The Rifle on the Wall - A Leftist Argument in Favor of Gun Rights

Very well written argument. This one from the Daily Kos was equally as compelling IMO;

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

It's a complicated issue for sure, made more complicated from the diverse and often contradictory descriptions of "Left" and "Right" across political circles. The modern American Left generally speaking would probably be seen more as a Center Right political force by the majority of 20th Century radical Leftists. THOSE Leftists would more likely see firearms as a equalizing factor to be used by the Proletariat against the Bourgeoisie. Mao's comment about "political power comes from the barrel of a gun" echoes this.

But, to be honest and after digesting all of the great arguments from both these articles, I still think that from an American Leftist perspective gun control makes sense. If you're going to take a generally collectivist and regulatory approach, and believe that such an approach under a benevolent government would better mankind, it simply makes sense to apply that philosophy to self defense and protection as well. If the idea is that the government can manage our individual healthcare, retirement and most other facets of our life better than the individual, IMO, it would be reasonable to apply that to our individual security as well.

Which is why I believe most American Leftists support gun control; philosophically speaking, it makes sense.

The real question is will this thread stay on course sufficiently as to not get closed...

".....Up to the dusty attic, out with the trusty gun, the lawyers and the law books only go so far...."

Name that singer.

-kBob

But, to be honest and after digesting all of the great arguments from both these articles, I still think that from an American Leftist perspective gun control makes sense. If you're going to take a generally collectivist and regulatory approach, and believe that such an approach under a benevolent government would better mankind, it simply makes sense to apply that philosophy to self defense and protection as well. If the idea is that the government can manage our individual healthcare, retirement and most other facets of our life better than the individual, IMO, it would be reasonable to apply that to our individual security as well.

Click to expand...

First, many who agree with universal healthcare and social security do so because they realize so many choose to act irresponsibly. While i don't like the government forcing me to buy health insurance i don't see it as a greater infringement than of the current system in which i'm forced to buy it for others. Our society simply never will just let people die in the streets so i believe in a pragmatic approach. Also, just because a person believe the government should act or manage one issue that does not mean they believe it should manage all. We all probably believe public roads are a good idea. Does that mean we must automatically believe it is solely the governments job to protect us from crime too? Of course not. Sure, there are far left idealogues but in spite of what right wing media claims they are actually a small percentage of progressively minded people.

First, many who agree with universal healthcare and social security do so because they realize so many choose to act irresponsibly.

Click to expand...

Our society simply never will just let people die in the streets

Click to expand...

I think you've echoed my point here, Justin. These arguments for universal healthcare are identical to arguments for gun control. It's simply a logical conclusion that the more collectivist a person is, the more likely that they would want the responsibility of personal defense collectivized, at least in American politics. This is seen manifest in the simple fact that the majority of gun control advocates in the U.S. originate from the Left. I'm not arguing against it or saying it's right or wrong; it's just that philosophically speaking, the American Left tends to view the responsibility of our health and welfare as a community responsibility, and I can not understand why defense against criminals would be any different.

I think you've echoed my point here, Justin. These arguments for universal healthcare are identical to arguments for gun control. It's simply a logical conclusion that the more collectivist a person is, the more likely that they would want the responsibility of personal defense collectivized, at least in American politics.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Again, believing that government intervention can improve some situations does not mean one believes it can improve all. As I said, one can hold progressive views on certain issues without being an ideologue. The vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum believe public education is a much better alternative than not. Does that make them all die hard Marxists? Also, I've never actually heard a person say, "there should be no guns because the police can protect you better". Instead, the actual argument is "we need less guns to reduce crime and you don't need one because we have police to protect you". Realistically though there are very few who actually go that far. Instead, most gun control advocate simply want additional regulations because they believe it will reduce murders and other violent crimes. So I think you're whole premise is false.

JustinJ said:

First, many who agree with universal healthcare and social security do so because they realize so many choose to act irresponsibly. While i don't like the government forcing me to buy health insurance i don't see it as a greater infringement than of the current system in which i'm forced to buy it for others. Our society simply never will just let people die in the streets so i believe in a pragmatic approach.

Click to expand...

Amen brother.

I'm hoping the Tinfoil Hat Mafia, always in force here on THR, tunes into this thread and gains a bit of perspective on what makes antis tick. 300M Americans = 300M different opinions about what America should be.

I've read that before. While I don't share the author's basic philosophy, I think his article is very intelligent and well-written.

My beliefs are very liberal in many aspects, I'm probably one of the most liberal guys who posts here on many many social issues. I am also however, a very adamant supporter of the second amendment because to me it may be THE most important civil liberty.

The founding fathers did not write the second amendment so that we could duck hunt, they did not write it so that we could defend ourselves from bad guys - they wrote it because they wanted the constitution to have a built in insurance policy against tyranny that would last for generations beyond them. They knew then as we know now, that an armed citizenry cannot be easily subjugated by the state.

Contemporary 'liberal thinking' neglects this primarily because we as a society have very short memories for history. By failing to understand the connections between Tienanmen Square, Northern Ireland, and Nazi Germany - they have lulled themselves into believing that we have seen the end of totalitarian states. Mankind has sought to gain an oppressive advantage when in power since before the written word. What was true in Aristotle and Machiavelli's time is just as true today.

I'm rather proud of the fact that at the ripe old age of 41, neither the left or the right would want me.

Name that singer.

Click to expand...

'Filk' music artist Leslie Fish.
Song is 'No High Ground' on the album 'Lock & Load'.
I'm not a fan.
.

I tried to read and follow the rather convoluted article, and I think I mostly succeeded in following the author's lines of argument.

The primary take-ways, for me:

Generally:
1) Granting the federal government the power to create one-size-fits-all solutions for all 50 states, or for all 330 million or so citizens, is fraught with peril. That goes for a state or commonwealth doing the same for all of its counties or parishes, towns, and cities.

2) The best government is the one over which the governed have the most direct control. That gives people the power to create a local environment that suits their desires and needs and makes sense to them in the place where they have chosen to live, and it provides the option for people living in a place that fails them to move to a place that suits them. Centralization of power and standardization of conditions prohibit both, and therefore strips away liberty.

Specific to gun control:
1) Efforts by antis are not rationale based; rather they are ideology based. No gun control effort ever made has done or will do anything to stop a person who's determined to commit a violent act from doing so.

2) Asking government to curtail 2A or any right of the people tacitly grants license to that government to curtail the next right, and the next...

3) It's surprising that in a country/society where so many people advocate equality of outcome over equality of opportunity we would be so willing to surrender the firearm--the great equalizer--to our government Masters, who already have such a huge advantage over the rest of us.

The vast majority of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum believe public education is a much better alternative than not. Does that make them all die hard Marxists?

Click to expand...

Red Herring. I didn't call anyone a Marxist or an ideologue. I simply made an educated guess as to why (not if) American Progressives tend to support greater gun control. Let me put it another way;

In American politics, it is the political arm of the American Left that primarily and almost exclusively champions more gun control. This is a simple truth, an objective observation if you will. I doubt that most of the Left, Right, or anywhere in between will disagree with that observation. This isn't really up for debate, it's the why they champion greater gun control that is debatable.

I put forth the hypothesis that the Left tends to support gun control because, IMO, it's generally compatible with the collective tenants of American Progressivism. Are all Progressives pro gun control? No. Are all gun control advocates Progressives? Certainly not. But with an honest juxtaposition of the gun control crowd and the American Left, we see enough of the same faces as to, if this were any scientific or sociological field, formulate a hypothesis suggesting the reason for the trend.

I've given you my best hypothesis, I'd honestly love to hear it if you've got a better one.

Sambo82 said:

I put forth the hypothesis that the Left tends to support gun control because, IMO, it's generally compatible with the collective tenants of American Progressivism. Are all Progressives pro gun control? No. Are all gun control advocates Progressives? Certainly not. But with an honest juxtaposition of the gun control crowd and the American Left, we see enough of the same faces as to, if this were any scientific or sociological field, formulate a hypothesis suggesting the reason for the trend.

I've given you my best hypothesis, I'd honestly love to hear it if you've got a better one.

Click to expand...

I think about this all the time. It seems that certain "ideas" just go together. Why would a left leaning person be more open minded to global warming? Why is the right so religious? I don't get the correlation. What do balanced budgets and small gov't have to do with religion? And what does a more expansive gov't have to do with science?

If we debate those correlations I'm guessing the moderators will shut this thread down quickly. I would say, though, that there must be a similar correlation between gun control and the left. For some reason, those two just go together.

I think a better correlation would be to look at where people live. The majority of Democratic voters live in urban areas. Crime is higher in urban areas and that crime often involves guns. On the other hand the majority of Republican voters live in rural areas. Crime rates are generally lower and guns are mostly used for recreation purposes. One group links guns to crime, the other to recreation.

Here is link to a interview on NPR about the different way blacks and whites experience gun deaths. 4/5 of firearm related deaths in the black population are homicides while 4/5 firearm related deaths in the white population are suicides. It leads to very different views on guns depending on one's experience.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/26/175378043/the-epidemiology-of-gun-violence-race-region-and-policy

I think about this all the time. It seems that certain "ideas" just go together. Why would a left leaning person be more open minded to global warming? Why is the right so religious? I don't get the correlation. What do balanced budgets and small gov't have to do with religion? And what does a more expansive gov't have to do with science?

If we debate those correlations I'm guessing the moderators will shut this thread down quickly. I would say, though, that there must be a similar correlation between gun control and the left. For some reason, those two just go together.

Click to expand...

This is actuallly pretty easy to see if you look at it the right way. People reflexively tend to believe ideas that support their world views. My career was as a professional meteorologist. I recall telling liberal colleagues that the "science" supporting anthropogenic global warming was not sound. The response was something like this, "well, look at all the good things that happen. There is more government control over energy use. There is more money spent to develope alternative energy. We are foreced to become less dependent on automobiles. All these are good things, so it does not matter if the science is not very good. Nothing bad happens if we are wrong." I find this a general theme with the left. They (in general) do not care about whether the means are ethical or not. They are concerned about the ends. There is a defacto assumption that the State is benevolent.

Now, as to religion and small government and balanced budgets. It is a very similar situation. Religious people, particularily Christians in the United States, see God as the ultimate authority. That places the State in a subordinate role. During the American Revolution, a common rally cry was "No King but Jesus!" People who are religious also tend to have absolute principles that require that the means be ethical as well as the ends. This also reinforces the idea of limited government.

People inherently tend to believe those ideas that support their world views. Objectivity is hard to do.

I think there is a "circularity" or a "circular continuum" to the political spectrum. I think this follows the ideas presented above about how gun control plays out in ideologies.

I've often wondered how progressives reconcile their obvious distrust for "the man" with their lust for big government solutions to every social issue. How can they not see what noose they are slipping their necks into???

If you move more to the left of "progressives" in my circular chart, you get to the "occupy movement", aka "anarchists" IMHO. Once you get to the radical apex of the chart, I think if you continue around the circle toward the right where you first come to activist conservatives who want change (TEA party??). Then you move on to more mainstream conservatives and on around the other apex of the circle toward liberalism. The lower section of each side of the liberal vs. conservative chart is where the apathetic reside.

Just my 2 cents worth...maybe my Taoist component is dominant today???

Moondoggie said:

I've often wondered how progressives reconcile their obvious distrust for "the man" with their lust for big government solutions to every social issue.

Click to expand...

I've often wondered how conservatives claim to be champions of individual freedom and responsibly and then use the government to ban social behavior they don't approve of. Why can't I buy a beer on Sunday?

What it come down to is that both sides of the political spectrum are more than happy to use the power of government to mold society to conform to their vision.

I think we're getting off the "strictly guns" policy of THR. I don't want this to get locked, because I think this could be an interesting discussion.

I'm curious about how this guys political orientation fits into his supposed pro- RTKBA stance. He has an unusual perspective, and I wonder whether or not he's actually serious.

Red Herring. I didn't call anyone a Marxist or an ideologue. I simply made an educated guess as to why (not if) American Progressives tend to support greater gun control. Let me put it another way;

Click to expand...

I wasn't implying that you did, only providing an extreme example of how taking a leftist position doesn't mean you adopt them all.

I put forth the hypothesis that the Left tends to support gun control because, IMO, it's generally compatible with the collective tenants of American Progressivism. Are all Progressives pro gun control? No. Are all gun control advocates Progressives? Certainly not. But with an honest juxtaposition of the gun control crowd and the American Left, we see enough of the same faces as to, if this were any scientific or sociological field, formulate a hypothesis suggesting the reason for the trend.

Click to expand...

To be honest, i think a huge reason people take positions on political issues, both the left and right, is largely a result of tribalism. "Since i'm on this team, the other team is a bad so i must disagree with everything they say while being a good member of my own team". Unfortunately that is human nature and politicians love to incite greater division to their advantage. People are way too busy hating the other side to take a second to really look at their own in an objective manner. This trend has increased dramatically over the last few election cycles. It seems to me that before the Bush II era, supporting gun control was not usually political suicide for a republican. Also, another large factor is due to cultural differences among different regions of the US. Rural americans today tend to go right and urban to the left. Firearms are a much bigger part of rural culture than urban. People who oppose gun control tend to be those who like guns and enjoy shooting. People who have no interest in guns are easily going to be more open to additional regulation. This is true with many liberties. If a person does not directly value a right they rarely could care less about preserving it. The truth is we, the gun community, are rarely objective on the issue of gun control as weak and senseless arguments are often adopted. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to oppose gun control, only that not all of those used to argue against it make much sense.

This is actuallly pretty easy to see if you look at it the right way. People reflexively tend to believe ideas that support their world views. My career was as a professional meteorologist. I recall telling liberal colleagues that the "science" supporting anthropogenic global warming was not sound. The response was something like this, "well, look at all the good things that happen. There is more government control over energy use. There is more money spent to develope alternative energy. We are foreced to become less dependent on automobiles. All these are good things, so it does not matter if the science is not very good. Nothing bad happens if we are wrong." I find this a general theme with the left. They (in general) do not care about whether the means are ethical or not. They are concerned about the ends. There is a defacto assumption that the State is benevolent.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say this but if one wants to hear piles of cow manure, asking a right winger to explain what those on the left believe and why they believe it is a pretty effective way to get that wish. I work with and live around countless liberals and amazingly have never heard one say what you seem to imply they all believe. And if you truly believe it's just liberals who believe the ends always justify the means, i would love to know what color the sky is in fantasy land.

Now, as to religion and small government and balanced budgets. It is a very similar situation. Religious people, particularily Christians in the United States, see God as the ultimate authority. That places the State in a subordinate role. During the American Revolution, a common rally cry was "No King but Jesus!" People who are religious also tend to have absolute principles that require that the means be ethical as well as the ends. This also reinforces the idea of limited government.

Click to expand...

Except the thing about "No King but Jesus" is actually pure myth. What was that about reflexively believing whatever supports one's world view?

JustinJ said:

To be honest, i think a huge reason people take positions on political issues, both the left and right, is largely a result of tribalism. "Since i'm on this team, the other team is a bad so i must disagree with everything they say while being a good member of my own team". Unfortunately that is human nature and politicians love to incite greater division to their advantage. People are way too busy hating the other side to take a second to really look at their own in an objective manner. This trend has increased dramatically over the last few election cycles. It seems to me that before the Bush II era, supporting gun control was not usually political suicide for a republican. Also, another large factor is due to cultural differences among different regions of the US. Rural americans today tend to go right and urban to the left. Firearms are a much bigger part of rural culture than urban. People who oppose gun control tend to be those who like guns and enjoy shooting. People who have no interest in guns are easily going to be more open to additional regulation. This is true with many liberties. If a person does not directly value a right they rarely could care less about preserving it.

Click to expand...

YES!! I agree wholeheartedly. I have to say though, that I notice the tribalism effect more with right wingers than left wingers. I think its because there are several big time charismatic personalities on the right, like Rush, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, etc..., not to mention Fox News in general. The left doesn't seem to have a central "rallying point" that hands out prepackaged stances on the issues. That's not to say that the left can't be frustrating also! Its just that I know (and talk politics with) a lot more right wingers than left wingers.

JustinJ said:

The truth is we, the gun community, are rarely objective on the issue of gun control as weak and senseless arguments are often adopted. I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to oppose gun control, only that not all of those used to argue against it make much sense.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this last point?

Dean Weingarten said:

This is actuallly pretty easy to see if you look at it the right way.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and that pretty much sums up everything you said.

I suspect that I'm probably pretty left wing compared to most of you folks, but I'm as staunchly pro 2E as anyone you will ever find. Believe me, there are lots of liberals like me out there that are exasperated to no end by our fellow left-leaners. It's truly baffling to me, and a pretty recent thing historically. How can we fight for a woman's right to control her own body, the right of minorities to vote and the rights of workers to be treated fairly at work and then turn around and try to take away the right to bear arms? It's the same selective interpretation of the Constitution that some like to apply to the Bible.

I'm a pinko in a Red State! It seems that, for the most part, hoplophobia is an urban disease.

JustinJ said:

To be honest, i think a huge reason people take positions on political issues, both the left and right, is largely a result of tribalism. "Since i'm on this team, the other team is a bad so i must disagree with everything they say while being a good member of my own team".

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this point. There is a lot of intellectual laziness in people, and the ability to sign on to a pre-made set of beliefs is attractive to a lot of non-critical-thinkers.

Add that to the fact that in US culture we are very binary; black vs white, us vs them, good vs evil. There is very little social value placed on nuanced "gray area" of anything, from what your favorite car is to how to decide on complex social policies.