Guest Post: Gun Rights - Are There Any Peaceful Solutions Left?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

Gun Rights: Are There Any Peaceful Solutions Left?

Throughout history, citizen disarmament generally leads to one of two inevitable outcomes:  Government tyranny and genocide, or, revolution and civil war.  Anti-gun statists would, of course, argue that countries like the UK and Australia have not suffered such a result.  My response would be – just give them time.   You may believe that gun control efforts are part and parcel of a totalitarian agenda (as they usually are), or, you may believe that gun registration and confiscation are a natural extension of the government’s concern for our “safety and well-being”.  Either way, the temptation of power that comes after a populace is made defenseless is almost always too great for any political entity to dismiss.  One way or another, for one reason or another, they WILL take advantage of the fact that the people have no leverage to determine their own cultural future beyond a twisted system of law and governance which is, in the end, easily corrupted.

The unawake and the unaware among us will also argue that revolution or extreme dissent against the establishment is not practical or necessary, because the government “is made of regular people like us, who can be elected or removed at any time”. 

This is the way a Republic is supposed to function, yes.  However, the system we have today has strayed far from the methods of a Free Republic and towards the machinations of a single party system.  Our government does NOT represent the common American anymore.  It has become a centralized and Sovietized monstrosity.  A seething hydra with two poisonous heads; one Democrat in name, one Republican in name.  Both heads feed the same bottomless stomach; the predatory and cannibalistic pit of socialized oligarchy.

On the Republican side, we are offered Neo-Con sharks like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, who argue for “conservative” policies such as limited government interference and reduced spending, all while introducing legislation which does the exact opposite.  The recent passage of the “Safe Act” in New York with extensive Republican support proves that Republicans cannot be counted on to defend true conservative values. 

The Democrats get candidates like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, who claim to be anti-war and against government abuse of civil liberties, and yet, these same “progressive and compassionate” politicians now froth at the mouth like rabid dogs sinking their teeth into the flesh of the citizenry, expanding on every tyrannical initiative the Republicans began, and are bombing more civilian targets in more foreign countries than anyone with a conscience should be able to bear.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; the government is not our buddy.  It is not our ally or friend.  It is not a “part of us”.  It is now a separate and dangerous entity.  A parasite feeding off the masses.  It has become a clear threat to the freedoms of average Americans.  It is time for the public to grow up, snap out of its childish delusions, and accept that there is no solace or justice to be found anymore in Washington D.C.  

Once we understand this fact, a question then arises – What do we do about it?  If we cannot redress our grievances through the election process because both parties favor the same authoritarian direction, and if our street protests are utterly ignored by the mainstream media and the establishment, and if civil suits do nothing but drag on for years with little to no benefit, then what is left for us?  Is the way of the gun the only answer left for the American people at this crossroads? 

I cannot deny that we are very close to such a conclusion.  Anyone who does deny it is living in a candy coated fantasy land.  However, there are still certain options that have not been exhausted, and we should utilize them if for no other reason than to maintain the moral high ground while the power elite continue to expose their own despotic innards.

State And County Nullification

The assertion of local authority in opposition to federal tyranny is already being applied across the country.  Multiple states, counties, and municipalities are issuing declarations of defiance and passing legislation which nullifies any future federal incursions against 2nd Amendment protections.  For instance, the Gilberton Borough Council in PA in conjunction with Police Chief Mark Kessler has recently adopted a resolution defending all 2nd Amendment rights within their municipal borders up to and including the denial of operations by federal officers:

Approximately 283 county Sheriffs and multiple police officers have taken a hard stand, stating that they will either not aid federal enforcement officials with gun control related activities, or, that they will not allow such activities within their county, period:

This trend of dissent amongst law enforcement officials debunks the nihilistic view promoted by disinformation agents that “no one in law enforcement will have the guts to stand up to the government no matter how sour it turns”.   It has also shaken the Obama Administration enough that the White House is struggling to counter it by wining and dining police unions and sheriffs departments in order to form their own “coalition of the willing”.  Obama seems to believe that holding press conferences using children or police as background props will somehow earn him political capital in the battle for gun rights, but I have my doubts:

Multiple states have legislation on the table to nullify as well, and it would seem that the violent push by the establishment to extinguish the 2nd Amendment has actually sharply rekindled the public’s interest in States Rights and the 10th Amendment.

This does not mean, though, that we should rely on nullification alone.  While the gun grabbers are stumbling into severe resistance at the national level, some representatives are attempting to supplant gun rights at the state level, including New York, California, Washington State, and Missouri.  The goal here is obvious; counter states rights arguments by using anti-gun legislators to impose federal controls through the back door of state legislation.

They will claim that if we support states rights, then we have to abide by the decisions of regions like New York when they ban and confiscate firearms.  It’s sad how gun grabbers lose track of reality.  Neither federal authority, nor state authority, supplants the legal barriers of the Constitution itself, meaning, no federal or local authority has the right or power to remove our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly, our freedom of privacy, OR our freedom to own firearms (including firearms of military utility).  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights supersede all other legal and political entities (including treaties, as ruled by the Supreme Court).  At least, that’s what the Founding Fathers intended when they established this nation.  The point is, a state is well within its rights to defy the Federal Government if it is enacting unconstitutional abuses, and the people are well within their rights to defy a state when it does the same.

Economic Nullification

There is actually a fantastic economic opportunity to be had by states and counties that nullify gun control legislation.  Many gun manufacturers and retail businesses are facing financial oblivion if the establishment has its way, and moving operations outside the U.S. is not necessarily practical for most of them (gun manufacturing is one of the last business models we still do better than the rest of the world).  Municipalities could offer safe haven to these businesses, allowing them to continue producing firearms and high capacity magazines, fulfill expanding public demand, and create a surging cash flow into their area while at the same time giving the federal government the finger.

This strategy does not come without dangers, though.  Many states and counties are addicted to federal funding, and some would go bankrupt without it.  The obvious first response by the feds to protesting local governments will be to cut off the river of cash and starve them into subservience. 

This brand of internal financial warfare can be countered by local governments by nullifying a few other unconstitutional regulations, including those issued by the EPA and the BLM.  States and counties could easily disable federal land development restrictions and begin using resource development as a means to generate supplemental income.  North Dakota is essentially doing this right now in the Bakken Oil Fields, becoming one of the few states in America that is actually creating legitimate high paying jobs (instead of part time wage slave jobs), and growing more prosperous every year.

This tactic is not limited to state governments either.  Counties also have the ability, with the right officials involved, to regain control of their economic destinies anytime they want.  All it takes is the courage to rock the establishment boat.

Refuse All Registration Schemes

National firearms registration and gun databases are almost always followed by full gun confiscation.  The process is usually done in a standardized manner:  First demand extensive registration and cataloging of gun owners.  Second, ban more effective styles of weaponry, including semi-automatics and high capacity rifles (Let the sport hunters keep their bolt actions for a time, and lure them onto your side with the promise that they will get to keep their .270 or their 30-06).  Then take all semi-auto handguns.  Then, ban high powered magnum style bolt actions by labeling them “sniper rifles”.  Then demand that the gun owners that still remain allow official “inspections” of their home by law enforcement to ensure that they are “storing their weapons properly”.  Then, force them to move those weapons to a designated “warehouse or range”, locked away for any use other than recreational shooting.  Then, when the public is thoroughly disconnected from their original right to bear arms, take everything that’s left. 

Keep in mind that the federal government and certain state governments are acting as if they would like to skip ALL of the preliminary steps and go straight to full confiscation.  I am not discounting that possibility.  But, they may feign certain concessions in the near term in order to get the one thing they really want – full registration. 

Registration must be the line in the sand for every single gun owner in this country, whether they own several semi-automatics, or one pump action shotgun.  Once you give in to being registered, fingerprinted, photographed, and tracked wherever you decide to live like a convicted sexual predator, you have shown that you have no will or spirit.  You have shown that you will submit to anything.

After a full registration has been enacted, every gun (and maybe every bullet) will be tracked.  If confiscation is utilized, they know exactly what you have and what you should not have, and exactly where you are.  Criminals will still acquire weapons illegally, as they always have.  The only people who will suffer are law abiding citizens. It’s a recipe for dictatorship and nothing more.             

Gun Barter Networks

The retail firearms and ammo markets are Sahara dry right now, and will probably remain that way in the foreseeable future.  Anything that is available for purchase is usually twice the price it was last year.  Extremely high demand is removing retail from the picture before any legislation is even passed.  Enter barter…

Cash will remain a bargaining tool for as long as the dollar remains the world reserve currency and holds at least some semblance of value (this will end sooner than most people think).  That said, as gun items become scarce, the allure of cash may be supplanted.  The signs of this are already evident.

Gun owners are now looking more to trade firearms and accessories for OTHER firearms and accessories, because they know that once they sell an item, they may never see it again, and the usefulness of cash is fleeting.  Gun Barter is not only a way for firearms enthusiasts to get what they need, it is also a way for them to move around any future gun sale restrictions that may arise.  Private gun sales are legal in some states, but do not count on this to last.  Barter leaves no paper trail, and thus, no traceable evidence of transaction.  For those who fear this idea as “legally questionable”, all I can do is remind them that an unconstitutional law is no law at all.  If it does not adhere to the guidelines of our founding principles, our founding documents, and our natural rights, then it is just a bunch of meaningless words on a meaningless piece of paper signed by a meaningless political puppet.            

3D Printing And Home Manufacturing

3D Printing is now available to the public and for those with the money, I recommend they invest quickly.  Unless the establishment wants to make the possession of these printers illegal, as well as shut down the internet, there will be no way to stop data streamers from supplying the software needed to make molds for every conceivable gun part, including high capacity mags.  This technology has been effectively promoted by the Wiki Weapons Project:

According to current ATF law, the home manufacture of gun parts is not technically illegal, as long as they are not being produced for sale.  But in a state or county where federal gun laws have been nullified, what the ATF says is irrelevant. 

Home manufacturing of gun parts and ammo would be a highly lucrative business in such safe haven areas.  And, the ability to build one’s own self defense platform is a vital skill in a sparse market environment.  The ultimate freedom is being able to supply your own needs without having to ask for materials or permission from others.  It should be the goal of every pro-gun activist to reach this independence.

Force The Establishment To Show Its True Colors

While some in the general public may be incensed by the trampling of our freedoms by government, many (including myself) would view direct action and aimless French Revolution-style violence as distasteful and disastrous.  The moral high ground is all that any dissenting movement has.  It will be hard enough to keep this ground with the constant demonization of liberty minded people that is being espoused by propaganda peddlers like the SPLC and numerous media outlets.  We do not need to help them do their jobs.

Now, to be clear, I have NO illusions that the above strategies will defuse a confrontation between those who value freedom, and those who desire power.  The hope is that enough people within our population will refuse to comply, and that this will make any future despotism impossible to construct.  However, it is far more likely that these acts of defiance will elicit a brutal response from the government.  And in a way, that is exactly what we want…

The Founding Fathers went through steps very similar to those I listed above and more to counter the tightening grip of the British Empire during the first American Revolution.  The idea is simple:

Peacefully deny the corrupt system’s authority over your life by supplying your own needs and your own security, rather than lashing out blindly.  Force them to show their true colors.  Expose their dishonor and maliciousness.  Make them come after you like the predators they are, and then, once they can no longer play the role of the “defending hero” in the eyes of the public, use your right to self defense to send them a message they won’t forget.

Skeptics will claim that physical defense is useless against a technologically advanced enemy.  They will claim that we need a "majority" we do not have in order to prevail.  These are usually people who have never fought for anything in their lives.  They do not understand that the “odds” are unimportant.  They mean nothing.  No revolution for good ever begins with "majority support".  Each is fought by a minority of strong willed and aware individuals.  When all other methods of protest have been dismantled, the system leaves us with only two options: stand and fight, or kneel and beg for mercy.  All you need to know is what YOU would do when faced with that choice.  

There is no other culture on earth that has the capacity, like Americans currently do, to defeat centralists, defend individual liberty, and end the pursuit of total global power in this lifetime.  We are the first and last line.  If freedom is undone here, it is undone everywhere for generations to come.  This is our responsibility.  This is our providence.  There can be no complacency.  There can be no compromise.  There can be no fear.  It ends on this ground.  One way, or another…

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
FeralSerf's picture

"Liberals" favor ceding power to central authority; "conservatives" put defending liberty and individual sovereignty as the highest priority."

You have it backwards, I'm afraid.  You must be a product of the American public school system.  The Tories are still the conservative party.  The bourgeoisie got that way by kissing royal ass.

Did I say the French Revolution was a "noble" cause?  You assume too much.    I do agree with Diderot, though, when he said:  "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

The Salem witch trials, BTW, were a conservative pogram.   My 9th great grandmother, Rebecca (Towne) Nurse was hung in 1692 in Salem as a witch.

mayhem_korner's picture




You simply believe what fits your view of how things "ought" to be.  That's why the best you can do is come up with some label like "conservative program" and not recognize the inherent contradiction.  You just believe that it must be true.

You say I have it backwards, but you cannot explain how.  Tell us how the New Deal defends individual sovereignty.  Tell us how "gun control" defends liberty.  Tell us how progressive taxation encourages individual innovation.  Tell us how much better the U.S. is with the likes of minimum wage and affirmative action laws.  Tell us how federally "owned" land promotes prosperity. 

The liberal agenda has nothing to do with protecting individual soveriegnty.  It has to do with restricting liberty under the false flag of "fairness". 

FeralSerf's picture

Why don't you tell us how the New Deal is a liberal program?  Or how using the US Army to kill Indians and take away their property is a liberal program?  That sounds more like a William McKinley or U.S. Grant type,  instead of a Thomas Jefferson type,  of pogram to me.

And then why not tell us about the wondrous advantages of the Bush-Cheney 9-11 pogram where the "conservatives" kill 3,000 Americans so they can kill another 1,000,000 brown skin people and steal their property?

mayhem_korner's picture

Why don't you tell us how the New Deal is a liberal program?


That you think it's not pretty much sums up that you are looney.  Do you have Woodrow Wilson posters hangin on your bedroom ceiling?

FeralSerf's picture

No, do you?  Wilson was elected as a conservative, one that left lynchings to the local KKK.

Nick Jihad's picture

Willson a conservative?  Time for you to create a new account - FeralSerf is clearly clueless.

From wiki:


In his first term as President, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass major progressive reforms. Historian John M. Cooper argues that, in his first term, Wilson successfully pushed a legislative agenda that few presidents have equaled, and remained unmatched up until the New Deal.[1] This agenda included theFederal Reserve ActFederal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an income tax.

Terminus C's picture

Your posts have demonstrated that you do not know what a liberal is.  You ascribe to the incorrect MSM (Ann Coulter) definition of 'liberal'.  People who misuse the term liberal demonstrate their complete lack of English language comprehension.  Your up votes show that most, even on this site, haven't a fucking clue what the word means.  You are all sucked in to the retarding MSM meme that confuses and divides.  Stop drinking the fucking kool-aide and learn what the word liberal means.

The New Deal was not a liberal program, it was a fascist one. 


P.S. you also misuse the term conservative.  Read Edmund Burke for the correct definition of conservative.

mayhem_korner's picture



In order to avoid confusion about what I meant by "liberal" and "conservative", I defined them up front (correctly in the context of the discussion, I might add).  Since you have not been paying attention, let me make it clear for you:

The New Deal did not defend liberty and individual sovereignty.  Its programs served to confiscate the fruits of citizens' labor and transfer it to others.  Launched during a period of duress, the New Deal served to usurp personal liberty and consolidate it in a central state.  That, my uninformed friend, is liberalism.

If you want to understand conservative ideals correctly, read Levin, Locke, Madison, etc. 


BigJim's picture

The problem is that the meanings of terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal' have completely changed over the years to the point they're now ambiguous.

'Liberal' used to mean libertarian; now it means the opposite.

I've lost track of what 'conservative' is supposed to mean. Some people think it means keeping governmemt small (usually with the exception of the military, which, despite being the very quintessence of government, for some reason gets a pass) but not allowing people to injest the wrong plants.

The fact is - most people who bandy these terms about have not studied history or economics or politics to any extent or have devoted much time to thinking about the issues, but if enough of them start using the word 'liberal' to mean being in favour of a large, redistributive corporatist state then that's what it comes to mean.

malek's picture

It's not helpful to retreat into an ivory tower, and try to defend some original meaning of "liberal" if 99% of Americans nowadays interpret that term differently. Such as 'freedom from taking the consequences of one's actions', for example.

And that's especially true if you not even point out what differentiates you from the mass of self-declared "liberals."

nmewn's picture

I'm going to have to agree, its unfortunate, but true.

It is the Liberal (large L) who has allowed it over time, standing there doing nothing, compromising their values away. Everyone now thinks liberal means big, intrusive, nanny state government (or person) devoid of taking any responsibility for its/their own actions.  

We've reached a point in time where confirmed fascist-statists (Bloomberg, Pelosi etal) are called "liberal" as they promote policies and laws that suck the very life blood out of being a real Liberal...which is personal liberty.

jeff montanye's picture

tell us how bush's indefinite detention of citizens, warrantless wiretapping, wars without declaration, extraordinary rendition .... 

while you're at it, how did the wars on drugs and homosexuality, championed by all conservatives but the most libertarian, that is none of the national party, promote individual liberty?

both parties are controlled by authoritarians; both have minorities of anti authoritarians.

mayhem_korner's picture



You're stuck on parties.  I'm focused on ideas.  If something is enacted that restricts individual sovereignty, it's not a conservative idea in my mind, irrespective of who/what party sponsors/champions it.  Lotsa folks call themselves conservative, but it doesn't mean much.

Rogue Trooper's picture

+1000 That's the heart of the matter... the 99% think that voting will make a difference.

The 99% are owned. Still has Brandon states if the sheep witness .Gov for what they really are that when things could change.  I sense this happenning.  These Psyops are not without risk to TPTB.

It does not add up for joe six-pack.  Then again perhaps I'm over optimistic?

The Gooch's picture

Rogue Trooper "Then again perhaps I'm over optimistic?"

I don't think so. The dialogue is 10 fold more omnipresent than 1year, 2 years ago. Comment sections everywhere are full of dissent.

Town-halls etc, are packed. Been to a gun store on Saturday, lately?

Saw at least a dozen Gadsden stickers this afternoon on suburban roads in one the top "blue" states. Gun store was PACKED solid.

In addition to the legions fighting the good fight and sticking their necks out to share truth, many of the un-initiated can feel shit's not right.

They too will turn to find the truth. Hopefully sooner than later.

Godspeed, ZH'ers.


runningman18's picture

Bush is a Neo-Con, not a true conservative.  Neo-cons are socialist (leftist) in their policies.

Harbanger's picture

"The liberal agenda has nothing to do with protecting individual soveriegnty. It has to do with restricting liberty under the false flag of "fairness."

I agree.  There's nothing liberal about modern liberals or their agenda.  They're progressive fucking statists imposing their utopian ideals on the rest of humanity.

klockwerks's picture

Thank you for setting him straight. What a poor historian he is and must have received his history from Moochele

RSBriggs's picture

"Conservative" and "Liberal" have switched meaning since those days.  The KKK is a good example of the way this switch was performed.  It was "Democrat" -> It was "Conservative Democrat" -> It was "Conservative".  When you control the language, you control how people think.  You're a sheep.

mayhem_korner's picture




+1  It's astounding how liberals buy into the memes they are fed.  Liberals are shocked when presented with the reality that it was conservatives on the side of abolishing slavery, conservatives who pushed through civil rights legislation, etc. 

I love the look of disbelief on the face of liberals when presented with the fact that Norma McCorvey never had an abortion and is now a "religious right" anti-abortionist.  They look at you like you just shot their cat or something...

FeralSerf's picture

You don't seem to be very well versed in American history.   In 1860, democrats were considered to be the conservatives, i.e. conserved the status quo.

mayhem_korner's picture



You are making up words now.  I avoid democrat, republican, whig, etc. for a reason.  I defined in my view the difference between liberals and conservatives.  "Liberal" used to mean something very different than it does now.

I would love to have you quiz me on American history.  It would be quite a "lesson" I'm sure.

FeralSerf's picture

"I avoid democrat, republican, whig, etc. for a reason. "

Why don't you avoid "liberal" and "conservative" for the same reason?

 "Liberal" used to mean something very different than it does now."

So you admit to being guilty of doublespeak?

mayhem_korner's picture

From about 7 posts ago:


"Liberals" favor ceding power to central authority; "conservatives" put defending liberty and individual sovereignty as the highest priority.

Any questions?  Any substantive rebuttal? 

(i didn't think so...)

The Thunder Child's picture

Conservatives/Liberals it doesn't matter anymore, they are just different heads of the same corrupted beast. ZHers have left the false left/right dichotomy far behind and in the dust.

FeralSerf's picture

Just because you say it does not make it true.

"Any questions?"

Do you have any credible authority to support your statement?

"Any substantive rebuttal? "

Sure - the history of the 17th and 18th centuries thouroughly rebuts this.  Have you ever heard of "The Enlightenment"?


Citxmech's picture

How 'bout answering this question before ranting about the superiority of which color condom [red or blue] you prefer on the dick we're all going to get butt-raped by this time:

Who owns them?

There's a reason why Bush's policies have not only continued unabated, but have been strengthened under Obama:  They work for the same master.

In other words, if you want to see who pulls the strings, look for the policies that DON'T get put up for debate (e.g., TARP, NDAA, Undeclared wars, etc. etc.) in the public (Roman) circus that is the media.

FeralSerf's picture

You won't find me ranting about either's superiority.  Red + blue is purple.  That's the color of your metaphorical condom.

Of course they work for the same master.  That's been my rant for more than four years now.   I do think the Bush crime family is higher in rank and clearly more ancient than the Obama one though.

I agree completely.  The serious shit that will imprison us and our children are policies of both red and blue camps and the media is a tool of them as well.

In that Big War of the Good Guys v. the Bad Guys, the Good Guys lost.  9-11 made that clear for everyone to see.

Terminus C's picture

LOL, I love totally deluded defenses.  You do not understand the MEANING of the words liberal and conservative.  See my above post.


People only have a limited reference for labels and they aren't static through time.

I narrow it down to 2 main types of individuals

Those that believe that their rights come from God and those that believe that the State is God.

Labels have no real meaning unless you get down to core beliefs. 



mayhem_korner's picture



I agree with you, but many if not most who brand themselves as "libertarians" don't fall into either category.

jimmytorpedo's picture

Can we say inherent rights or natural rights?

As ubermensch we should have stopped using a third person omnipotent as justification for our liberty along time ago.



I don't discount the libertarian argument but the key lines dividing what I consider the core beliefs ( Unalienable rights from GOD and Rights granted through the State(god)) come from the founding of the republic by religious men and the attempt to undue those rights by the progressive movement.  I'm not sure we would have this republic without the founders being inspired through religious connection to a Supreme Being.  Liberatarianism only exists as an "evolutionary " step beyond the religious foundation.  I'm not sure libertarianism would exist without religious ancestry.

I believe our society is caught between traditional constitutionlists and the statists. That will eventually be the dividing line for citizens to choose from

mayhem_korner's picture

Liberatarianism only exists as an "evolutionary " step beyond the religious foundation.  I'm not sure libertarianism would exist without religious ancestry.


That is a very interesting perspective.  I wonder how libertarians respond to that.  It brings to the forefront what in my view is the most fundamental, universal question of all:

"What if one's belief about God is wrong?"

nmewn's picture

Not sure why you got junked...but this is the way I look at it, myself believing in God.

Even for those who don't "believe" still has to believe in nature or natural order. It is pretty well established that the natural order (nature) of man is to be free. Afterall, it is not natural for man to be caged or it wouldn't be considered a punishment among men.

I guess what I'm saying is, I look at it in 3D. Men (and of course women) are free to make their choices in this life and reap the rewards or penalties of those choices now (in this world) as well as the next.

For myself, I don't see a conflict in the philosophy of libertarian thought and a belief in God.

Freddie's picture

I used to refer to myself as conservative.  The better word is Constitutionalist.  I prefer it over saying libertarian too.  Libertarians are for overunning borders and allowing people to invade countries.  It gets even worse when taxpayers have to pay for endless benefits for the invaders.

The Gooch's picture

Hear Hear.

Labels suck, but the Constitution Of The United States Of America does not suck.

The Bill of Rights shall not be infringed.



Odd Ball's picture

The problem lies in attempting to measure a multi-dimensional political world with a one dimensional politcal scale.  The MSM left-right spectrum is simplistic.  "Conservative" and "Liberal" monikers do little to clarify the situation, especially since the term "Liberal" used to mean one in favor of liberty, or roughly what the term "Libertarian" means today.  A better measure of political orientation is needed:

AnAnonymous's picture

So funny.

'Americans' have this knack, they expose themselves in the same breath.

It was "democrat"-> it was "white democrats"-> it was "white"

'Americans' have troubles with qualifiers.

Since democrats can be both liberal and conservative, well when liberal democrats oppose conservative democrats, it might be along the line liberal/conservative, not the line democrats.

But in the end, all this jolly band is composed with 'americans' so who cares?

mayhem_korner's picture



AA...the more you comment, the more you expose yourself as an idiot.

AnAnonymous's picture

And 'americans' tell, so it is.

'Americans' tell you are an idiot, so you are an idiot.

'Americans' tell you are not a human being, so you are not a human being.

Welcome to an 'american' world.

Rogue Trooper's picture

AnAnonymous...  'Type 99' Track Lube. At least useful for the People Liberation Army War Machines

Citxmech's picture

AnAnonymous:  Unable to propose any alternative for 2 years 48 weeks. . .

Al Gorerhythm's picture

AA only perceives one manifestation of imperialism.

UGrev's picture

When an American (and I am one) tells you that you don't know a fucking thing about being American, the proper thing to do is to shut the fuck up and walk away; because that, dear sir, is a fucking fact. 

The Gooch's picture

It (ananon) is either here as a distraction or a career move. 

Giving it debate clogs threads, by design.

Ignore ananon and it will return to from where it came.

dog breath's picture

For you to say conservatives are loyal to the King is like saying conservatives are loyal to Obama and liberals hate Obama.

The Revolutionary War had to do with excessive taxation on the colonists by the British and the lack of representation of the colonists in the Parliament.

A similiar progression of current federal legislation and taxation can be made.


FeralSerf's picture

You remember well what you were taught in primary school in the American public school system.

Room 101's picture

Yes, conservatives like to kiss royal ass.  And neo-liberals like to scarf up royal schlong.  Not much difference, is there?  

bigkahuna's picture



If you are refering to the Libertarian version of Liberal - I agree with you.


If you are trying to compare those Liberals to today's Orwellian "liberals", you have lost your mind.

You should also be specific as there is a difference between "Conservative" and "neo-conservative - AKA neocon".

Todays neocon is as much a Conservative as today's liberal is a Libertarian.