Glenn sorry about the spelling. I use that term because it is exactly what occurs in this area. The original concept of 'liberal', and, in the true sense I am a liberal, is one that objectively and rationally looks at both sides of an issue, and comes to a reasoned response.
What exists in this area is a 'liberal' that has no tolerance for any thought but their own. They will not accept that another side might exist, and, they will attack your very ability to vocalize opposition to their position, while at the same time crying at the top of their lungs that they have the right to free speech, and you can't stop them from expressing their opinion in public.
They will drive you out of your position at work if you disagree with their party line. They will, if you, for example believe in the Second Amendment and actually discuss it cut your income by 75%, before getting rid of you entirely. Earlier in their lives, they may well have blown up your building, torched your car, or try and kill you.
I argue that this definition fits pretty much what the 'liberal' is here:
Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence. ... Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race.
While it maybe somewhat inflamatory to put the two words together, it is none the less, describes perfectly the
focus and mentality, and methods of these so called 'liberals'.
I'm open to other ways of describing these folks...
Since this is a thread about the NRA, and the Second Amendment, I was trying to point out that the anti-gun position that is so common in 'liberals'
in Kali is not justified by facts, or rational thinking in Kali. It is not a reasoned argument, because the facts developed in my lifetime do not support
the concept that controlling guns leads to less crime, and less violence. The reverse is true, yet these people continue their anti-gun crusade.
It is, really, a class warfare tactic, rich against poor. And, that position is fueled by a somewhat justified fear of having their lives, and property taken away by poor people with guns, read the gangs that are only going to get stronger as the economy gets worse. The failure is in realizing that the only thing writing anti-gun laws does is make it impossible for law abiding citizens to have a chance to protect themselves. The very rich have their own, armed security, and essentially fortresses, and, they band together in times of crisis, read Rodney King riots.
I will say one more time that Nevada, with their enhancement of penalties if you use a gun in a crime, have, and use the right technique.
Making the majority of US citizens criminals by drachonian gun legislation is NOT a wise move.