Are liberals having second thoughts about how they interpret the second amendment? Do you still think that government, police, and military should be the only ones with guns?
I don't think that Trump will change their minds. In fact it may harden their position if for the only reason that Trump is for them. People were not anti-gun because of Obama.
I'm not so sure. In fact I think that they had so much trust in their big, benevolent, government that the thought of somebody coming into power that completely contradicts their ideology was all but a ferry tale.
Now they might be having second thoughts about giving the president all that power, now they might think twice about the dangers of executive orders, and bypassing congress, and flouting the constitution.
Trump is never going to get the fawning drooling media to hold him up on a pedestal the way they did for Obama, but imagine if he did.
By the way, when does Trump get his Nobel prize for doing nothing?
Maybe he will get it for that hair or the prize will be awarded to the hair and not Trump. After 2008 the Nobel prize is about as relevant as the Golden Globes or MTV Movie Awards.
The left does not need the 'look and load attitude 'as it has more evolved sensibilities. We will just let Trump be literally raped by the press and negative public opinion. That is one wall that he has a foothold on.
He will slip up and fall on his own sword and I will be there waiting for him. And don't underestimate the power of public opinion, it sunk both the Johnson and Nixon administrations. The more he tries to avoid and muzzle the press the greater he becomes its focus.
The left is formidable, so you had better hang on to your hat!
Those "evolved sensibilities" sure proved they are the answer to crime didn't they? Think the owners of the trashed limo, the broken windows and burned car will agree and evolve to proper attitudes too?
I don't think that a handful of ruffians is going to define the dissent that Trump has coming.
This does a better job, God Bless Denver, my home town, for doing its part in participation and standing tall.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/21/womens-ma … al-photos/
Here are a few more....
You are right about one thing, liberalism has evolved into something. Cancer.
One thing that can be concerning is the increase of no-knock SWAT Team home invasions. I heard its estimated to be over 20,000 a year. They use battering rams to knock down doors in most cases. Sometimes innocent people, even children get shot and killed. While someone else gets hauled to jail in the middle of the night for a non-violent crime, or because they know a person has a gun in the home, in some cases because they posted something online that wasn't politically correct.
Yeah, I feel much safer with Trump as President, that the actual bad guys will get justice served to them. Trump was meeting with the CIA today.
What is it you like to say..."It begins"?
Not sure, are you for or against the increase of SWAT no knock home invasions? If you are against them, then I will say on this rare occasion, we are on the same side.
I am not for SWAT Team home invasions as many have been executed with excessive force in the middle of the night when people are sleeping. Too many innocent people get injured or gunned down that way because these guys are geared up and in combat mode.
I have heard of people who posted something on Facebook against the president that wasn't politically correct, and later have a SWAT TEAM bust down their door and some times someone gets shot down. Some people have said they got hauled off to a mental ward for an evaluation for not being PC. If that is true, I sure the heck hope that's history now.
Ultimately, SWAT Teams are great for taking down the cartels and criminally insane. I don't have a problem with making neighborhoods and the country safe. I wouldn't have a problem with SWAT invading known pedophiles homes.
They started to militarize the police after 9/11 under Bush, and Obama carried that to a much higher level for his eight years of service. It was great for the Military Industrial Complex and the politicians and citizens in their pockets. I read that the Feds gave the police $2.2 in military equipment since 2006, if I remember right.
After Hurricane Katrina, police, the National Guard, and some military men went door to door and confiscated guns, and they weren't gentle and kind about it. They had orders to shoot anyone who resisted, American citizens! Basically, I believe the government wanted to see if they could get away with gun confiscations as a beta test, and they did.
Well, people were left defenseless during a crisis. I heard about women being raped repeatedly by NOPD. People might think that would never happen, but it has right here in the USA.
I feel much safer now with Trump as President because he is Pro-Constitution. I didn't feel safe with Imama Obama in power, nor would I with Hitler ... I mean Hillary in power.
Yes, I'm sure at least some people reevaluate their views in light of significant changes in circumstances. I can't imagine why that wouldn't be the case. I don't think that's a revelation to anyone who has ever met, spoken to, or been in the general vicinity of human beings for any signficant period of time.
On a more tangential note, I don't think every person who calls themselves a "liberal" interprets the 2nd amendment the same way, neither is every person who calls themselves a conservative against any form of sensible gun control. The world is more complex than the simplistic left vs. right narrative we tend to to boil everything down to.
I know the liberal/bad, conservative/good (and vice versa) way of thinking is easier to manage, but it isn't real. It's an artificial difference used to demarcate an "us" and a "them". That demarcation makes it easier to compete (engage in conflict) with "others", i.e. those not in our social group. Historically, being part of a cooperative group significantly increased an individual's chances of survival, which is why we, and other animals, do that.
The difference is that humans are self-aware and therefore capable of acting contrary to animal instinct. We are capable of rational thought, which allows us to understand that there is no real "us" and "them", only us. Understanding that results in a different mindset, which results in a change in the way we engage with each other. So your question becomes:
"Are people having second thoughts about how they interpret the second amendment? Do people still think that government, police, and military should be the only ones with guns?"
The emphasis on "people" rather than "liberals", changes the feel of the question. In this context, applying labels like "liberal", "conservative", "the left", "the right", essentially functions to dehumanize, which makes conflict easier. For some that may be their intention. For others, referring to people as people (and not abstract homogeneous lump) reinforces the fact we are referring to our neighbours, our teammates, our colleagues, our classmates, our family members etc. In other words, it reminds us that those we perceive as "them" (including the "liberals") are in fact just variations of "us".
There are two powerful and distinct world views in the United States who's ideologies are diametrically opposed to each other. Of course every individual has their own set of beliefs such as my belief in judging individuals rather than groups. I am an individualist and therefore with few exceptions am opposed to the concept of social justice.
When people of like minded ideologies attempt to form laws (particularly those based on moral issues) they subsequently walk the path of a particular mindset which separates themselves from those who do not share the same values. This is unavoidable, and is unmistakably what we are currently experiencing. The divide will only become wider, as fewer and fewer people such as yourself stand on the fence of benignity and pacifism.
You either lean left or you lean right. So the question remains the same, and the pc speak winds up in the garbage heap where it belongs.
Would you like to take a survey to find out if you are a liberal or a conservative? It should be pretty obvious.
Affective polarization is not new. Neither is in-group bias, and neither is tribalism. But ideological difference is not the source of conflict, it is just the rationalization for it.
Difference is the issue. The specific difference is irrelevant. If people could not find a difference in political ideology to rationalize animosity, they would use religious difference. If they could not use religious difference, they would use racial difference. If they could not use racial difference, they would use nationality, and so on. To the point where people will even use supporting different sports teams to rationalize conflict (including physical violence) with others.
The key point is that the "otherness" that people cite as the source of their animosity can be any arbitrary attribute you care to mention, including differences that have zero negative impact on them. So why do we go to such lengths to engage in conflict?
Because we are acting out our animal instincts. Those instincts tell us: we need to belong to a group; to cooperate with those in the group; that "others" (those not in the group) are bad; and that we must compete (engage in conflict) with those others.
As we are self-aware, we find sophisticated ways to rationalize what is essentially animal behavior. We are biologically programmed to be negatively biased against anyone who is not in our group. Some people are able to override that behaviour. Their ability to be rational outweighs their tendency towards primitive biological imperatives that are not conducive to living in a modern society. Others, not so much.
So we have a choice. Remain trapped within the primitive mentality that you represent, which once helped us survive, but now holds back human progress. Or move away from that mentality and escape the prison of our biological programming.
I believe the current political situation is the last desperate gasp of those who choose the former, i.e. people who are trying to run away from progress. Like it or not, thanks to technological developments, the world has become a smaller place and society has progressed because of it. Current attempts at isolationism are an attempt to roll that back, but progress always finds a way.
Not sure how I got from your original post to this, but thanks for the thought-food.
"I believe the current political situation is the last desperate gasp of those who choose the former, i.e. people who are trying to run away from progress."
So much depends on perception and spin, doesn't it? While I agree with nearly everything you say here (sadly enough), I would have concluded that the current political situation is the first tentative breath of those who chose the latter. People who are forsaking their alignment and hold to a specific political group and opting for that which has no alignment. They are saying that it's time to dissolve that glue that binds people to a group think and instead are insisting that politics become something dependent on individuals instead.
I might even go on to mention that society has progressed in spit of group control of the individual, but that those groups have become so powerful, with such a grip, that progress has ground to a halt and the people are finally rebelling; that they are finally trying to strike out on their own in spite of the biological imperative to "belong". Or maybe they're just looking for a new group - we can hope not, but they may be.
It's all in the spin and perception, isn't it?
The insanity of the left and its attack on the second amendment ? Any success by the left against the second amendment would make ALL the Trump protests look like a "Love in ", comparably with gun owners in the streets. The American Civil War would look like a friendly spat .
by Justin Earick3 years ago
And what makes some believe that they can take down most well-funded and -armed military in the world with shotguns and assault rifles?
by Don W13 hours ago
I'm struggling to keep up with all this. Is Trump really planning to attack North Korea if they do another nuclear test? Is it seriously being considered as a possibility? Or is it just sabre rattling? And is this type...
by Scott Bateman6 weeks ago
"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond...
by My Esoteric3 weeks ago
Maybe. The 17th Century term High Crimes and Misdemeanors may not mean what you think it might be after seeing President Clinton impeached, but not convicted. A common interpretation is as follows:The...
by ptosis35 hours ago
Arizona Senate Bill 1500 and Arizona House Bill 2456 require a candidate for the office of president of the United States to submit a copy of the their federal and state income tax returns for the immediately preceding...
by IslandBites6 months ago
Donald Trump on Friday wondered aloud what would happen to Hillary Clinton should her Secret Service detail disarm."I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm. I think they should...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.