Outdoor Adventure USA

cruiserlarry wrote:That's why I'm a progressive, as opposed to a leftist. I am able to assimilate new information and use it to adjust my position on an issue. That's the difference between myself and those who fear their rights are going to be confiscated by some mystical government entity with an agenda - I can rethink my position based on rational thought instead of towing the line of others who "think" for me...

Your turn to progress....

No, thanks. I am quite satisfied with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that we now have. If we do anything, we need to reverse some of the damage that the “progressive” movement has created.

So you see yourself as a “progressive”, eh? These days I find that the label one wears does not necessarily reveal the true political mind set that lurks below. Its so easy to engage in the faddish re-branding of one’s political thinking that it is nearly impossible to know exactly what is what. And in many cases, the definitions have been so badly blurred, that those who call themselves a (fill in name, like progressive), are nothing like those who founded their movement. I will accept that you believe you are a “progressive”, but I will not judge your thinking on the label you wear or refuse to wear (leftist or liberal). You bristled at my use of the word, “left” and were quick to deny that you were one. Accepted. What I will look at is how you have conducted yourself in this discussion.


In that regard, you have not been shy about making assertions and then drawing conclusions. The problem with your assertions is that they are just your opinion and not facts. Examples:
1. You are 100% more likely to be injured if you are armed;
2. Most of the open carry crowd are stockpilers;
3. You are not likely to protect yourself with a weapon.

And, as much as you have attempted to wiggle out of the meaning of your statements below, we have all seen how low you regard gun owners in general. These comments speak for them self:
1.

Most (gun owners) are not smart enough or skilled enough (to engage in self defense)

.
Your justification for this was to state,

If you equate an expression of truth as an insult, that's your interpretation.

2.

I do not believe the majority of people are above average in mental capacity - by definition - and fear is a powerful motivator.

You also said,

there are a lot of average Americans who give in easily to fear tactics used to support political ideas they are uneducated about.

The clear implication here is that the majority of gun owners are not smart enough to avoid being fooled by this fear, that you think is false. Put in your terms, we are not smart enough, due to our limited mental capacity, to see the real truth, like you do.

This is elitism, plain and simple.

For those who believe that only the educated and enlightened are capable of knowing what’s best, there is no doubt about their idea for a solution - government.

One of the fundamental differences between the right and the left is the role that each feels the government should play in the lives of it’s citizens. At the heart of this fundamental difference, regarding the role of the government, those on the right believe that people are capable of managing their own lives and the role of the government should be very limited. This line of thinking necessarily accepts that most people are smart enough to run their own lives and rejects government intervention in all but the most extreme cases. In contrast, those on the left prefer to have government solutions for nearly everything and do not believe that people are capable of managing their lives.

I’ll let your actions determine whether you are on the right or the left.

Some progressives can be very rigid in their thinking but is that any worse than the current wave of anti-Intellectualism that has taken over the conservative movement? Have you looked up the word liberal in the dictionary lately? Based upon what I read it doesn't sound half bad but when someone on the so-called right use the term it's almost spat out. Like it's un-American or un-Christian. That may be why some avoid the label but if I remember correctly Teddy Roosevelt ran for president as the head of the Bull-Moose party also known as the Progressive Party. Does that make him a "leftist"

In any case left is a relative term. A member of the conservative party in the UK would be considered to the left of our Democratic party on a number of issues and yes I am a liberal. I also believe that a just society takes care of those less able to care for themselves as well protect its citizens from threats both external and internal.

Dennis David wrote:Some progressives can be very rigid in their thinking but is that any worse than the current wave of anti-Intellectualism that has taken over the conservative movement? Have you looked up the word liberal in the dictionary lately? Based upon what I read it doesn't sound half bad but when someone on the so-called right use the term it's almost spat out. Like it's un-American or un-Christian. That may be why some avoid the label but if I remember correctly Teddy Roosevelt ran for president as the head of the Bull-Moose party also known as the Progressive Party. Does that make him a "leftist"

In any case left is a relative term. A member of the conservative party in the UK would be considered to the left of our Democratic party on a number of issues and yes I am a liberal.

I am not prepared to agree that there is a wave of anti-intellectualism that has swept either party, Republican or Democrat. There are just not enough intellectuals to make it happen. I think that the conservative movement is the grass roots surge that will bring the Republican party back to its roots.

While there is some blurring of distinctions between the various factions, as I mentioned, I do believe that the terminology of right and left, at least here in the US, is about as accurate as we can get. Dictionary definitions of these terms are subject to the input and inclinations of the authors.

I believe you are right about Teddy R. being one of the first "Progressives" .

DaveK wrote:No, thanks. I am quite satisfied with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that we now have.

Maybe you should still wear a loincloth and pull women by their hair - why change at all ?

The Constitution has been altered many times since it's original incarnation to keep it relevant to the times in which we live. More at issue it seems, is the way these documents are interpreted - this is usually where the problems arise. All sides of every issue have been guilty of stretching the written content to validate their interpretation as the true meaning of the document. Many other famous works have had this issue, the most well known being the Bible. Many, many different versions have appeared over the ages, all claiming to be the correct version. (Relax, I am not trying to start a religious discussion here - just that was the easiest example to work with )

DaveK wrote:So you see yourself as a “progressive”, eh? These days I find that the label one wears does not necessarily reveal the true political mind set that lurks below. Its so easy to engage in the faddish re-branding of one’s political thinking that it is nearly impossible to know exactly what is what. And in many cases, the definitions have been so badly blurred, that those who call themselves a (fill in name, like progressive), are nothing like those who founded their movement.

I appreciate you not wanting to pigeonhole my thinking - that is progessive thinking, and I'll take what I can get here.

DaveK wrote:In that regard, you have not been shy about making assertions and then drawing conclusions. The problem with your assertions is that they are just your opinion and not facts. Examples:
1. You are 100% more likely to be injured if you are armed;
2. Most of the open carry crowd are stockpilers;
3. You are not likely to protect yourself with a weapon.

This is not what I've said (or at least not the meaning of what I said).

1. I said you're more likely to be the victim of a gun accident while in possession of a gun.
2. I said that the majority of people who I've encountered lobbying for more gun rights have many guns and lots of ammo - more than I would consider reasonable for personal protection. (Do you know ANY single gun owners vocally demonstrating for open carry ? - I'd venture a guess - no).
3. I said you are not likely to ever need to defend yourself with a weapon.

All of these statements are a far cry from your interpretations of my statements.

While you can label my statements as elitist, I think you are fooling yourself if you think they are not true. I'm not proud or happy about it, and I'd like to change it (requires spending money on infrastructure, education, and social programs - nothing you are likely to agree with).

DaveK wrote:For those who believe that only the educated and enlightened are capable of knowing what’s best, there is no doubt about their idea for a solution - government.

Why are people so afraid of having smart people in charge of things ??? I'll never understand why anyone, of any intellectual level, would against having the smartest folks in charge of things. We expect this in every aspect of our lives, from the guy running the banks, to the corporations we've invested our saving in, but want the most powerful institution, our government, of, by, and for the people, to be run by average joes...Huh ??? I want the smartest, quickest-thinking, most honest, most dedicated people I can find to run the things that will have effects on my life - don't you ? (Now, of course, I'm assuming all other factors are equal - of course there are bad apples at any social, financial, or intellectual level)

DaveK wrote:One of the fundamental differences between the right and the left is the role that each feels the government should play in the lives of it’s citizens. At the heart of this fundamental difference, regarding the role of the government, those on the right believe that people are capable of managing their own lives and the role of the government should be very limited.

This is a very interesting statement. While accurate in description and definition, it is historically completely false. Consider that the largest tax increases in history, the physically largest government in terms of number of workers and agencies, the largest number of regulations restricting the freedoms of American citizens, have all occurred under administrations that claimed to be conservative, to want less federal government, and who claimed to respect personal freedom.

I think everyone would prefer to have minimal government regulation, intervention, and control. If all people managed their affairs in ethical, fiscally responsible ways, without infringing on the rights and welfare of other citizens, this would be a no-brainer. But just as violent crime has been occurring since the beginning of mankind, so has corruption, dishonesty, and greed at all levels of every society, be it in the private or public sector. So, governments have been formed to help negotiate the delicate balance between the individual and the society in which he resides. Some have worked better than others, all have been flawed. This is a subject way beyond the scope of this forum, however, as it has been debated for thousands of years with no agreement or solution.

cruiserlarry wrote:
That would be true if it weren't for the fact that most who support open carry also stockpile weapons and ammo, IMO. Show me an open carry participant with one pistol and a box of ammo...

Here is one. I support open carry. And not only do I not have more than one gun, I am out of ammo.

OU812 wrote:

cruiserlarry wrote:That would be true if it weren't for the fact that most who support open carry also stockpile weapons and ammo, IMO. Show me an open carry participant with one pistol and a box of ammo...

Here is one. I support open carry. And not only do I not have more than one gun, I am out of ammo.

Make that two. I have more than one, but I don't stockpile (nor do I have any interest in doing so). I simply have one for each purpose that I have use for (defense, quail, rabbit, cheap target practice).

Chazz Layne wrote:

OU812 wrote:

cruiserlarry wrote:That would be true if it weren't for the fact that most who support open carry also stockpile weapons and ammo, IMO. Show me an open carry participant with one pistol and a box of ammo...

Here is one. I support open carry. And not only do I not have more than one gun, I am out of ammo.

Make that two. I have more than one, but I don't stockpile (nor do I have any interest in doing so). I simply have one for each purpose that I have use for (defense, quail, rabbit, cheap target practice).

Well, that's good to know, but it wasn't OAUSA members presenting their viewpoints here that I was referring to - I was talking about the vocal public protesters I observed on the news...

Just to save time, I know every gun enthusiast isn't a fanatic, and that many folks support open carry for reasons they believe to be sane and rational...(or I wouldn't stoke the fires here )

I would still wager that the number of gun owners with multiple weapons, even for the same application, far exceeds the number with only one gun (with or without ammo ), especially as it relates to supporting open carry policies. If so many gun owners weren't worried about people coming to seize thier weapon(s), we could take a nationwide poll to see if I'm correct

They'll shoot before you can get close enough to ask them.

Dennis David wrote:They'll shoot before you can get close enough to ask them.

Very good. And funny!!!!

cruiserlarry wrote:Well, that's good to know, but it wasn't OAUSA members presenting their viewpoints here that I was referring to - I was talking about the vocal public protesters I observed on the news...

I'd have to agree with you there.

I have an interesting hunch - that gun owners in heavily restricted states have a higher chance of being the stereotypical "gun nut" than gun owners in free states. I have this hunch because it seems like (most) folks I know in the "communist" states that own guns are pretty obvious about that fact and vocal about their few remaining rights. On the other side, most folks I know in free states (like Arizona) own many guns, but you wouldn't know it unless you knew them pretty well. I think this is a combination of it both being more commonplace in such states, and the no-hassle shall-issue stance those states take on handing out conceal carry permits to law abiding citizens.