First episode is up

[Cowboy T]

The first episode is up!  The subject:  What is a Liberal, really, and how does this relate to the Second Amendment?

Comments/feedback is, of course, welcome.

- T

[oldjarhead]

Welcome to the network and the forum, Cowboy T. I listen to your first show. All I can say as a conservative, I agree with you on your Second Amendment stance. Your definition of a Liberal is what I would call the traditional liberal, who still believes in the exchange of ideas. Unfortunately many of people who call themselves liberal, would be the first to take away our Second Amendment rights. I hope you can help those folks understand what the Second Amendment means. Maybe then they will support it. Maybe in a future podcast you can have another liberal guest to interview, on your program, who disagrees with the Second Amendment, and your can discuss your points of view.

[lee n. field]

The first episode is up!  The subject:  What is a Liberal, really, and how does this relate to the Second Amendment?

Comments/feedback is, of course, welcome.

- T

I'll put it in the queue, and give it a listen.

BTW, I greatly appreciate what you put out for the Pro 1000.

[andrsnsm]

I listened to Episode 1 today and enjoyed it.  I do wonder, however, wonder what you would say the differences are between a liberal an a libertarian.  I would also say that the party that is known today as liberal doesn't come close to fitting the definition you gave.  Not even close.  If Dr. Paul was on the ballot in November I suspect you would vote for him.  I would too, IF he were the GOP candidate.

[Cowboy T]

Actually, yes, I did and do support Dr. Paul, and I wish the Republican Primary voters had been (in my view) smart enough to elect him as the nominee.  Sadly, the Party bosses didn't like that and acted accordingly.

A lot of people who call themselves "Liberals" really don't know what it means.  They don't know the history of our country, any more than I've learned that a lot of Conservatives do.  It's a general problem across our country that needs solving.  We used to read the Constitution in class, and I'm not that old yet.  What happened to that?

As for the Libertarians, I've actually been called that before, more than once.  Someone recently came up with a neologism that I liked, "Liberal-tarian".  I might actually use that on occasion.  :-)

I had mentioned the idea of purchasing an AR-15 to my mother and stepfather.  They reacted with some shock, "an AR-15?  Why do you need one of those?"  Well, I don't, since I already have a Mini-14.    But, the question is still valid.  Here's my answer.  I need my guns precisely because I'm a Liberal--a real one*, not the "talking head" version.  It's because of something that Dr. and former Texas State Rep. Susanna Hupp said to the Texas State Legislature after the Luby's massacre in Killeen, TX and watching her parents get murdered:  

"The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or sport.  It's to protect US from YOU."

And she was right.  She was quoting the Founding Fathers.  And that is why, as a Liberal, I need my gun.

* Well, at least that's what I aspire to be, since nobody's perfect.

[Devereaux]

OK. Call me an electronic dummy. I can't figure out how to listen to it - doesn't seem to be a link in your notice, nor on the forum. Or I just don't see well.

Help.

[Cowboy T]

Here you go.

http://traffic.libsyn.com/gunrights/liberals_gun_corner-001.mp3

Going forward, we'll make sure to put the links just underneath the title and date.  Might help w/ visibility.  Thanks for letting us know!

- T

[Heritagefan]

Great show, T.  I enjoyed it very much.

When it comes to the AR you could also tell your mother it's like buying a Corvette or fast motorcycle.  You don't need them, but they are fun to use and enjoy.

Or you could just tell her that you're changing your handle to Pirate T and just needed something that says "Arr!" 

[nate]

I just listened to the first episode last night.  A quick though-some words have been so stripped of their original meaning, or been given new meaning that conflicts with the original so badly that the word has been rendered essentially useless.  I think I remember some commentary by CS Lewis about that, quoted here

"When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word."

I think words like Liberal, Conservative, Assault Rifle, Socialism, etc have become epithets more than actual words with a specific meaning. Like CS Lewis wrote-sometimes reflecting only the speakers opinion rather than fact.  Anyway, I enjoyed the show and will be tuning in next time.

-Nate

[Cowboy T]

You've got a point there, Nate.  Another contemporary example is the word "hacker", which actually means, basically, "tinkerer", but thanks to some ill-informed talking heads, it's come to mean "system cracker" to a lot of people.

That's part of why I describe myself as a Liberal so prominently, and so unabashedly.  I'm only one guy out here, sure.  But that's how things start.  You'd be amazed at how many conversations get started by this at gun shows, and virtually all of them have ended up positive.  Maybe if someone sees someone using the word "liberal" in its true, original sense, it might start more conversations.

BTW, the second show is going to be about guns that I think are cool.  Even figured out how to get a little intro and ending music in there this time.  :-)

[nate]

It's the same way we convince people that guns aren't bad-one at a time (hopefully with some quality range time).

[haskovez]

I have to say while you do sound like a classical liberal in the Mises tradition, I think at this point the term liberal has been taken over by the progressives and no one recognizes it for what you are using it as (even if it is the historic definition.)  That is why they had to come up with the term Libertarian to describe a classical liberal as the people who claim to be liberals have pretty much tainted the definition.  So really at this point why try to take it back it seems like it is more work to say explain what a classical liberal really believed vs just describing yourself as a libertarian?

[Cowboy T]

Fair question, and it's one that I get pretty regularly.  The "Libertarian Party" was indeed created for the reasons you describe.  Where I differ from the Libertarian Party is my belief that some government is helpful and even necessary, e. g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  While the Libertarians certainly agree in "equal justice for all", it seems to me that they'd oppose that landmark legislation, even as (unfortunately) necessary as it was.  Same for the 13th and 14th Amendments; while the Libertarians do seem to agree with the ideas in principle, I'm not certain that they would support them as the Constitutional Amendments that they became.  Maybe "Liberal-tarian" is a better description?

We're going to address this "Liberal" vs. "Libertarian" notion in a future show, because it comes up all the time, and it'd be a good idea to answer that question more fully than is conducive to a forum post.  We won't ignore it.

[Bob Mayne]

I haven't listened to your 2nd episode yet, but I have listened to your first.  Good job!  You are correct that the word liberal to most people, makes them think of Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Shumer, Brady Campaign, etc.  The knucklehead politicians trying to take away our gun rights (Obama if given the chance.)  So you're going to have a tough case to make, that you are in fact, a Liberal.  I understand your definition and agree with it, but it might be a tough sell to most listeners.

You're pretty good though, so I bet you will make the case nicely. 

Welcome to the GRRN!

[haskovez]

Fair question, and it's one that I get pretty regularly.  The "Libertarian Party" was indeed created for the reasons you describe.  Where I differ from the Libertarian Party is my belief that some government is helpful and even necessary, e. g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  While the Libertarians certainly agree in "equal justice for all", it seems to me that they'd oppose that landmark legislation, even as (unfortunately) necessary as it was.  Same for the 13th and 14th Amendments; while the Libertarians do seem to agree with the ideas in principle, I'm not certain that they would support them as the Constitutional Amendments that they became.  Maybe "Liberal-tarian" is a better description?

We're going to address this "Liberal" vs. "Libertarian" notion in a future show, because it comes up all the time, and it'd be a good idea to answer that question more fully than is conducive to a forum post.  We won't ignore it.

Well to be fair, not all Libertarian's believe all government is bad.  There is the whole range in scale from the Classical Liberals (think Thomas Jefferson style) all the way to the voluntarist who are pretty much peaceful anarchists.  I lean more towards the Classical Liberal scale myself as I do think a small amount of government is necessary.

As for the Civil Rights act I have never heard of any Libertarian that was opposed to the provisions that outlawed segregation in the government which is really what most of the act was about.  Where libertarians differ on it are the parts that affect private business.  We feel the market can deal with the issue, and the loss to individual property rights isn't worth it.  At a certain point society has to move along, lets pretend the civil rights act didn't cover private businesses.  What do you think would happen to a restaurant that opened up today and excluded groups of people.  If someone opened up a restaurant and said they wouldn't serve Black people, they would go out of business.  People would mock the owner and no sensible person would want to be seen eating in such an establishment.  We don't really need the government imposing on private property to get there.  I think it is the same theory as allowing hate speech (it is much easier to ridicule the people spouting it, than if you force it underground).  If you compare the US where hate speech is allowed with Europe where it isn't it seems to me that Europe has a much bigger problem with far right neo nazi / anti immigrant types than we do here, and I think outlawing hate speech contributes to that.  It is like if the Republicans got their flag burning amendment the first thing anyone would do for civil disobedience is to burn a flag and we would see a lot more flags desecrated than if it is allowed.

[Cowboy T]

Yes, I've heard this line of reasoning before, and we won't ignore it on the episode that will address the topic.  I appreciate the perspective.

[Uninformed Opinion]

It's been a while sense I've had time to sit down and really listen to any of the pod casts, or get to involved on the forums, but finally got around to listening to your first episode and absolutely enjoyed it. Keep up the good work, and look forward to hearing more from you.