1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Clint Smith on Liberals with guns

5K views 69 replies 39 participants last post by  guy sajer 
#1 ·
#8 ·
Quit calling them "liberals". They want to steal our freedoms. Nothing liberal about that. Call them what they are: socialists.
 
#16 ·
Outstanding video by Clint Smith.:D Gotta admit I had no previous familiarity with even the name. Very happy to now being introduced to him.

+1911 Clint. And +1911 KW Gary for sharing this video.:)

Btw, his example is more than a little representative of female liberals in Texas. One first-hand experience with thugs, after receiving a lifetime of misinformation -- really propaganda -- via the "education system", and then they quickly revert back to native Texas roots;);););)
 
#17 ·
When I was 16 years old I worked for a guy much like Clint Smith.
Straight forward and honest and he expected the same from me and everyone else that worked for him. Some hated him for this.
Not me, I thought he was the easiest man in the world to work for.
I never, ever, had a comunication problem with him.
If you couldn't do what he wanted, explain why.
He respected my ability to make a decision to make something "right" for the customer.
If this decision proved to be a bad choice and cost him money/time didn't complain at all. He explained why my decision was wrong, but always stood behind me.
He was one of the best men I've ever known.
 
#20 ·
We just live in a screwed up era where "conservatives" happen to have a civil right they are in favor of (most conservatives in other countries do not support gun ownership).

Traditionally, the people who have come down hardest on preventing people from owning guns were Southern conservatives while the "liberals" were protecting those rights.

But the Republican party used to have a large liberal half, and that's gone now.
 
#24 ·
someone came in last! LOL
 
#27 · (Edited)
Reagan signed into law the now much hated NFA circa 1986. The AWB was Clintion. Different beasts.

There are enemies on both sides. From "reasonable" gun control (IE, if you aren't in favor of our measures you aren't reasonable) to the CA list of "approved" firearms (unless you're a federal agency or law enforcement...then you don't need to worry about our approval). I think this is fairly obvious.

Edit: it should also be noted that Reagan supported the AWB (assault weapon ban) of 1994 via a letter sent the same year. Further proving that perhaps he is lionized more than he ought to be.
 
#31 ·
When you use the term Libtard or say that Liberalism is a mental disorder you have removed your brain from the conversation. You are now running on emotions. Hey, I get that it's satisfying to have a "enemy" but at that point your ability to reason has left the building. Really. Because who can reason with a 'tard or Mental Defective, Right?

Truth is that, on gun issues, your closest "Liberal" is just one of your neighbors who would like to see less people get shot. This is NOT an evil goal. It's quite the opposite.

Less people getting shot is an honorable concept. I don't think anyone here is Pro Murder. And it's likely quite true that in a country with ZERO guns (zero guns is different than gun laws) there would be less murders overall.

So here's the whole issue boiled down to it's very core, The concentrated espresso of the matter. The two opposing philosophies in a nutshell:

A. Anti-Gun People are willing to forego the option of defending themselves in exchange for lessening the overall murder rate.

B. Pro-Gun People are willing to accept a higher murder rate in exchange for the ability to defend themselves.

That's where the rubber meets the road.

Now, I'm in the second camp. I can't save everybody, but I can save myself.

So although I agree with the Anti-Gun people that lessening murder rates is a splendid idea, I'm not willing to compromise my PERSONAL safety for the safety of society as a whole.

So the Anti's viewpoint is understandable & not without reason. It's actually pretty honorable to compromise one's own safety for the benefit of others.

But that's not MY position. I'm staying armed. I'm no Self-Sacrificer. I'll cover my own butt, thank you very much.
 
#34 ·
Handy---- My post showed "polar opposites" only because I was boiling the issues down to their most basic components. The nitty gritty, crux of the matter.

But yes, Of course the Anti & Pro gun camps share a ton of common ground. For example, Us Gun Guys promote gun safety so less people get shot. A worthy goal that Liberals would agree with.

The Liberals are not fans of rape, gangs & murder anymore than we are. We agree on that too.

The biggest difference is that the Liberal view leans more to creating wide-sweeping, comprehensive public policies to address very large problems. Of course that includes higher taxation to cover the huge costs involved.

The Conservatives prefer lower taxes & a more "by your own bootstraps" approach.

I guess you could say that Liberals see a beehive as a better system, overall, than a wolf pack system.

And in some ways it is. And in some ways it's not. The bees are clearly sacrificing freedom for security.

I'm more of a Wolf Guy.
 
#35 · (Edited)
I don't buy that any self aware person could believe that they both vote "socially conservative" and are a "lone wolf". Political social conservationism implies enforcing traditional social norms through legislation.


The Pink Pistols are Lone Wolves - and certainly not conservative.


It has only been in the last 30 years or so that people started to believe that Democrats were liberal, Republicans conservative and that characterized each side's diametrically opposed take on everything. "Liberals" do not want to regulate everything, and "Conservatives" are far, far from laissez-faire. That is simply the story we repeat to ourselves in a fit of auto-hypnosis. Call an apple "banana" enough times and you start thinking it is a banana.


The reason I point this out is that gun owners, being more conservative, have allowed pundits to make gun control into a liberal vs. conservative issue. It really isn't and it shouldn't be allowed to be discussed in that way because it reduces the number of people willing to fight it.


Obama mainly signed laws lightening gun control regulations. Reagan and Bush Sr. mainly tightened gun control laws and supported those passed by Clinton. It is time for a new narrative than this false "lone wolf" vs "nanny" thing that does nothing but make it harder to do anything positive with gun control. We passed CCL in a fit of "liberalism" - using legislation to control and set limits on an issue.
 
#36 ·
I agree that as soon as any issue or concept is accepted as Liberal (or Conservative) it is instantly rejected by half the population.

And sometimes an idea comes along that can be construed as both blue AND red.

But it's neither. It's just an idea based on a reason rather than party.

That really causes fits for people that cannot think without a category to guide them.

They feel like they have to decide if it's blue or red otherwise they are lost. Sad.

So as I've said here before, If you believe that your party is 100% correct on EVERYTHING and that the other party is 100% wrong on EVERYTHING....................

Well, I got a "classic" '82 Chevette to sell ya. Maybe you can drive it to your Wetlands Time Share.
 
#40 ·
Remember, Uncle Ted's approach. "I don't want repeat offenders. I want dead offenders."

The feelies can just think of it as a very long exile from a polite (armed) society.
 
#45 ·
Jolly Rogers---- You will note something I said in one of my posts. I mentioned that there would be less murders in a country with zero guns and I added, for clarification:

(Zero guns is different than gun laws) maybe you missed that part.

Because I agree with you that gun laws are largely ineffective on those with no regard for said laws.

The only way draconian gun laws "work" for a whole country is by disarming 100 good citizens to deny a gun to the ONE guy who would steal one from the first group.

And I said this idea does "work" , for a whole country. IN QUOTES. Because that's only if you define "working" as lowering the overall murder rate in spite of you yourself getting stabbed to death in your own home.

Of course that's not for me. I'm not willing to risk that fate for a lower national murder rate.

But the Anti Gunners are.
 
#53 ·
Martin, Although what you said is true, that Pro Gun are willing to accept a perp's death, that's not my point at all

We Gun Folk are willing to accept a certain level of murders with guns. Right now, with guns, the murder rate is about on a par with car fatalities at around 13,000 per year.

Gun suicides run higher, at around 14,000 per year, but that's another ball of wax.

Point is, that some deaths will happen from cars & from guns. That's what happens with freedom. People will do careless & reckless things.

I'm okay with that aspect of life. I take great care with my shooting/carry and great care with my driving. I'm not in charge of everybody else.
 
#54 ·
That is very true and it would be disingenuous to deny that we are willing to accept that with maximum liberty comes the absolute certainty that individuals will abuse said liberty. We just happen to believe that the abrogation of rights of the many due to the abuses of the few is wrong and immoral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top