.....The hypocrisy fits her to a "T!" That's where the Jekyll/Hyde thing comes in.

[brianbeemer]

Oh, I read it very , very carefully.....The hypocrisy fits her to a "T!" That's where the Jekyll/Hyde thing comes in.
There are really two types of politicians - the hypocrits and the liars. Personally I'd rather have the hypocrits in power as at least you KNOW they're hypocrits. The problem with the liars is that they lie to everyone, including themselves. Tony B Liar was a dangerous man, but Gordy is a hypocrit...

[jayjacobson]

There are really two types of politicians - the hypocrits and the liars. Personally I'd rather have the hypocrits in power as at least you KNOW they're hypocrits. The problem with the liars is that they lie to everyone, including themselves. Tony B Liar was a dangerous man, but Gordy is a hypocrit...
Not sure there is much difference. But allow me to pose a question: if there was such a politician that told the truth all the time, could the sheeple handle it? Don't the sheeple really want someone to whisper little sweet nothings in their ears? Tell us everything will be alright and the big nanny state will run your life for you.