Actually Robert Heinlein said that and the entire quote is:
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Arguing with a liberal about Open and Concealed Carry
- Thread starter dpickl00
- Start date
Actually Robert Heinlein said that and the entire quote is:
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
eagleeyes
New member
what EVER! heheh sounds like you have some issues all in which you create for yourself
try to get over it please
CapGun
Active member
I see a lot of inconsistency but first I did not call you any names unless you find the term "liberal" offensive.
I also see you are a bit "passive aggressive". You make the assumption that people call me stupid. If you want to call me stupid that's ok with me because you have my post here to go by and you have a right to your interpretation so I have no prob with you calling me stupid on that basis.
You also call me a bigot.Is it that you think all conservatives are bigots? You have no basis to insinuate that I am a bigot because you have nothing to go by like you do for calling me stupid.
Don't deny you called me that, that's one passive aggressive part.
You are pro choice. Everyone knows that is a euphemism for Pro-Abortion. Maybe you are one of the only pro choice advocates that encourages good counsel to any pregnant female with regard to all alternatives and not just abortion.
I won't ask you why you are anti death penalty. Pro Choice? Anti Death Penalty? I am conflicted. If only you were truly "anti death" penalty!
You will never vote for anyone who is not "pro choice". I am glad to know the very existence of this country and the welfare of ALL AMERICANS hang on that issue.
Pro Universal healthcare. A very noble idea. The outcome you hope for will not be addressed in the current "Affordable Healthcare Act". If you believe that you are ignorant to it's real agenda.
In order to achieve what I believe you would like to see it would have to be scraped and re-written thoughtfully and not rushed through so we can hurry up and "pass it so we can see what's in it!"
Pro freedom of religion. I am glad you are! Most "liberals" think it means Freedom From Religion. There is nothing in the Constitution that states "separation of church and state. That's another subject and too long to bore people here with.
I just love your smarmy passive aggressive statement that the "1st Amendment is just as important to me (you) as the 2nd is important to you" (me).
The reality is that they are equally important to me! Maybe they are not equally important to you and this all leads me to apologize to you.
You own guns and have a CPL. You have judged me as "stupid" and a "bigot" because I am a "Conservative".
Well with all your inconsistency and incongruity I APOLOGIZE. You are truly a LIBERAL.
Big Gay Al
New member
Let me see, just to set the record straight (pun intended. :wink.
I am pro-choice. I think if men were the ones who got pregnant and carried a baby inside their bellies, abortion would be a right of passage.
I am pro-gay rights, including the right to marry, after all, the GLBT community has the right to be just as miserable as the straights.
I am NOT pro-universal health care.
Except for our health insurance system, which fracked up the medical cost system, we have one of, if not the best health care system in the world. Even if you can't pay for it, they still treat you. Maybe if they fixed the legal system, so every Tom, Richard (censor system won't let me say Dikc), and Harriet didn't sue over a hang nail, and doctors didn't need malpractice insurance, then maybe costs would be lower. But that's just one person's opinion. I'm sure there are many other factors involved, that would piss me off just as much. If we didn't, why do so many people from all over the world come here to get treated so much?
On the death penalty, I'm sort of mixed. I'm for it, but I think we need to go WAY beyond a reasonable doubt before sending someone to the chair/gurney/whatever. We need to be 110% sure we're executing the right guy.
And as much as I am not religious, I think everyone has the right to worship how they wish. And no, I don't mind having "In God we trust" printed on our currency. It doesn't hurt me one little bit.
But when I vote, my candidate of choice could be diametrically opposed on all of the above, as long as he thinks the ONLY license/permit I need to carry a pistol is the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, and as long as he fights for that right, whether he's in the state house, or US Congress, he'll get my vote, because with out that right of self defense, none of the rest matters one damn bit.
.I am pro-choice. I think if men were the ones who got pregnant and carried a baby inside their bellies, abortion would be a right of passage.
I am pro-gay rights, including the right to marry, after all, the GLBT community has the right to be just as miserable as the straights.
I am NOT pro-universal health care.
Except for our health insurance system, which fracked up the medical cost system, we have one of, if not the best health care system in the world. Even if you can't pay for it, they still treat you. Maybe if they fixed the legal system, so every Tom, Richard (censor system won't let me say Dikc), and Harriet didn't sue over a hang nail, and doctors didn't need malpractice insurance, then maybe costs would be lower. But that's just one person's opinion. I'm sure there are many other factors involved, that would piss me off just as much. If we didn't, why do so many people from all over the world come here to get treated so much?
On the death penalty, I'm sort of mixed. I'm for it, but I think we need to go WAY beyond a reasonable doubt before sending someone to the chair/gurney/whatever. We need to be 110% sure we're executing the right guy.
And as much as I am not religious, I think everyone has the right to worship how they wish. And no, I don't mind having "In God we trust" printed on our currency. It doesn't hurt me one little bit.
But when I vote, my candidate of choice could be diametrically opposed on all of the above, as long as he thinks the ONLY license/permit I need to carry a pistol is the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, and as long as he fights for that right, whether he's in the state house, or US Congress, he'll get my vote, because with out that right of self defense, none of the rest matters one damn bit.
Big Gay Al
New member
Everyone tells me I'm too nice for my own good sometimes. :smile:
In general, I agree. I would much prefer to see everyone having the same individual rights that we're all entitled to. My problem is, certain people are attempting to exclude part of us based on certain criteria that place us withing defined groups. Where some prejudices used to be based on race or sex, now they're being based on sexual orientation, and to a certain degree, also on religious animosity. It took a civil war and at least 100 years after that for the racist prejudices to crumble (even though, they're not completely gone). I sometimes wonder, will we need another civil war for the rest of our prejudices to go away? I hope not
I find it odd, we tell the Muslims their fears and anger at us are based on their ancient traditions that they cling to, that this is the 21st century and they should wake up and smell the cappuccino. Yet, some of us don't see that Christians are clinging to even more ancient traditions when it comes to their rage against those who are not "normal" in their eyes. As difficult as it is to argue with SOME liberals about gun rights, it's equally difficult to argue with SOME conservatives about Gay, or individual rights. Some of them just don't want to listen, don't want to consider that THEY might be wrong.
Unfortunately, stubbornness and the belief that "they" are always correct, works on both sides of the political divide.
Beau
I was never here.
People that think like you do scare me.
CapGun
Active member
I think you probably a very nice guy. You are all over the map here though.
I won't get into a long argument or rant..I hope so here goes.
Please DO NOT compare gay rights to the issue of racial prejudice and those "civil rights" Sorry but there is absolutely no comparison. Nobody has to know that a gay person is gay if they don't want anyone to know. Everyone knows a black person when they see one. That is tough to avoid. BTW most people don't care how others in general have sex or with whom.
I don't know who says that most Islamist s want us "Infidels" dead because they are living in the past and clinging to
Ancient ideas. Me, you and those that want us dead are living in the here and now. Sorry but don't make the comparison of modern day Christians to modern day Muslims. I am not going to get into the religious stuff.
Prior to the Revolutionary War freed black men or just free black men were most often treated just like that...men! You have to do some deep research to know what I am talking about. Seems things get recycled or just turned around.
I am going to cut this short with many things unsaid except that ...If "Individual Rights" were protected as in the Constitution instead of "Group Rights" that eventually get used to push an agenda other then the rights of the individual this would be a much better place to live! Like the lady wrote... If you don't support "Individual Rights" you can't claim to support "Minority Rights" because the "individual" is the smallest minority on earth!
Big Gay Al
New member
I would much prefer the fight to preserve individual rights, but certain rights are being legislated away from certain groups all the time. In Michigan, for instance, which is supposed to be heavily democrat, the right of same sex partners to have even just a civil union was legislated away several years ago.
Some other states are doing the same thing. True, some are doing the opposite, but in my opinion, I don't think the government should be inserting its self into this. But that's a different debate for a different forum.
As for what's visible and what isn't, believe me, there are some in the LGBT community that are HIGHLY visible when they walk down the street, some only when they start talking, and others, not at all. And regardless of color, race, sex or sexual orientation, I always thought we ALL should be afforded the same rights. However, there are those who disagree.
As for Christians and Muslims, why shouldn't I compare them? SOME on both sides are very reasonable people. And some on both sides are equally NOT very reasonable. Some take a more modern view of things, and others prefer ancient dogma that was written thousands of years ago, under very different circumstances. If we can follow one ancient precept, and say that homosexuality is wrong, why not stick with all of them, deny women the right to vote, and all the other stuff that's in there, obviously written by men with a point of view that women are not 2nd class citizens, because they shouldn't be considered citizens at all.
I'm not saying that everything in the Bible or Koran is wrong. But for certain, there are some things in there that are not right either. And I'll let it go at that for now, since that is a debate for another forum as well.
I don't want minority rights, I don't think ANYONE should get minority rights. I'm against affirmative action. It's compensation that shouldn't be necessary. I want equal rights for everyone, as an individual. I want less government, less taxes, and more money in my paycheck.
I don't want the government telling me what I can or can't do, as long as what I'm doing doesn't hurt anyone else. The Universal Life Church has a motto, that I find very appropriate 99.5% of the time, "Do that which is right." I think, if we could all just live by that motto, it could fix most of our problems. The thing is, not everyone will. There's the criminal who's motto is, what's mine is mine, and what's yours will be mine, given a chance. And then some politicians think they know what's better for me, than I do. Maybe they do, but that doesn't give them the right to make my decisions for me.
Professional politicians are our worst enemies. We should have made the jobs with either term limits, or little to no compensation, that would have kept a lot of people out of that line of work. The problem is, our form of government is the worst in the world......except for all the others. And since there's no real alternative, I guess we're stuck with it. I just hope it gets better before too long, other wise, who knows where it's headed.
pistolannie
New member
Hm...it seems you misunderstood me. I didn't call you stupid or a bigot. I assumed you realized that many liberals label conservatives as stupid and as bigots, just as many conservatives label liberals as stupid, overly sensitive and idealistic. My point was that those sentiments conservatives feel about liberals are no more valid across the board than the sentiments conservatives feel about liberals. This site is full of people calling liberals "retarted," "libtard," "morons," "idiots" and the like, and I was just pointing out that as a liberal I don't appreciate being called those things anymore than anyone on this site would like to be called "idiot," "bigot," "hateful," "psycho" or "Gun Nut" just because they're conservative. My point is that neither side is categorically stupid, and that calling each other that does nothing to help the political climate in this country. However, apparently you feel differently, because your statements such as "Maybe you are one of the only pro choice advocates that encourages good counsel to any pregnant female with regard to all alternatives and not just abortion" and "Most 'liberals' think it means Freedom From Religion" are presumptuous and equally passive aggressive.
rogrrr
New member
I’ve been asked about carrying my gun a few times by people who do not understand why more and more people are now carrying and have come up with a good thread to make the people understand what it is for.
I immediately ask them if they have car insurance and they usually tell me that it is the law that they have to have it. I then ask them if they have insurance on their house. They tell me that it is a good idea to have that, too. I now ask them if they carry health insurance. So then I ask them "ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT YOU REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO USING YOUR INSURANCE/FILING A CLAIM ?"
They think for a moment and tell me that they never want to have use it.
At that point, I tell them that THIS, pointing to my gun, is insurance and I, like you, hope to NEVER have to use it, either.
The light goes on and they begin to understand why I carry. I then explain that violence and terror DO NOT MAKE APPOINTMENTS and can show up/happen anywhere, anytime or anyplace to anyone. I tell them that is what insurance is for – better to have it and never use it than to need it and not have it. I explain that your insurance comes into play AFTER some type of incident happens. Mine can prevent an incident FROM happening. Yours is REactive, mine is PROactive.
=
Also, being called a BIGOT is not a problem to me. Some people assume that bigotry concerns racism ONLY. Webster's SECOND dictionary definition (no, not the electronic dictionary, but the hardback paper version) defines a bigot as someone who has deeply ingrained opinions and will be extremely unwilling to change them.
Maybe not in those EXACT words but you get my drift.
So when someone calls me a bigot, I don't worry about it nor be offended. Remember that old rhyme when we were kids - Stick and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.
I immediately ask them if they have car insurance and they usually tell me that it is the law that they have to have it. I then ask them if they have insurance on their house. They tell me that it is a good idea to have that, too. I now ask them if they carry health insurance. So then I ask them "ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT YOU REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO USING YOUR INSURANCE/FILING A CLAIM ?"
They think for a moment and tell me that they never want to have use it.
At that point, I tell them that THIS, pointing to my gun, is insurance and I, like you, hope to NEVER have to use it, either.
The light goes on and they begin to understand why I carry. I then explain that violence and terror DO NOT MAKE APPOINTMENTS and can show up/happen anywhere, anytime or anyplace to anyone. I tell them that is what insurance is for – better to have it and never use it than to need it and not have it. I explain that your insurance comes into play AFTER some type of incident happens. Mine can prevent an incident FROM happening. Yours is REactive, mine is PROactive.
=
Also, being called a BIGOT is not a problem to me. Some people assume that bigotry concerns racism ONLY. Webster's SECOND dictionary definition (no, not the electronic dictionary, but the hardback paper version) defines a bigot as someone who has deeply ingrained opinions and will be extremely unwilling to change them.
Maybe not in those EXACT words but you get my drift.
So when someone calls me a bigot, I don't worry about it nor be offended. Remember that old rhyme when we were kids - Stick and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.
SouthernBoy
New member
Your approach to honest questions is valid. I have been asked a few times why I carry, or why I carry "like that" [openly] to which I have responded in several ways, some humorous, and some more serious. I weigh the question's presentation and answer according as a rule. A couple of times I have answered with, "So I don't have to use it". This creates a quizzical look on their face and usually is followed by more questions and a nice little discussion.
As for your comments about "being called a BIGOT', where did that one come from? I have read through this entire thread so maybe I am missing something. But I fail to see how going armed can equate to being a bigot. However, I CAN see how an anti could fall into that category when confronted with an armed citizen.
rogrrr
New member
Capgun originally mentioned BIGOT in post #64
pistol annie Responded to Capgun by in post #71
So I simply responded in kind about being called a name.
golocx4
Got Beretta's?
While I agree that arguing with them is futile. I think that when they say something like "every person that has a carry permit thinks they are John Wayne, and that he is now going to be gunned down in a hail of crossfire from an irresponsible open carrier. " or people will be shot and killed over a parking space etc. It is because, in their own mind that is what they would do. They would love to shoot someone in an argument over a parking space or a disagreement at the water cooler. In their minds everyone else must think the same way they do and those that don't are idiots. They even go so far as to give names to any that don't agree.
So remember in their minds eye, gun owners and gun carriers are the armed equivalent of themselves, and that scares the hell out of them. Also remember that they can't help it. It is how they are. Pity them is the best advice I can give..and for crying out loud, vote them out of office.
So remember in their minds eye, gun owners and gun carriers are the armed equivalent of themselves, and that scares the hell out of them. Also remember that they can't help it. It is how they are. Pity them is the best advice I can give..and for crying out loud, vote them out of office.
This post is an excellent example of why it's futile to argue with a liberal: willing to execute innocent babies for convenience' sake and while protecting known and convicted murderers. Liberalism is a mental disease.
Mark Chitty
New member
Ignorance and hatred are mental diseases. If you really think that the abortion and death penalty arguments are as simple as executing babies and protecting murderers, then you've got it bad. If it were really that simple everyone would probably be able to agree, but it's not. I'm anti-abortion but my belief in not infringing upon the rights of others conflicts with that a great deal. I'm anti death penalty also, not because I'm inclined to protect people that commit horrific acts, but because I don't think "he did it first" is a valid argument for anything, let alone something as serious as murder.
I used to have a hard time wrapping my head around why someone could be for one of these issues and against the other when both of them are about protecting life. But both of them are really about how people choose to live their lives, and the sad reality is that too many people choose care more about what happens to murderers and pregnant teens after the fact than they do before. If they'd had that much concern and attention previously they might not have become murderers or pregnant teens in the first place.
Think about the fact that in order to execute a murderer you have to have someone else commit murder. Some people can justify that and others can't. Do two wrongs make a right? Is it better to take the moral high ground and refuse to commit the act of the person you are condemning? Is it morally right when you consider the passages in the bible that talk about forgiveness? What about an eye for an eye? It's complicated.
Think about the fact that the christian right are staunchly against abortion and staunchly against birth control. I understand that they are against sex before marriage, but the reality is that teens are maturing earlier physically without maturing faster mentally and being hyper-sexualized by media and modern social standards. It's a lot easier to be anti-abortion when you're not religious because then the answer really is simple; educate kids about birth control. How does that fit with the ideals of the catholic church when a very high percentage of catholic women have admitted to using birth control? Is it really not possible to teach about birth control without encouraging kids to have sex? If it's not possible, then how do we weigh more kids having sex but doing it safely against less kids having sex but more kids having unprotected sex? It's complicated.
I'll say it again; ignorance and hatred are mental diseases. A good cure is realizing that just because you are entitled to your opinion does not mean that you know enough to have the right answer to the problem. For issues like these there is no right answer because any solution is a win-lose. Win by saving a baby and lose by taking away a persons freedom of choice, or win by saving someones freedom of choice and lose by letting babies die. Win by getting rid of a murderer, lose by supporting the act for which you condemned them, or win by showing mercy and not stooping to the level of a murderer, and lose by having to support that murderer in prison for the rest of their life.
It's not about who is right and who is wrong, it is about different people having different priorities. Some people prioritize liberty over the life of an unborn baby, some prioritize the life of an unborn baby over liberty. But liberty and life are both good things that are worth fighting for, we all just draw the line between the two in different places.
Mark Chitty
New member
Hello. You state that "liberals" have a higher level of education then conservatives do. (I take it you mean those with college degrees) If that is true and I am not suggesting that it is not true, that would indicate a major reason why "liberals" think and act as they do. They have been "indoctrinated" by the (I won't say liberal) Marxist-Socialist Professors that permeate the world of "Academia"! (plenty of online data to support the make up of Professors at the college level).
Liberals in general do not let rational thought and facts interrupt their "emotional" response to all subject matter.
Now please don't be insulted but your post is well reasoned and substantiated. Plus your understanding of guns and the RTKBA lead me to believe yo are actually a "conservative". If that is not the case I have to warn you that you may be in a transitional state of being a "moderate" on the way to being a full fledged "Conservative!"
BTW "moderates" have no real core beliefs as compared to a true "liberal"....... as much as those core beliefs fly in the face of reason and facts. I have more respect for the "liberals". They just don't understand their infliction! So congratulations on your, to quote our great leader, "evolving" thought process. By your cogent, reasoned post your metamorphosis is almost complete.
Try "THE LIBERAL MIND" ....The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. I think you will see that you really don't fit the "Liberal" label!:sarcastic:
Do you understand what you have been inflicted with? It's called ignorance. Terrible condition, seems to be going around. Moderates have core beliefs, they just tend to vary more widely among moderates because there is a whole lot more in the middle of the conservative-liberal spectrum than you will find at either end. But I commend you on managing to sound as smug and self important as a Marxist-Socialist Professor, and I'm sure you didn't need nearly the level of education to manage it. Congratulations.
Mark Chitty
New member
First try understanding that you are both coming from a place of wanting to be safe. He's not a moron because he thinks that is nobody has a gun, nobody will get shot. That's a fact. He is just naive if he thinks that taking away the guns of law abiding citizens means that there will be no guns anymore. Explain that there are an extremely high number of illegal and untraceable guns in this country. If a criminal is going to rob him at gunpoint, he is more likely to get help in time if a legal permit carrier just happens to walk by than from the police who will likely not be able to respond quickly enough if they are even called. It's not hard to explain to anyone so long as you realize that being a moron and not knowing enough about the subject are two completely different things. You lose the argument the second you resort to name calling because it just means you don't understand either side of the argument well enough to contradict what he is saying or counter with information that better supports your argument.
whitefeather
New member
Murder defined...The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
An individual is found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers and is sentenced to death. This person is then allowed years of appeals prior to execution of the jury's and judge's orders and you equate this with "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice".
You must have a cynical disdain for our judicial system and laws to hold this position.
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.