Interesting views from the left

From the article: "I myself am enough in tune with Buddhist teachings to believe that the taking of life is wrong in any circumstance--and, yes, that includes the saving of my own."

Well, he probably knows better than anyone whether his life is worth defending or not.

I don't accept the arguement as I don't want to protect my person or my family that therefore you don't have the right to protect yourself or your family.

The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting. Rather is is based on the fact that free men can not exist where only that state is allowed to keep arms.

I have to wonder if Peter Clothier is, like most liberals, in favor of abortion on demand, which, by my reckoning, is killing.

It's a good thing that there are people out there with guns who work hard to protect Pete from hopefully never needing a gun.

Bush is not a Hitler, no. Hitler was a good deal smarter than W, and Hitler could actually speak in public without making a laughing stock out of himself.

It's not the one, single individual of George Walker Bush I fear, it's that entire... Clique? Faction? Sub-group of a political party, which surrounds him and/or he has surrounded himself with, and from which he seems to derive all his policies, concepts, and political initiatives. Call them neocons or whatever. Claim they are, or harbor, the real power behind W's administration --- or not, it matters little. (The man himself may not be a powerless puppet, exactly, but neither is he nearly as influential and independent as a president should be.)

Either way, that faction is dangerous, and will remain dangerous no matter who wins the next few elections, because they can handily retain political influence and even power regardless. They are the real reason i'm sweating blood over the fact I can't at present afford to arm and train myself properly. They are a real reason for leftist-leaning people such as myself to be seriously worried for their safety in this country.

Bush is not a sturdy enough tool for them to load me and mine into cattle cars... But they'll be here after Bush is gone, and the next president --- who will almost certainly be a republican; Edwards can't pull off the presidency, nor will this country elect either a woman or a black man in my lifetime --- might just be.

Imagine there's no Liberals. "We" don't need to realize anything except that our rights are not granted by any government they come from God Almighty Himself.
The rights of the people are not conditional on the Government's approval.
I plan to waste my vote on Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/gunowners/

Wow, was that Dan Rather posting at 4:44?

That's not including my first comment, which has been lost 'somewhere', and my second, which has been in the moderation zone for about five hours now.

"They are a real reason for leftist-leaning people such as myself to be seriously worried for their safety in this country."

No, YOU are the reason left-leaning people such as yourself should be seriously worried for your safety in this country. Your "faction" and "clique" has pushed gun control on millions of people in this country. If any political party scares me and gives me reason to think they have sinister motives, it's the one that seeks to prevent me from defending myself. If there's ever a political party that "loads you and yours into cattle cars," you can thank the left for making it possible through gun control.

Whenever gunnies discuss the second amendment and the importance of a militia, it's seldom long before somebody pipes up with "it can happen here, we shouldn't think we're immune to tyranny and we ought to be prepared for it". And the majority will nod sagely and quietly agree.

But opine even once that it might happen not just here, but in and through the republican party, and you'll see fur fly more often than not. Usually yours, for proposing such a plainly off-the-wall lunatic notion.

Meanwhile, I'm saving up my money for a nice SKS and a range membership; I wish to be prepared. If other gunnies think my estimates of where the strategic threat is currently most likely to come from is so crazy as all that, maybe they should be less dismissive the next time the unprepared scoff at the very idea that a threat could ever appear from any quarter.

The commenters at Huffington Post probably should not have guns. While I am a strong supporter of gun rights I do believe that anyone so filled with anger and ignorance to think Bush is Hitler is simply a nut who cannot be trusted with power tools, much less with guns.

People don't ridicule those who are likely to kill them. People ridicule Bush, and did not ridicule Hitler (and not because he did not screw up his speeches or cut them short because he had the trots).

But Bush is "just like Hitler"?

for anon at 0750

So what is the reason you are now willing to view the second in a 'new' light?

In the final analysis it makes no diff - just be glad you are able to arm yourself now, if the libs get their way you will be sol, and that *IS* what happened in Germany when Hitler took full advantage of the gun laws put in place for the good of the people b4 he got there.

tom gunn

I keep trying to respond to Tom, but the spam filter blocks it for some reason.

Short answer, I've not changed my mind on weapons rights, I've always disagreed with the "received wisdom" on the left about that point. Lots of people like me do, it's just that most of them don't consider the point important enough to fight for, as they focus on other political issues instead.

Godwin's law is in effect on this thread.

Here's something Peter Clothier might want to consider, as spoken by a fellow Buddhist;

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate.

Personally, I counln't agree more with the Dalai Lama. He may be a pacifist, but he sure isn't stupid. Perhaps Mr. Clothier needs to study his scriptures a bit more, eh?

As for a Hindu point of view? Well, let's see what Gandhi has to say, shall we?

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238

The trouble with fools like Mr. Clothier is that they just don't get it, nor are they ever likely to. But they will try with all their might to shove their idiocy down our throats....or worse.

Dear David,

Thanks for bringing things like this to our attention. It is always instructive to read what the "other side" is saying. You said this in your post, but it bears repeating. The problem is not that someone believes in absolute pacifism. They are free to believe such, and to personally act on their beliefs. They are thus free to live fully and wholely according to their beliefs. Where Mr. Collier crosses the line is when he attempts force, through legislation, those who may have other beliefs to act on his beliefs also. Now, I happen not to be a pacifist, and to believe that I should be able to defend myself. How am I to do that, when I have been disarmed? If Mr. Collier truly believed his ideas were better, then he would be happy to advocate his ideas, but would not advocate for government action to limit the freedom of others who hold different beliefs. The two CAN live in the same society, quite peacefully. Really!

Regards,
PolyKahr

This is not mine, but I don't remember where I saw it first:

To the "Bush is Hitler" crowd: If Bush was Hitler, just for saying so, you'd be a lampshade by now.

(but don't let me burst your delusional state)