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)