A challenge to Shockernet Conservatives or Libertarians….

[Maggie]

Okay – that is fair. But I was looking for a “global” response, which you kind of wandered into. As far as guns go, handguns, (I am far better with a rifle) I use a Stoeger .40 cal. Well not in NY - she resides in KS.

Give me a chance to gather my thoughts. Please.

[Kung Wu]

Man .40 cal is too expensive! I'm a 9mm and .22 guy myself. Although I'll admit popping off a .45 is super awesome! Actually .. I never met a caliber I didn't like.

[Maggie]

Man .40 cal is too expensive! I'm a 9mm and .22 guy myself. Although I'll admit popping off a .45 is super awesome! Actually .. I never met a caliber I didn't like.

The weapon was free. My father won it, at least that is his story. That said, he could well arm a small army, and more.

BTW, Stoeger's are not, relatively, hard on the wallet. And it is better than any 9M I have shot. (22s are 22s). It is a fine weapon, and believe me I had my choice.

[WuDrWu]

Even though I probably will embarrass myself, I am going to give this a shot tonight.

[Kung Wu]

Man .40 cal is too expensive! I'm a 9mm and .22 guy myself. Although I'll admit popping off a .45 is super awesome! Actually .. I never met a caliber I didn't like.

The weapon was free. My father won it, at least that is his story. That said, he could well arm a small army, and more.

BTW, Stoeger's are not, relatively, hard on the wallet. And it is better than any 9M I have shot. (22s are 22s). It is a fine weapon, and believe me I had my choice.

Haha, I didn't mean the pistol is expensive -- I meant the ammo is expensive (relative to 9mm and cheap-o .22). But if you don't get to shoot much, who cares?

[Maggie]

Man .40 cal is too expensive! I'm a 9mm and .22 guy myself. Although I'll admit popping off a .45 is super awesome! Actually .. I never met a caliber I didn't like.

The weapon was free. My father won it, at least that is his story. That said, he could well arm a small army, and more.

BTW, Stoeger's are not, relatively, hard on the wallet. And it is better than any 9M I have shot. (22s are 22s). It is a fine weapon, and believe me I had my choice.

Haha, I didn't mean the pistol is expensive -- I meant the ammo is expensive (relative to 9mm and cheap-o .22). But if you don't get to shoot much, who cares?

I know weapons - don't know price. Never had to - Big Daddie (my father) provides. I buy dinner, he buys bullets (and hardware) - have I been "scammed"? Hell, I have no idea what the ammo costs (really?). Pops may have "gifted" a raw deal......... nah.....ammo or not (like I wrote, I had my choice) I guess it is better I won't be at the range so often.

P.S. I don't mind a 9mm, I just liked the .40 better (in fact I shot a couple that are fine 9mm handguns – close second, they were – worth more too - a Stoeger is a rep., and darn fine one, of a Beretta) but a .22? Mrs. Maggie laughed – and this broad from NJ had never held a handgun in her life.

P.S. She picked up a .44 after the .22 - to which time my father a I both muttered together - don't knock yourself out.

Big kick but no brain damage. (not too accurate either).

[Maggie]

I am going to attempt to answer this challenge on Friday. Fair is fair.

Because I don’t “trust” myself, and all humans are fallible, I am not going to rebut my own assertions – at least not right away, my apologizes to Kung Wu – I am just not sure I will do the liberal side “justice”. Not because I don’t want to but because it is hard to argue for things and propositions for which you don’t believe. Very hard. Maybe some of the liberal members of Shockernet can tweak my argument – it would be most appreciated. If tweaking won’t work – just tear it apart and build it back up again.

Thanks moshock and Kung Wu for giving the exercise a shot (so to speak). I cant believe I am writing this - but "shot" is a reference to a brief excahnge on fire arms. That is all.

Doc – I look forward to your response.

[Maggie]

A root assumption of liberal ideology is that, intellectually, man has come to dominate the economic elements, and that we need only will it, in order to have fair weather for all the time. The occasional relapses (we are in the midst of one now) are due not so much to the absence of economic expertise, as to the inexpertness of conservative technicians. An inexpertness traceable, primarily, to their bewitchment by the antique superstitions. The accelerability of economic development by force of will is self-evident and unassailable.

The salient economic assumptions of liberalism are socialist. They center on the notion that the economic engine can be driven to Point A most speedily by the judicious use of carrot-and-stick, an approach that supersedes the traditional notion of conservatives and classical liberals that we are not to begin by dealing with engines, and that Point A cannot possibly, in a free society, be presumed to be the desired objective of millions of individual human beings.

There is no moral problem whatever in divesting the people of that portion of their property necessary to finance the projects certified by ideology and beneficial to the Whole. In other words, the individual has no inherent right to decide how to allocate his or her resources. A liberal will go to considerable pains to avoid having to say, in as many words, that people don’t know what is good for them; and so, for example, I would typically argue that the people expressing themselves in the marketplace are really not expressing their own view, but bending to the will of Madison Avenue, etc.

Tax to preserve social balance; take public spending out to the hands of the people; institutionalize your tax system. It is morally necessary to take from the “rich”, and not merely to give it to the poor. If there were no poor, it would still be necessary to take from the rich, egalitarianism being a primary goal. The root assumption of liberal ideology/economic theory is there are no serious economic problem; that in any case economic considerations cannot be permitted to stand in the way of “progress”; that economically speaking, the people are merely gathers of money which it is the right and duty of a central authority to distribute.

[DUShock]

"It is wise to study the ways of one's adversary" Sun Tzu