Traditional political alignments WRT the right to own firearms make no sense.


PDA






traveler106
April 27, 2014, 02:11 AM
I own several firearms. I obviously believe that private citizens should have the right to own firearms. Also, when it comes to politics, most people would say that I'm liberal. (I, personally, don't agree with the accepted definitions of "liberal" and "conservative," though.

What's more, I don't understand why gun owners look to the Republican party to protect their right to own firearms.

Do you really think the Republicans are always going to support the right of the individual to own firearms?

If you enjoyed reading about "Traditional political alignments WRT the right to own firearms make no sense." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vamo
April 27, 2014, 02:48 AM
What's more, I don't understand why gun owners look to the Republican party to protect their right to own firearms.

Well we sure can't look to the democratic party. So in a 2 party system that only leaves 1 other option.

I'd love to see the democrats embrace the second amendment and make the right to keep and bear arms a non partisan issue.

Unfortunately what we've seen in recent history is: Democrats pushing and voting for assault weapons bans, magazine restrictions, background checks, and registration. Republicans have mostly pushed status quo, though have expanded gun rights in states where they control the legislatures.

I'm far from a Republican cheerleader, but on guns they've been our friends more often than not and the reverse has been true for the dems.

Frosty Dave
April 27, 2014, 02:52 AM
The Republican party may not always support the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not concerned about the distant future. I'm concerned with who is supporting 2A today, in November and in 2016.

dmancornell
April 27, 2014, 03:00 AM
"Liberal" and "conservative" is just a smokescreen used to distract the people from the real issues. The real divide is between people who believe or reject unlimited government.

The Republican elite will throw 2A under the bus without a second thought for a quid pro quo. They've done it before and they'll do it again.

rockhopper46038
April 27, 2014, 03:03 AM
I won't look to either party to preserve my right to keep and bear arms; but the Democratic Party does seem to be more vehement about eliminating it.

tompt
April 27, 2014, 03:06 AM
I hear ya. Durring the 2012 presidential campaign, both canadiates said they supported a renewed assult weapons ban. Can you imagine what might have happened if it was a repoblican president, instead of a democat president, calling for a ban?

Things might have been very different if we had President Romney calling for a ban in early 2013.

Green Lantern
April 27, 2014, 07:07 PM
What's more, I don't understand why gun owners look to the Republican party to protect their right to own firearms.

Seriously? You're a little late for April Fools. ;)

Um, wellllll....

I get that they can and will throw us under the bus when politically expedient...remember, Mike Bloomberg was a Republican for years!

But there are far, FAR fewer Republicans openly hostile to the 2A than there are Dems. I'm sure there are some, just as there are some pro-2A Dems. But both sets of "exceptions" go hard against the official party line.

Id be perfectly happy with vamo's scenario: I'd love to see the democrats embrace the second amendment and make the right to keep and bear arms a non partisan issue.

Things might have been very different if we had President Romney calling for a ban in early 2013.

Possibly....but hopefully enough R's would have been principled enough to tell Mitt to pound sand, and hopefully the D's would have done the same just because he's an R. It does beg the question, what are the people who vote for guys like Mitt (and Christie coming up) in the primaries thinking?!

"Liberal" and "conservative" is just a smokescreen used to distract the people from the real issues. The real divide is between people who believe or reject unlimited government.

Disagree, to a point. I find liberal or conservative far more informative than "Democrat or Republican." But I get where you're coming from. Like a lot of people that would fashion themselves small-government conservatives voting to outlaw gay marriage here in NC a while back. In my book, regardless of my feelings about gay marriage, I can't support giving the government yet more say in people's lives over something that (IMO) does not pose any sort of threat of harm to me or the public in general.

vamo
April 27, 2014, 08:09 PM
I hear ya. Durring the 2012 presidential campaign, both canadiates said they supported a renewed assult weapons ban. Can you imagine what might have happened if it was a repoblican president, instead of a democat president, calling for a ban?

Things might have been very different if we had President Romney calling for a ban in early 2013.

Romney never supported an assault weapon's ban during the 2012 campaign. He did sign one into law as the Mass. governor, though in all fairness a worse bill probably would have been crammed down his throat by a democratic super majority had he not.

Not to say he was the staunchest ally we ever had, but he repeatedly stated that he supported the status quo on the federal level as far as guns were concerned.

Though I fear there is a bit of truth in the premise of your post. A wishy washy republican in an executive position is far more dangerous than a hardline anti democrat. Atleast the democrat will galvanize the republican opposition.

DT Guy
April 27, 2014, 08:14 PM
What's more, I don't understand why gun owners look to the Republican party to protect their right to own firearms.

Who would you suggest?

Larry

barnbwt
April 29, 2014, 10:01 PM
Read 1984 (specifically the breakdown of its geo-politics) if you want to understand why the motivations of the two parties are so schizophrenic and contradictory. So long as the two factions in conflict remain balanced, they both can both arguably claim 'victory' and sap more of the resources available to them to sustain the conflict. Best of both worlds for aspiring tyrants.

Logically, the libertarian camps in the D and R parties should get along swimmingly, and they actually do since both have a 'live and let live' mentality when it comes to eachothers' turf. But the remaining groups of 'those who would tell you what to do' in each party would be as embattled as ever, and likely constitute the majority of the nation (because who doesn't like telling others what to do?). You have two groups at each others' throats, and a smaller third group trying to dismantle the terms of the conflict altogether; recipe for the two large groups allying to destroy the meddlers (they way every third-party rebellion has died). If the small group allies itself with a single large group, they will be internally quashed by the dominant body so the whole organization can resist its nominal opposition more effectively (the claim the Tea Party must be purged to win elections ;)). Which is why the libertarian camps remain, split, among the two parties, until their numbers rise to the level they can match both of them electorally, or subvert one of them internally.

Which is why libertarians should join the Rep party for the time being, because the whole Tea Party business of the last 6 years has caused something of a coalescence of these people into one of the two parties. Just like condensation, it will insist on itself and draw more in, which is why the opposing party is suddenly mindful of liberty-minded programs like marriage law, drug possession, and abortion rather than restrictive ones like Gun Control or (additional) national health care 'reforms'; they seek to draw their libertarian members who were swayed by the calls for limited (fiscal) federal activity back into the fold. But sticking to one of the two camps and seizing its reins from within is arguably the best shot the libertarians have at calling the shots anywhere. Classic prisoners' dilemma game theory scenario.

Being that we are not currently living in a period of Enlightenment in America (exciting developments in math, science, invention, philosophy, and the other Renaissance arts are not as lauded or prominent in society as they were in Colonial days or early last century), there is less appetite for such ambitious ideas as self-reliance or limited government, thus our numbers are limited. Allotment and direction are far more appetizing when you don't want to think very hard in life. The real question is what causes periods of Enlightenment? Figure that one out and you'll make a mint! :D

TCB

vamo
April 30, 2014, 01:41 AM
Being that we are not currently living in a period of Enlightenment in America (exciting developments in math, science, invention, philosophy, and the other Renaissance arts are not as lauded or prominent in society as they were in Colonial days or early last century

Not sure that that's the problem, I for one think the advancement of technology has been amazing in my life time (still in my 20's).

barnbwt
April 30, 2014, 09:17 PM
"I for one think the advancement of technology has been amazing in my life time"
But what have we done with it? Our ambitions and will with regard to nation-level 'feats' certainly peaked in the late sixtiess/seventies, and we've been more or less focused on Utopian tweaking ever since (both parties) while accomplishing little toward that end. Since the mid-80's we've been hemorrhaging wealth internationally at a historically unprecedented scale. At this point, undertakings like the Grand Coulee dam are unthinkable (even a stupid oil-pipeline eludes our will :rolleyes:) and structurally impossible with the system we have now. Everyone enjoys the fruits of technological development, but how many actually strive to understand them? Technical disciplines and competitiveness had been declining precipitously until this recent recession smacked some $en$e (for a time, at least) into students/professionals who would have otherwise eagerly pursued a career in Canine Fashion.

I think the development of the Internet's easily available content has the potential to spur a generation-spanning learning/enlightenment movement, but after only two decades of real prominence it almost seems like it is becoming a barrier to such; it's best content almost as inaccessible to the layman as anything before it due to the shear amount of noise. Precious few corners allow for real discourse, and are quickly found and ruined by trolls and fools. There are plenty of inventors, but our patent system is actively hostile to them now, should they actually become successful enough to draw notice. Investment is more difficult and laden with legal liability than ever, to say nothing of forming the business that would receive said investment. The Jetsons was set in the 2060's because a highly-advanced and successful society seemed inevitable long before 100 years came around; anyone still think we'll be at the top of the world on flying cars in 2114? Or is Blade Runner, Soylent Green, Brazil, or Idiocracy more likely?

From what I understand, at the time of the Revolution, the hot/cool topic of the day was scientific and philosophical discussion, even amongst rural and working urban folk. The notion of 'liberty' and individual worth apart from a lord were very new and radical ideas with mass appeal, not unlike fascism, socialism, or populism before. Just as the invention of passably-sanitary cities coincided with Socialism, and 'mass marketing' with Fascism* (fancy that ;) ), it seems like the proliferation of effective firearms (and other labor/skill amplifying devices of the Industrial Revolution) coincided with this bloom of individualistic philosophy. It makes sense; one man could suddenly do the work of 10 and could reasonably defeat the strongest champion alive in battle. Man was not equalized, he was amplified to a higher plane. (I'm not very familiar with Japanese history, but didn't the mass influx of firearms through trade roughly precede the Meiji Restoration and their subsequent social modernization?)

To understand just how much this new philosophy pervaded contemporary thinking, just examine how the American Revolution did not end up as a military dictatorship or monarchy, as did pretty much every single popular violent overthrow of a government before, or since. How much power must these ideas have commanded to avoid the 'easy' solution of making George Washington or Adams or any other popular figure into strongman or monarch? The old story that GW himself rejected a crown has got to be facetious; the colonists not immediately under his command would have instantly rebelled had he pulled such a coup; they were done with kings.

Soon after, France went through like a dozen identical uprisings, which each left worse institutions in charge. It took until pretty much early last century for fate to finally settle things for them when the vast majority of their fighting men were annihilated in WWI (and then subsequently conquered/occupied for decades). Mort à la révolution

TCB

*It could be argued the proliferation of all ideas equally through the Internet has lead to our current state of zealous philosophical movements clashing from all corners; everybody got louder and more determined, as opposed to just one sector gaining strength and sweeping the world.

splattergun
April 30, 2014, 09:38 PM
oh I dunno. perhaps a quick perusal of the 2 party platforms might shine some light on the differences for you, Traveler.

mljdeckard
April 30, 2014, 11:00 PM
Always? Of course not. Even the great Ronaldus Magnus wasn't perfect. He allowed the law that kept guns out of national parks for decades. Republicans from the more blue states find themselves vulnerable to popular cries for gun control, Michael Steele, the former RNC chairman favors "Common sense" gun legislation, and our beloved hero Ben Carson doesn't think that gun rights are nationwide or universal.

Having said that, I can say with confidence, that with its flaws, the republican party is heck and GONE from the democrats on gun policy. Seriously? Is this even a question? Renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban is in the democratic strategy. Republicans support gun rights mostly because they want to. Democrats support gun rights mostly because they are FORCED to.

I am a conservative independent, and I find most of my job is whip-cracking conservatives and republicans to remember who they are and what they stand for. But no, there is no comparison here.

BullfrogKen
April 30, 2014, 11:09 PM
This really is nothing more than a cleverly-worded political argument.


This would have survived back in the days of Legal AND Political. But it won't survive Activism.


We closed L&P for political bickering . . . kinds that were exactly like this.

If you enjoyed reading about "Traditional political alignments WRT the right to own firearms make no sense." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!