ml>>> ok... so which group is for allowing gun ownership and which group is
 ml>>> for removing personal weapons?

 SD>>> Well, since the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, no
 SD>>> one "allows" gun ownership. The liberals, who can't understand why
 SD>>> anyone would want to defend themselves or their property (I guess
 SD>>> too many years of living off the government tit has diluted their
 SD>>> sense of "self-worth"), have been trying for years and years to
 SD>>> turn the US into Canada or UK...where one can be completely
 SD>>> defenseless and only the government can have guns...to use on
 SD>>> whomever they please.

 ml>> see? something seems backwards here... to me, liberal means allowing
 ml>> more of something whereas a conservative wants to restrict something...

 Actually... no...

 Well, it depends on who is using the words and when. And about
 what.

 Conservative used to mean preserving the good parts of the
 system. Now it means catering to business and big money.

 Liberal used to mean change the system, more or less quickly and
 drastically. Now it has been so distorted by right wing media no
 one knows what it means at all.

 Today conservatives want tax cuts for the rich, and shifting the
 burden to the working class. That and interfering in your
 personal life.

 Liberals want to tax the rich, shift the burden to those who
 have profited the most, and keep government out of your personal
 life.

 ml>> allowing personal gun ownership (ie: not trying to take it away) seems
 ml>> to be a liberal act... like liberally applying mayonaise to a sandwich...

 True.

 ml>> who switched the terms' definitions around? why?

 Mostly right wingers, to disguise the fact that they have
 twisted things around completely.

 JH> A lot of it goes all the way back to the days of the
 JH> Revolution.  Back then, you had the Whigs and Tories.  The
 JH> Tories were the royalists who favored King George, and the
 JH> Whigs were the colonials and others who favored
 JH> independence and a republican form of government.  After
 JH> the war, the Tories became known as Democrats, favoring a
 JH> more 'liberal' form of government where everyone was equal,
 JH> and the government acted on behalf of all the people, like
 JH> their 'mommy' so to speak.

 Well, that has to be one of the most absurd possible
 explanations. First of all, the Tories had nothing much to do
 with the early US government. The Republicans were the ones who
 adhered to the ideas of Thomas Jefferson who favored a farmer
 rural small town nation.

 The ones favoring a strong central government and industry were
 the Federalists. There was no democratic party then.

 JH> The Whigs favored a republic and favored more individual
 JH> rights for citizens -- less intrusive government at the
 JH> top, and more state's rights at the bottom. The Whigs

 The Whigs didn't exist until 45 years after the constitution was
 signed. When they did come into existance they were the
 replacement for the Federalists, the strong federal government
 industrial nation party.

 JH> gradually faded out by the mid-1800s. There was a whole

 During that period there were two republican parties. The
 National Republican party who followed up on the
 Whigs/Federalists, and the Democratic-Republican party who were
 the original Republican party.

 JH> raft of small parties that cropped up and quickly died out
 JH> at the same time.  Then in the 1850s, the Grand Old Party
 JH> (aka the Republicans) started up.  After ten years of

 After the Democratic-Republican party changed their name to the
 Democratic party.

 JH> running locals at the state level, they entered national
 JH> politics and nominated Lincoln as their candidate for
 JH> president.  The rest is history.

 JH> The old line pre-WWII Democrats were a lot more like modern
 JH> Republicans, and are often referred to as small L liberals.

 Or conservatives.

 JH>  Post war Democrats (or Roosevelt Democrats) are often
 JH>  called big L liberals because of the more radical
 JH>  Roosevelt ideology that fathered the welfare state, and
 JH>  things like Social Security and Medicare (modern day
 JH>  entitlement programs).

 JH> So, nobody has really switched the definitions.  Think of
 JH> 'liberal' in terms of being 'progressive' or 'community
 JH> oriented' where control is more centrally located, and
 JH> power is excercised supposedly for the benefit of all.
 JH> 'Conservative' refers to decentralized control where power
 JH> is restricted and exercised to a set of rules laid down in
 JH> the Constitution, with much more individual autonomy.

 That last part is not quite true. Conservative doesn't actually
 mean adhering to the constitution. If you don't believe it, try
 to explain how government can subsidize religious proselytizing
 combined with welfare service. Conservative typically means
 states rights, which has very little to do with restricting
 power, just who wields is. Corruption is really more common in
 local government than national. As is abuse.

 That's my observation.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... When you get there, there isn't any there anymore.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)