A Very Good "Must Read" from a Leftist Gunowner
- Thread starter r1derbike
- Start date
So all you progressive left wing democrats, stop telling the public what it is you stand for and start acting more moderate. That way more low information voters will flock to your side and it will be much easier to trash the US Constitution along with the Bill of Rights. Next thing you know we will no longer be a government controlled by the people but a people controlled by the government as the liberal elites want it to be.
SR40c
Done told her once...
I think we are already there.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Let me make sure I understand the purpose of the OP posting this leftist-fest: I guess I'm supposed to take solace in the notion that there are leftists out there who "love" guns, but who lament laws that protect the lives of unborn babies from being murdered by their own mothers.
I guess I'm supposed to take comfort in the fact that those same leftists think that the only right out of the first 10 amendments to the federal Constitution that is regularly violated by state laws concerning carry, access, ownership, magazine capacity restrictions, registrations, child-proofing, training requirements and on and on and on, are nothing more than "reasonable guidelines," when the fact is, ignoring said laws in some jurisdictions can get you a felony rap that can disarm you for the rest of your life. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments are all violated to one degree or another from what the Framers intended them to mean, but which ones besides the 2A are enforced at least 50 different ways by 50 different sets of laws? Say it with me.....NONE! And this leftist calls that "reasonable" and refers to the 50 different jurisdictional sets of laws as nothing more than "guidelines."
The guy is schizophrenic about violence and the Constitution. On the one hand, he's very sad that the constitutional "right" that a run amok, activist SCOTUS divined out of thin air within a Constitution that never articulates protecting a mother's "choice" to have her unborn baby violently dismembered in the womb, has been (probably temporarily only until it gets shot down by the precedent set by Roe) restricted in Virginia, because before that VA law, the "right" was protected to the same degree across all 50 states (unfettered, up to the last minute before birth, and as the Gosnell trial has demonstrated, some even after birth get "aborted"). So "unreasonable" for one sovereign state to deviate from the other 49 in how they treat abortion, eh? But on the other hand, it seems our leftist baby-killer-supporter thinks it's "reasonable" for each state to determine for themselves"who can defend themselves (with violence) outside of their home." It's "reasonable" to have 50 different standards by which (already born) citizens can exercise a real right that the Framers intended just exactly as they wrote it, including the phrase, "....shall not be INFRINGED!!!"
Perhaps you will forgive me for seeing this leftist hack as being no less predictable, or despicable, than any other leftist hack. The culture of death, culture of overreaching government, and willful lack of understanding and/or adherence to founding principles is what has already killed this country. The only difference between this hack and Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al is that this hack knows the difference between a trigger and a butt-stock, but they're all just as much of butt-heads.
Blues
r1derbike
New member
Take from the blog what you will, Blues. I abhor abortion. You are correct that the article was linked to show that at least one leftist shares gun views that we on the right do, however, don't assume by association that by posting the link, that I have any other alliances with the left on any of their views. You seem to think I pledge allegiance to leftist abortive belief from your tirade against it. If not, perhaps you feel better now, venting your abortion views. Perhaps the blog's author would like to hear your concerns, you have given here? Word for word? If memory serves, there were plenty of portals given for comment.
Call them what you will, as I have done as well. I'm not here to consort with leftists, nor embrace some of their mantra.
In other words, don't kill the messenger about abortion, or your other concerns, when the messenger sought common ground on gun control as the primary purpose of the OP. Any other interpretation of the link I posted is without merit, or cause, if not about our administrations' gun control facades, as written by the author. You don't like what the author said? Take it up with him/her. Once again, this was my intent of the OP. Take it or leave it.
The Liberal Gun Club Forum ? Index page
Enjoy.
Bed with the enemy, huh? I guess you are OK with arming the enemy too?
Enjoy.
Bed with the enemy, huh? I guess you are OK with arming the enemy too?
wolf_fire
New member
This article has proven one thing... people should never pigeon-hole another into a single category. I admit, I've done this. We say the word Conservative or Liberal and we know which one is for/against abortion, entitlements, gun control. Well, we shouldn't judge the individual based upon the group.
A well written article concerning firearms to say the least. I have differing opinions on other matters that were written.
A well written article concerning firearms to say the least. I have differing opinions on other matters that were written.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
How have I "killed" you? I commented entirely on the article you linked to by saying it was a "Very Good 'Must Read'" piece. I only identified "the OP" as the source of the link I was commenting on, and never mentioned you or the OP again.
In that link, before the author has even broached the subjects of his "6 ways to make a better argument," he laments a new VA law that basically has zero chance of standing beyond the first Planned Parenthood (and affiliates) court challenge anyway, by saying, "Just last week, Link Removed (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) regulations that would close most abortion clinics in the state. It was a devastating loss for myself...."
"Lament" seems rather a weak word to describe his "devastating loss" of the ability to either kill or support others who kill babies for a freakin' living.
After that he sets about the task of convincing his ideological contemporaries that, except for his "love" of guns, he is exactly like them. And part of his rationale for that sickening meme is that his ideological contemporaries should accept that every state has the right and authority under the Constitution to violate the 2nd Amendment any way it wishes, and that those violations represent nothing more intrusive and usurpative than being innocuous "guidelines" for gun owners.
I have nothing, NOTHING, in common with that usurping, murder-minded hack. The Constitution applies to everybody equally, no matter which amendment within the Bill of Rights we're talking about.
I "killed" nobody. I reviewed the article 100% truthfully as I see it.
You "abhor" abortion, but call my opinions on it a "tirade." Who's message are you trying to "kill," mine or the baby-killer-supporter from the article you linked to? My message of true constitutional adherence across all 50 states, or his message of piece-meal 2nd Amendment "rights" depending on what side of an imaginary line on a map one is standing on?
And by the way, thanks for the advice on posting my reply on his site. Immediately after hitting "Post Reply" here, I did exactly what you suggested (without needing any advice from anyone), and as you can see, the post is still "Awaiting moderation" some five or six hours after I posted it. It says "at 5:48 am" because it picks up the time where the blog originates from until it gets passed through moderation, which I would guess is on the West Coast (now that would be a surprise, huh?) if he hadn't already said he's in VA, because it's two hours behind where I'm at in the Central Time Zone. I guess his server-clock isn't set right though. Whatever, I posted it about 1:45 am.
Any bets on whether that post will pass moderation?
Blues
Last edited:
buckey01
New member
We can thank the liberal gun owners for a second Obama term. That includes an economy that is still bad and will get worse when Obama Care is fully implemented. The only ones who think that Obama Care is not a total disaster are those expecting free health care. If the libs take the house the second amendment will be over. Those who think we will get border security with amnesty certainly qualify as low information voters. Perhaps you think terrorists who have come across the border as sleepers will register. That makes as much sense as thinking that criminals will register their guns. Welfare is out of control and increasing at a disastrous rate.
The good thing about an economy the size of ours is that its total destruction takes years. But the progressives are working hard for total destruction so that it can be replaced with their idea of Utopia. We will have this wonderful society where everyone is equally poor, not equally rich. When incentive is removed no one excels to produce wealth that socialism needs to survive. For a collective morality to exist the moral standards must be lowered to the lowest common denominator.
The good thing about an economy the size of ours is that its total destruction takes years. But the progressives are working hard for total destruction so that it can be replaced with their idea of Utopia. We will have this wonderful society where everyone is equally poor, not equally rich. When incentive is removed no one excels to produce wealth that socialism needs to survive. For a collective morality to exist the moral standards must be lowered to the lowest common denominator.
r1derbike
New member
Blues, I'm glad you posted your reply to the article I linked. Killing the messenger was a humorous barb at you turning the link I posted into a tome of anti-abortion, anti-left spewing. Your parsing and tit-for-tatting of words (you said this, I'm saying that) rebuttals do nothing to advance what the OP was about, so at this point, I'm done with our discussion about it. Carry on. I don't remember when I've posted something to show common ground between gun owners, turn into such an anti-left ballgame; I passed the ball, it was caught, and run out of the stadium with the wrong message intended attached to it.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Hmm...."humorous barb at me" for saying what I thought about the piece, when I took zero barbs at you? I found no humor in it at all, nor did I take it as a barb, I simply asked you how it applied to anything I said.
Otherwise, guess what? I am anti-abortion and I am anti-left. Apparently you have no idea what that leftist hack was trying to accomplish. He was trying to teach his ideological contemporaries how to be more stealthy in their pushing leftist ideals, including gun control. What you call "spewing," I call exposing his duplicity for what it is. He's no ally to gun owners. He wants progressives in power in every branch and every level of government. He stated his purpose. You obviously missed it, as your only replies to my recognition of it has been to get all defensive and start taking barbs at me. For what? Because I'm 100% honest about what I stand for, while that leftist hack is using stealth, duplicitous rationales to defeat everything I stand for? "Spewing" indeed.
Good grief. That's called responding to what you said. It's called "discussion," which one might expect on a "discussion" forum! Unwad your panties, man. There is not one word that I've said about that piece that isn't a 100% valid way to view it. You have no valid reason to take my criticisms of that author so personally.
I have seen no evidence at all that you have a freakin' clue what the link in your OP was all about. Do you think that his take on the "guidelines" that vary so widely from state-to-state that there is no connection between it and the original, true meaning of the 2nd Amendment makes him an "ally" in helping to restore, preserve and/or protect the 2A for all citizens? Is it his attempt to teach other leftists how best to get around the constitutionally-adherent arguments that principled, logical gun owners put forth that makes you view him as an ally? BTW, those are questions, not a "rebuttal" of anything you've said. It's only a heartfelt repudiation and rebuke of the hack's leftist ideology.
So, if you expect everyone to agree with your take on a given article or opinion-piece, why even post it on a discussion forum? I was indignant and critical of what the author said, not what you said, so I have no idea why you would bail on a thread that you started ostensibly to have people discuss. Up to you, but I will still answer as I understand that a *discussion* is a give-and-take proposition.
1) As I have tried to say from the very beginning, I found no common ground with that leftist hack, and believe sincerely that he was not trying to find common ground with people who believe as I do about many subjects, including, but not limited to, abortion and adherence to an originalist view of the Constitution.
2) Nothing I said was intended to be part of a game, anti-left or otherwise.
3) You fumbled the ball by not even recognizing what the goal of the author is, which is to teach leftists how to be better and more successful(!!) leftists, not to convince right-thinking people how much commonality we share between us.
4) You didn't "pass a ball," you posted a link on a discussion forum where it was duly discussed.
5) I didn't "catch" a ball, I replied to your topic, stayed completely on-topic in direct reply to what I found at the link you opened the discussion with. Pretty much standard, expected decorum on most internet forums.
6) If starting threads is a game to you, where you decide who the winner is before anyone takes the field, and the opposing team must suffer your barbs simply because they actually play to win, you're doing this wrong.
7) Are you new?
Blues
This from a man that cares so much for the safety of "the children". Well at least the ones lucky enough to escape the abortion executioner.
Riverkilt
New member
I'm a liberal left wing gun addict democrat who proudly voted for Obama a second time. Also pro abortion - we're already overpopulated enough and if some of these nutso shooters had been aborted there'd be more folks alive today. You don't have to be a right wing conservative to honor the second amendment to the Constitution. Seems like the second amendment would be a lot safer if it had support from across the political spectrum and the right wing folks didn't claim it as their own and reject support from people with differing political view points.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I rest my case.
Thanks for condensing that leftist hack's loquacious prattle down to a concise synopsis of what he was saying, Riverkilt.
Just another proud liberal baby-killer-supporter with no shame. Our resident eugenicist. I guess because he claims to be a "gun addict" we should make him as welcome as any sane person who joins this site, eh? Not me.
Still a "must read" r1derbike, or has our resident Nazi helped you understand that what I was saying is true?
Blues
Riverkilt
New member
You guys are NOT friendly.....was not America founded on the FREEDOM to espouse different points of view? Jeez Louise....if you think anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do is your enemy you're gonna be very lonely. Its them dictatorships we've fought over the years that want everyone to believe the same. You far right wingers are as scary to me as I seem to be to you. My political viewpoints are hard won and moved from John Birch in my youth to liberal today.
r1derbike
New member
Prattle on, if you must Blues. I'm finished with the thread because of knee-jerk reaction, bellicose bravado, and grandstanding, capiche?
