The only reason liberals and conservatives disagree is beacuse each of them wants to be in charge of telling everyone else what to do. 
The only reason liberals and conservatives disagree is beacuse each of them wants to be in charge of telling everyone else what to do.
Both use emotional knee jerks and the "it's for the children," arguments to do this.
When discussing the effects of gun ownership on crime rates, an additional variable of gun ownership rate should be introduced.
When discussing the effects of concealed carry on crime rates, an additional variable of concealed carry rate should be introduced.
When discussing the effects of open carry on crime rates, an additional variable of open carry rate should be introduced.
If those rates aren't also included, then the study is completely invalid.
When discussing the relationship between different types of crimes, additional variables regarding the "profit" and "opportunity cost" of those crimes must also be considered. (Profit and opportunity cost in "air quotes" because they do not necessarily relate to finance.)
For the sake of argument, this is what a simplistic comparison of FBI crime rates vs Brady Ranking looks like, with all states, with the top/bottom 5 rankings removed, and top/bottom 5 rates (fliers, most of which happen to occur in the middle) removed.
I see every article like this as a good one.
The Liberal Rifle Association posted the below image a couple days ago, and today a link to the mother who fended off 3 home invaders with a Hi Point with the caption "Incredible footage of a mother defending her home and children from home invaders.
Criminals don't usually work alone. This is why high capacity magazines are needed. "
I post these to show that "liberals" aren't the enemy and can like guns just as much as conservatives. Guns don't have to be a partisan issue.
I couldn't agree more. I think groups like OK2A should have an outreach and training program sensitive to those who have no experience with, and therefor are afraid of, guns. Nothing is politically stronger than a bipartisan backing.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,168
- Reaction score
- 46
The only reason liberals and conservatives disagree is because each of them wants to be in charge of telling everyone else what to do.
Will Rogers himself couldn't have said it better!
I'm sure that the mention of one name will inflame some, but I'll do it anyway. Glenn Beck has been pretty good with describing the differences in the political philosophies. Instead of using the label "liberal" for those that are supportive of removing people's rights, he uses the phrase "progressive." Progressives can be members of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. I'd even suspect that some that would call themselves independents and libertarians might even be progressives.
Sadly, the progressive philosophy was actually started by Teddy Roosevelt. Progressives have no problem with government control, and it is a good example of why the Republican Party is feuding within itself, with the "establishment" folks fighting with the "tea party" type politicians and candidates. People like McCain, and to some degree, Romney, could be referred to as progressives if they are still leaning toward controlling people via government.
I've had discussions with many people that did not want to call themselves "liberal" because they had begun to feel uncomfortable. However, many of them confused the term "progressive," thinking that it meant more along the lines that they were more likely to be willing to try new things. When I asked them if they would then support school vouchers, they then tended to stammer because it has generally been the conservatives that want that to at least be tried.
I've certainly had my differences with members of OSA that differed from my conservative philosophies, but at no time have I felt that they were any more "evil" than I am. As for political parties, Oklahoma is a good example of a state where a lot of Democrats are actually conservative and vote that way. However, I think that most of the gun control ideas have been advanced by those that I refer to as progressives. Liberalism has been wrongly labeled from what the classic meaning was. Many who call themselves "liberal" now are far from the classic meaning.
Sadly, the progressive philosophy was actually started by Teddy Roosevelt. Progressives have no problem with government control, and it is a good example of why the Republican Party is feuding within itself, with the "establishment" folks fighting with the "tea party" type politicians and candidates. People like McCain, and to some degree, Romney, could be referred to as progressives if they are still leaning toward controlling people via government.
I've had discussions with many people that did not want to call themselves "liberal" because they had begun to feel uncomfortable. However, many of them confused the term "progressive," thinking that it meant more along the lines that they were more likely to be willing to try new things. When I asked them if they would then support school vouchers, they then tended to stammer because it has generally been the conservatives that want that to at least be tried.
I've certainly had my differences with members of OSA that differed from my conservative philosophies, but at no time have I felt that they were any more "evil" than I am. As for political parties, Oklahoma is a good example of a state where a lot of Democrats are actually conservative and vote that way. However, I think that most of the gun control ideas have been advanced by those that I refer to as progressives. Liberalism has been wrongly labeled from what the classic meaning was. Many who call themselves "liberal" now are far from the classic meaning.
Just as so many other labels have been co-opted, the label "progressive" in modern vernacular is really describing an undercover communist. I doubt TR would describe himself as a progressive today, nor would he agree with modern day progressives.
Well, it's gonna be me v them. If a commie is talking about weapons, you can be damn sure he wants to be the only one that has them.
Yes, a classic liberal used to be a wonderful thing. They built this country and wrote our Constitution. When the commies started trying to hide their collectivist ideals, the name changed from commie to socialist/Fascists (slightly different approach, same result), then liberal, and now it's progressive. It's the same Big Red Dog Uncle Curtis warned us about.
By the way, history has proven Tail Gunner Joe right more often than not.
Yes, a classic liberal used to be a wonderful thing. They built this country and wrote our Constitution. When the commies started trying to hide their collectivist ideals, the name changed from commie to socialist/Fascists (slightly different approach, same result), then liberal, and now it's progressive. It's the same Big Red Dog Uncle Curtis warned us about.
By the way, history has proven Tail Gunner Joe right more often than not.
Similar threads
