Are there no liberal gun-rights supporters?

[444]

"What makes gun owners, especially the ones on these boards, so conservative? Why do I not see any liberal 2nd Amendment supporters like myself? Does anyone share my position?"

I didn't read the rest of the posts, so maybe this has already been covered but let me float a few of my own answers here.
What makes gun owners so conservative ? I think you missed something that has occured in our last two elections: red vs. blue: the majority of this COUNTRY are conservative including a lot of people that voted for Kerry. Everyone that I know personally that voted for Kerry simply because they are union workers and the union told them to vote for Kerry. However, their basic belief system is far right. Since a majority of people in this country are conservative, it only stands to reason that a majority of people on this board are conservative. In addition, is seems to me that if you look at that red vs. blue map, you will have a good indication of where most of the gun owners of this country live. Over the last few decades, sport shooting has become a dirty word in the major metro areas. By the same token this seems to also be where the most liberal people live. So, it only makes sense that when you talk to gun owners from all over the country, most of them are going to be in those red states.
Why do I not see any liberal.............................. Oh there are more than a few on this board. I think you will find that this board has some of the most liberal gun owners around. But they are in a minority (see above).

Personally, I don't understand this whole idea that one issue completely defines you as a person.

Not that it matters but I personally pretty much totally disagree with the whole liberal/Democrat philosophy and feel that the whole movement is slowly destroying this country. However, I welcome you here as a gun owner and I am sure you will come accross quite a few people on this board that agree with your leanings.

 

[BigG]

Rather than think of the political spectrum as a continuum, consider a circle. The modern Liberals and the right wing KKK nuts (do they even exist anymore as a factor?) are right next to each other. Their goals and methods are the same: destroy (kill) their opposition and "make the world a better place" . Place me 180 degrees opposite.

 

[Firethorn]

BigG, I like the idea of using a plane rather than a line. You have social freedom/control & economic freedom/control.

Of course, the gun issue tends to be flipped for that simple graph. Maybe go three dimensional, and put personal responsability/group responsability?

 

[igor]

And then there are some of us odd Scandinavians here... I count as a black-and-blue conservative at home and shine all pink here...

We have no matching criteria that would permit it to put it in more accurate terms, it seems.

 

[Barbara]

I'm sort of a right-wing liberal.

I'm pro-1st amendment, pro-woman, anti-WOD, iffy at best on the way the WOT has worked out, pro-gay rights, pro-environment and I believe racism is a bigger issue than most conservatives want to pretend.

But I'm also a believer in the fact that if you work hard, your odds of making it in this world are a whole lot higher, that gun rights secure all other rights, and that the gubmint isn't the answer to all social problems, even though I believe that many of those social problems exist.

I'm anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, but have problems with both of those issues as usually practiced by either "side."

Maybe I'm a bleeding heart conservative, instead of a right-wing liberal.

 

[Art Eatman]

There is no correlation, no similarity, between today's "Liberal" and the "Classical Liberals" of the era of the U.S. Constitution. While as with all things the changes occurred over time, the word usage came about as a result of political activities in the late 1920s. I disremember the specifics, but 1928 comes to mind. "Liberal" and "Progressive" are tied together, as well.

I've often preferred the use of the word "statist" to describe most of those who are self-styled "liberals". That is, they prefer governmental solutions to social problems, and generally prefer them over private-sector solutions. Statists, as I see them, see government itself as having not just the power but the right or duty to take tax money to spend on redress of perceived social ills. And statists strongly wish government to control all neighbors such that there is a nice, fuzzy, warm and safe snuggly world in which to live. Just study Ralph Nader's preachings...

I don't understand how somebody who'd believe in personal responsibility for consequences of decisions or actions could style themselves as liberal. For that matter, I fail to understand any rationale behind "it's society's fault", other than as a cop-out for incompetence of thought.

This doesn't mean I disagree with such goals as clean air or water, or good health care, or aid to the deserving indigent. Sure, gays and women have rights--but they're the same rights we all have and after you achieve parity in courtesy and politeness and traditional fair play, mine eyes glazeth over.

Art

 

[longrifleman]

So, in essence, I wonder there seems to be no support of anything democratic or liberal on these boards--support of gun ownership should not preclude any liberal views whatsoever.

I hope the conservative/libertarian majority around here doesn't discourage our more liberal brethern from discussing issues. We will all benefit from having our ideas challenged, and being forced to defend what we think. The mods do an excellent job keeping the discussion civil, so it will be a discussion instead of a shouting match.

Please, challenge us more often. A mutual admiration society get boring after awhile.

 

[Firethorn]

I hope the conservative/libertarian majority around here doesn't discourage our more liberal brethern from discussing issues. We will all benefit from having our ideas challenged, and being forced to defend what we think. The mods do an excellent job keeping the discussion civil, so it will be a discussion instead of a shouting match.

Why should the libertarians discourage them? We agree with them about half of the time(well, a quarter for the really left wing). I'm always up for a conversation. I shy away from personal insults, but don't expect me to concede easily.

 

[mountainclmbr]

There may be liberals for gun rights among voters. Just like many Jews voted for Hitler. The warm, fuzzy feelings just don't go both ways between voters and (in the current liberal sense) rulers.

 

[Art Eatman]

Some may have noticed that when I talk about politics I give a fair amount of the "why" that I think as I do.

I've been around a long time. I believe a lot of my views derive from direct observation of people and politics over many, many election cycles. And, of course, from lifeitsownself.

If I have my facts wrong, I'm subject to changing my mind if new and better data is provided. But when somebody "challenges" and their ideas are contrary to what I've observed, I'm surely not likely to change.

It's that old Abbott and Costello deal: "Who ya gonna believe? Me, or your own lyin' eyes?"

Which is why I generally don't believe the notions of the Feinsteins or Naders of this world. "I seen differnt."

, Art

 

[richyoung]

I say again - the liberal's desired world requires a national government that greatly exceeds its delegated authority under the Constitution - thus, the "it's a living document", SC justices "discovering" (inventing) new "rights", and essentially extending the Comerce clause into every facet of human existence as a justification for more and more power on the part of the govvernment. Since the 2nd Ammendment's restrictions on government infringement are the primary, (but not only) bulwark against more government interference with our guns, a strict interpretation of this part of the Constittution, (and, to be consistant, the rest of the document as well) is contrary with the liberal agenda and attempts to impliment same via judicial fiat. Being a liberal gun rights activist is kind of like "Rock Against Drugs", or "Christians Against Christ"....

 

[GSB]

The Democrats want to control you and enforce their opinions on you the same as the Republicans do. It's either Jesus or socialism, you choose.

Odd, I live in a red state nowdays and no one has tried to force Jesus on me.

 

[BigG]

The Democrats want to control you and enforce their opinions on you the same as the Republicans do. It's either Jesus or socialism, you choose.

This is so wrong I am astounded somebody could come to this conclusion. :banghead: The Democrats would have everybody believe such tripe.

 

[richyoung]

If you believe in gun ownership and use for personal defense and/or defense of property, then you believe there are circumstances that warrant taking another person's life - this is clearly a contradiction with the "liberal" position that NO human life should ever be taken, (except the unborn, or partially born - you can "choose" to kill them all you want!), not via the death penalty, not by police shooting, not by war, (unless the US has NO vested interest, then its OK...), and most certainly not by private citizens.

If you believe in gun ownership for hunting/game harvesting, then clearly you are at odds with the bizarre notion that our untamed animal companions have "rights", and clearly you are guilty of "speciesism".

If you want to retain firearms as a bulwak against tyranny, then you are at odds with the "liberal" position that the Government, (and the "liberals" running it) are smarter than you and better equipped to run your life, after suitable charging you for the service....

 

[longrifleman]

If I have my facts wrong, I'm subject to changing my mind if new and better data is provided. But when somebody "challenges" and their ideas are contrary to what I've observed, I'm surely not likely to change.

This is why I would like our more liberal members to challenge standard conservative/libertarian ideas. We are as capable as believing 2+2=5 as any other human. Wishful thinking and groupthink isn't confined to liberals.

If our ideas are correct they will win the debate. The debate itself might convince undecided observers that the conservative/libertarian ideas are correct. If the liberal ideas are correct on a particular issue then we should change our minds. The truth is the truth.

 

[goon]

I will admit that I haven't read the whole thread, but I also have some "liberal" beliefs.
Really, I think you should pretty much be able to do whatever you want unless you are harming someone else.
I am not a conservative.
I think that homosexual people should have the same rights as everyone else. Same thing with basically any minority. We are all Americans and you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who gets to enjoy their liberties.

I do oppose abortion because I feel that it violates someone else's rights (the unborn babie's).
Yes, you do have the right to do what you want with your body as long as you don't harm anyone else. If you want to stand in you yard and swing your fists, more power to you. If you walk into a crowded bus station and start doing that, you are clearly violating someone else's rights.
That is how I see it on that issue.
(Please don't stage a thread hi-jack to argue with me on this one.)

The real killer is gun control though. I absolutely despise any attempt to restrict anyone's rights.
Gun control is an assault on our rights.
I know it, you know it, and they know it.
It is a much bigger issue than guns.
If they can take away one right because they don't agree with it, they can take away every right that they don't agree with.
That is entire unacceptable.

As long as the Democrats keep chipping away at any of my rights, I will continue to oppose them in any way possible.

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

I'm one of those very liberal people who also happen to be shooters and pro-firearm ownership for private citizens. I live in an academic community (read: college town) and I am pretty much involved with academics (albeit Religious Studies) all day, so my political opinions tend to be needlessly complex, but generally lean well to the ideological left. One of the strange things is that while I am very left leaning in terms of my ideals of social policy and government, I am personally very conservative with my own life and actions; I suppose I have no desire to force my own ideals and ways onto other people, but I also have no desire for the ways and ideals of others to be forced onto me.

 

[jamz]

Me:

Pro women's EQUAL rights
Pro gay EQUAL rights
Pro choice. I'm not convinced kids have rights. It's up to parents to do the right thing. The Government should not be concerned, anyway.
Pro BOR, especially the second, naturally.

Doesn't mean that I think government should be involved in any of the above, at least they should be a states rights kind of thing, IMO.

Anyway, not sure where this sticks me on the liberal/neo-con scale.

-James

 

[crucible]

Me:
Pro choice. I'm not convinced kids have rights. It's up to parents to do the right thing. The Government should not be concerned, anyway.


-James

Without getting into an abortion hijack, I find it highly disturbing that anyone would place sentences such as "I'm not sure kids have rights" as further descriptors of the idea of "pro-choice".

Did you really mean to say that?

Cruc

 

[Trisha]

((((sigh))))

I probably qualify as a liberal gun owner - I get waaaaay too liberal with finances whenever I go to a gun store!



Lesbian, pagan, pro-choice, natural blonde, Libertarian, smoker, coffee addict with two cats and some serious money invested in reloading equipment - why worry?

We're everywhere, and many of us look just like everyone else!



An American Tomahawk and a .45 are this girl's best friends!

 

[hso]

Trisha,

Which ATC hawk?

 

[Billmanweh]

It's always seemed to me that gun rights should be the more liberal position. But it definitely hasn't worked out that way.

I guess I think of people's views on social issues as falling into one of two camps...

#1 I want all of the rights I can get my hands on, and when/if someone violates the social contract with that right we will punish that person.

#2 I'm concerned with what you will do with these rights, so I want them restricted for everyone


an example of #1 is the person who would like to be able to own their own full auto M4, and if someone abuses that right by shooting up their workplace we'll punish that person.

an example of #2 is the person who doesn't want the right to have an abortion because they don't want anyone else to have one, or the person who doesn't want the right to sit at home on a saturday night and smoke some pot because they're worried what other people might do when they get high.

 

[Trisha]

hso;

The tactical one is way beyond my means - and the original one with some thin leather wrapped around the handle suits me just fine.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I interpret "liberal" as someone who wants bigger and more powerful government for the purpose of imposing the "will" of the "majority" on everyone. Liberals seem to want to remove personal responsibility and accountability from life, and 'level the playing field' as it were. They are willing to remove rights and liberties and money from some and grant them to others. "Affirmative action" is an example of this discrimination. Rather than reward hard work, perseverance and success, they would reward birth status, over which no one has any control.

Individual human rights and liberties are not a commodity of government. They are inherent to our existence and derived from the creator. Those who acknowledge a creator recognize a 'higher authority' to whom they are answerable, not a fallible government with ever changing 'morals' dependent on the most current polling data. Such a 'higher authority' is the source of personal morality. In other words, it's between me and God. Live and let live. Treat everyone else the way you want to be treated.

If you subscribe to the view that humans are inherently selfish and evil and need regulation, why would you support government as the regulator, since governments are comprised of humans, each with his/her own self-serving agenda?

 

[hm]

What IS a Liberal?

Given the unbelievable beating the "Liberal" label has been getting since at least 1980, I think it bears asking, "What defines a Liberal?"

I am a Liberal Democrat. I have my definition of "Liberal" partly formed by society's labeling, partly by my own gut. What I see as a major problem in the several "Are there any Liberals on this board?" threads is that the definition of a Liberal occupies a very wide range and is often compared, in a derogatory manner, to Socialism, which I feel (as per MY definition of Liberalism) is simply false. I know most other Libs agree with me on that point.

Perhaps we should be taking an honest survey (no cheap and meaningless "Lib-Bashing") of what a Liberal is. Maybe, just maybe, Libs and Cons alike will discover a better understanding of Liberalism.

I'll start:

As a Liberal I believe in Capitalism that is regulated to prevent negligent and wholesale harm to the public or national security.

I am Pro-America

I believe that Communism is evil. I believe that Fascism is evil. I believe that Socialism has failed and that it's an easy, albeit wrong, label for someone annoyed by my beliefs to slap on me. Nevertheless, I resist calling those people Fascists.

I see details in the world, refusing to accept any simplistic, all-encompassing philosophies that I must subscribe to in lock-step with my neighbors.

I display the flag on all the holidays.

I was mortified when Reagan was shot.

I want Osama's head on a platter.

I believe in the whole Constitution (even the 2nd), though I understand why there are calls for gun laws when people die in gun violence...even though that doesn't change my support of the 2nd.

I believe that the nation, and therefore I individually, benefits from providing for the basic needs of all its people should they be unable to provide for themselves, even at the risk of allowing a very few to take advantage of that system. It is the right thing to do morally and pragmatically.

I believe that better education and literacy for all our people is the answer to most other problems and that we have never come close enough to "throwing money at the problem" to see if that is, in fact, why our schools are always second-rate to many other nations.

I believe that the government has no right to tell me how to worship, nor stop me from doing so in any manner I wish. If my kids want to pray in school, nothing is stopping them. If their teacher makes them say a prayer that doesn't match their beliefs, I've got a big problem with that.

I believe that our government "Of, By and For The People" should be used as a positive instrument of progress, making damn sure that the checks and balances inherent to the system are kept powerful and well-established.

I could go on ad nausaem (actually, I kinda did), but that's a good start. Any other Libs care to add to this? I'm sure I left off some biggies.