Liberal To English Translation [Reader Post]

@Mad Capn Bob: I am certain that the flintlock Queen Anne pistol would be included. After all, the Mass. legislature voted to require trigger locks on the historic muskets.

@Mad Capn Bob:

Assault weapon? It has a pistol grip, so probably.

@cubiclecommando – Thanks, you are spot on in that correction.

@Mad Capn Bob – Definitely

@Skook – LOL, great one

@Nan – You are the research queen!

@bees – Thank you 🙂

@Dr John – Thank you, sir

@musicmangp:

How many conservatives here are not religious? Well, there’s me and hundreds of thousands of others, maybe millions, who, like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell believe that free markets and a government limited by the Constitution are the very best way to provide for the general welfare. The evidence, historic and economic, supporting that view is overwhelming, by the way.

Perhaps if your world-view were not based on stereotypes you would not need to be told those things. Comedian Evan Sayet was once asked why he became a conservative. He said it happened when he stopped asking liberals what conservatives thought and started asking conservatives instead.

liberal = progressive = socialist = command-and-control-central-planning-tyrant

Regarding guns, the data is obvious. No restrictions on the civil right guaranteed by the Second Amendment has ever lived up to its promises, not the NY Sullivan laws, not the 1968 gun control law or recent “assault weapons ban,” not any of the local and State restrictions either. And considering that mass shootings have increased after all these laws were passed, I would think an intelligent person would want to reevaluate the prescription. But no.

It’s a measure of the leftist detachment from reality that most “assault” weapon bans restrict weapons that are identical in operation to others that are not banned. The difference is only cosmetic, such as a wooden versus plastic stock or a pistol grip versus a traditional stock.

Again, forming opinions based on stereotypes fails the reality test. In this case that translates into millions of innocent people put at risk because violent criminals don’t obey the law that disarms the innocent.

assault weapon = scary looking gun

@music, err I mean concerned, um man – oh whatever you are calling yourself these days: You said:

When’s the last time you met a Christian fundamentalist who wasn’t a conservative? Seems to me like assuming Christian fundamentalists are conservatives is a perfectly logical thing to do. Other kinds of fundamentalists? I come across them in America far less often.

So by your logic, an Islamic Fundamentalist would be a Christian and be a Conservative? Interesting view of the world you have there.

There are lots of fundamentalists out there. The far left and the typical liberal only sees Conservatives as far right Christian Fundamentalists. That was my point and you proved it for me brilliantly.

You also said:

Assault Weapons = almost anything? Fine, lets just give up. Lets make it so that every person, without a background check of any sort, can buy the most dangerous weapons we have available, for their “protection.” That seems like the reasonable thing to do.

The Feinstein sponsored, 1994 so called “Assault Weapons” ban was not a ban on assault weapons per se, it was a ban on guns that “looked scary.” She literally had her staff pick up a gun catalog and look through it for the scary looking guns.

Wiki used to mention this little tidbit, but it has been scrubbed. Gee, imagine that.

Do I think fully automatic weapons ought to be available to anyone?

No. That is what background checks are for, as is the three day waiting period. Mental patients need not apply.

great post… seems to my observations after 47 years on the planet, progressives are just adults who refuse to grow up and actively try to hang on the obliviousness of adolescence.

Add a pinch of 1960’s activism and you get, voila, the current batch in Washington

unfortunately the election of Urkel has awakened America

remember folks, there are more of us center/right… than them

musicmangp,
I’m glad you’re here.

In CA, where I live, people who express views like mine are considered conservative.
But when compared with conservatives across the country we are often considered to be moderates, Independents or even derogatorily, RINO’s.
I’m only one poster here, but that’s the case.
In almost every state election (not this last one) I voted for at least one Democrat.

@musicmangp: You don’t have 25 words because that’s retarded, eh? Let me show you how it’s done: I am a pro-national-defense libertarian. (7 words) That means I believe in Constitutionally limited government and the resulting free markets. (20 so far) But I also believe in a strong defense and live-and-let-live with my fellow man and woman. (OK 38 total but I didn’t really need the last few)

I’ve been around a LOOOOONG time and I recognize you as a type. By claiming to be above ideology and labels you are free to smugly shoot arrows at everyone else with no accountability or need to defend your own ideas. You believe that having principles is narrow-minded but, in fact, your reluctance to announce your own principles or maybe lack of principles shows you to be shallow. You see, principles, or ideology, if you prefer, are attempts to organize and understand the world around us in the same way that the principles of physics or chemistry do. For instance, if, after generations of human existence, analysis and study, we proclaim that stealing and lying are wrong (depending on previously accepted standards), we do that to save us the trouble of proving over and over again what people thousands of years ago understood.

And, if, for instance, after observing the human misery, the gulags, political prisons, the executions, the poverty that 20th century socialism has caused compared to the relative peace and prosperity that constitutionalism has caused leads us to establish the principle that freedom is better for humanity than central planning, we don’t need to make the case over and over. We have established a principle, an idea. That may make us ideologues. Or it may make us intellectuals.

Many years ago began a school of thought called pragmatism. Pragmatists advocated treating every situation on a case-by-case basis, believing that ideologues who attempted to establish general principles were narrow minded and unnecessarily restricted. You are obviously influenced by this school of thought but rather than recognizing it as a school of thought and respecting other opinions you have adopted a smug attitude as if you don’t even know you are also an “ideologue” who’s ideology is called pragmatism.

I suggest you become less confrontational and more conversational. Who knows, you may learn something.

@John and Randy – Excellent points made, gentlemen.

Thank you, BS.

Modern Statism /Liberalism: Projection wrapped in hysteria inside a hypocrisy