JImbothefiveth
Member
I'm guessing that the people in that poll, while they may own a gun, mostly don't vote pro-gun. In other words, they say to the politicians "I'm fine with any gun control measures you may introduce".
Every liberal on my college campus seems to be pro-gun.
- Thread starter Hoplophile
- Start date
- Status
Archie
Member
Gotta Say, That's Good News.
How did 'liberals' get associated with 'gun control'?
I know the Democrat party has been the party of gun control since the 1960s. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was written, pushed, passed and signed into law by Democrats.
Oddly, at the time, there were some very important Democrats who were surprizing pro-gun ownership - at least verbally. Herbert Humprey made some seriously pro-gun ownership statements, related to the Constitution and checks and balances on the government. Adlai Stevenson who ran for president against Dwight Eisenhower (who won, for all you younger folks) was a hunter and gun owner. John Kennedy was a life member of the NRA.
It was actually after the Johnson (Democrat) administration the Democrat party started going serious anti-gun and anti-gun ownership. If one remembers, Congress was controlled by Democrat politicians for the period from the late 1950s to 1994 or so. This was the era of much of the anti-gun ownership federal laws and much of the state level anti-gun ownership laws in places like New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. All states controlled in the legislature by Democrats.
It is the Democrat party that is closest aligned with liberalism. For this reason, liberalism is very closely associated with gun control - actually anti-gun ownership.
Is that and has that always been a hard and fast rule? No. There have been notable Democrats who were very much in favor of private gun ownership. There have been Republicans who were against private gun ownership. What has really hurt our cause as gun owners is there are far too many Republican and even conservative politicians who are lukewarm to the concept of private gun ownership.
Okay, I'm officially rambling now. But that's the short and condensed version of why liberals are associated with anti-gun forces.
For whom do they vote? That is probably where things go wrong. People who support - and vote for candidates who support - things like 'choice', 'gay marriage rights', and other 'liberal' causes will typically vote for those candidates. Those candidates are typically anti gun ownership. Sorry, but there it is. The 'liberal' college students who are 'pro gun ownership' give up that issue in the 'larger view' of liberalism. That's the way it goes sometimes.
How did 'liberals' get associated with 'gun control'?
I know the Democrat party has been the party of gun control since the 1960s. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was written, pushed, passed and signed into law by Democrats.
Oddly, at the time, there were some very important Democrats who were surprizing pro-gun ownership - at least verbally. Herbert Humprey made some seriously pro-gun ownership statements, related to the Constitution and checks and balances on the government. Adlai Stevenson who ran for president against Dwight Eisenhower (who won, for all you younger folks) was a hunter and gun owner. John Kennedy was a life member of the NRA.
It was actually after the Johnson (Democrat) administration the Democrat party started going serious anti-gun and anti-gun ownership. If one remembers, Congress was controlled by Democrat politicians for the period from the late 1950s to 1994 or so. This was the era of much of the anti-gun ownership federal laws and much of the state level anti-gun ownership laws in places like New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. All states controlled in the legislature by Democrats.
It is the Democrat party that is closest aligned with liberalism. For this reason, liberalism is very closely associated with gun control - actually anti-gun ownership.
Is that and has that always been a hard and fast rule? No. There have been notable Democrats who were very much in favor of private gun ownership. There have been Republicans who were against private gun ownership. What has really hurt our cause as gun owners is there are far too many Republican and even conservative politicians who are lukewarm to the concept of private gun ownership.
Okay, I'm officially rambling now. But that's the short and condensed version of why liberals are associated with anti-gun forces.
For whom do they vote? That is probably where things go wrong. People who support - and vote for candidates who support - things like 'choice', 'gay marriage rights', and other 'liberal' causes will typically vote for those candidates. Those candidates are typically anti gun ownership. Sorry, but there it is. The 'liberal' college students who are 'pro gun ownership' give up that issue in the 'larger view' of liberalism. That's the way it goes sometimes.
Last edited:
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
You'd be guessing wrong, I think. That is certainly true for some of them, but not all---and the gun issue is a BIG reason that so many union members split their tickets.
Check out this post (but please don't post, as it's an old thread and resurrecting old threads is seriously frowned upon) as an example of where a lot of people are coming from. And PLEASE, no trolling over there; it makes DU gunnies look bad when trolls/posers show up and take our side.
Alienated Rural Democrat
shotgunjoel
Member
benEzra, I bet that a lot of those Democrat gun owners are AHSA snobbish skeet shooters, and not going to people shooting EBRs and such. I'm not bashing skeet or anything, I love trap but I got a hunch I'm along the right track. Don't know, maybe I'm wrong.
DRZinn
Member
I think hippies in general around here are as anti-gun as they can be (this is SoCal, after all), but a couple months back I did meet a bunch of real freaks out shooting in the desert (Dasmi, where you at? Back me up on this.) No way in hell they were in any way conservative.
expvideo
Member
That means nothing. So is Obama and so is Michael Moore. A life member just means that you paid for the more expensive "life membership", not that you have always been a supporter of the NRA. Most politicians get their "life membership" when they get into politics so that they can say that they support hunters' rights and that they are life members of the NRA. That means absolutely nothing. I bet you Sarah Brady has a life membership with the NRA. I'll bet you a dollar.
Limeyfellow
Member
Pretty much every president since that time claimed similar allegiances to support gun rights in public but have passed laws to restrict gun ownership or outright ranted about how bad they were. Great examples were the gun hatred of Nixon and Ford, Reagan's laws passed as Governor and President and his support in getting the AWB and Brady Act passed. You had the massive import bans of both Bush's, the bans done by Clinton. The antigun messages of Johnson and Carter. Add the limits and attempts at bans by Eisenhower, there is hardly a president of the past 60 years that has a really stellar reputation with gun rights.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Less than 1 in 5 gun owners hunts, and less than 1 in 5 shoots skeet or clays. The majority of gun owners own guns for defensive purposes and recreational target shooting, and that trend seems to cross the political spectrum. Somewhere around half of U.S. gun owners registered to vote are registered Dems and indies, a lot of those are going to be nonhunting, non-skeet-shooting types. IMHO, if the tens of millions of gun-owning Dems agreed with the AHSA's pro-bans positions, then the AHSA would have more than a few thousand members, if it even has that.
I know for a fact that there are a lot of AR and AK owners on DU, FWIW. The guy whose post I linked to (virginiamountainman) is one of them. Unfortunately, there IS a significant contingent of "Fudds" over there as well (by which I mean people who own only hunting guns and think that all other guns should be outlawed). From what I can tell, most of those seem to be in their 60's or older, and are probably just set in their ways and crotchety about it. But there's a good EBR crowd as well. And there's also those who don't like guns but who don't want any new bans because they don't want another 1994 in 2010.
I won't tell you that an Obama/BIDEN administration doesn't worry me; it does. But I will say that plenty of rank-and-file Dems, and a decent number of congressional Dems, will stand against another AWB. Will it be enough? I sure as heck hope so. But I believe we as gun owners are in a far better position now than we were in 1994. And I'd point out that even Ray Schoenke seems to be belatedly waking up and smelling the coffee on the "assault weapon" fraud.
FWIW, John F. Kennedy does seem to have been genuinely pro-gun (and not just for hunting). Not many presidents since have been, from either party.
Last edited:
DRZinn
Member
Sorry, dupe.
Last edited:
HeavenlySword
Member
In the great Facist State of NYC, i have successfully converted many to our cause. Almost everyone i have converted starts out slightly anti, you know, no idea what an assault weapon is, & never fired guns (always true)
I heavily use most of Oleg Volk's gallery to convert people, with choice pictures that are a laugh. I have icebreakers and conversation starters by using my desktop background- The Oleg Volk Poster of a .45 Colt with the description- Somewhere in America, this gun makes you safer. Criminals don't know you don't have it.
Of course, I am decent at debate. I can argue hours on end if i feel I'm closing in. And I am heavily assisted by Oleg's pictures. Thank You. Additionally, studying at an engineering university and Research institution, the people here tend to be more reasonable and analytical, and the http://www.gunfacts.info/ with its massive databank of citations ruthlessly running over every rumor/counter is a great help. Thank you.
It also helps that I have solid quasi liberal credentials, having been formerly enarmored with Obama, volunteered for him (went around PA, got screamed at by people saying stuff like FU chink, I hate n-gger lovers!) and donated money for him. I even have 4 obama shirts, 2 for volunteering and 2 for donating... Since almost everyone is a feverish Obama fanatic, it helps when I can point to what i did (more than what they did) so as to prevent them from challenging me having a open mind and viewpoints.
I have encountered some speed bumps, by exceptionally intelligent people, recently, a computer programmer, who simply doesn't have the time to read, and I was very busy.
I will redouble my efforts once I accomplish more personal objectives, get a job, and buy an EBR, now that I am old enough to legally own my own weapons outside of NYC, in NY state.
I heavily use most of Oleg Volk's gallery to convert people, with choice pictures that are a laugh. I have icebreakers and conversation starters by using my desktop background- The Oleg Volk Poster of a .45 Colt with the description- Somewhere in America, this gun makes you safer. Criminals don't know you don't have it.
Of course, I am decent at debate. I can argue hours on end if i feel I'm closing in. And I am heavily assisted by Oleg's pictures. Thank You. Additionally, studying at an engineering university and Research institution, the people here tend to be more reasonable and analytical, and the http://www.gunfacts.info/ with its massive databank of citations ruthlessly running over every rumor/counter is a great help. Thank you.
It also helps that I have solid quasi liberal credentials, having been formerly enarmored with Obama, volunteered for him (went around PA, got screamed at by people saying stuff like FU chink, I hate n-gger lovers!) and donated money for him. I even have 4 obama shirts, 2 for volunteering and 2 for donating... Since almost everyone is a feverish Obama fanatic, it helps when I can point to what i did (more than what they did) so as to prevent them from challenging me having a open mind and viewpoints.
I have encountered some speed bumps, by exceptionally intelligent people, recently, a computer programmer, who simply doesn't have the time to read, and I was very busy.
I will redouble my efforts once I accomplish more personal objectives, get a job, and buy an EBR, now that I am old enough to legally own my own weapons outside of NYC, in NY state.
Uh, he signed the FOPA in 1986, which banned new machine guns...
The bill did a bunch of good things, but that was a pretty bad thing IMO.
But, to get back to the original thread, it's all the born-again evangelical Christian Republicans at my work that think all machine guns should be banned/not allowed, and the same for so-called "assault weapons". My coworkers who have CHL permits are all liberals...
Kind of puts the Republicans=pro gun, Democratis=anti gun on its ear. Then again, we're a bit different here in Oregon...
CentralTexas
Member
Maybe if
all their Che' Gueverra portrait Tshirts had him holding an AK-47 they would get onboard...
all their Che' Gueverra portrait Tshirts had him holding an AK-47 they would get onboard...
Deus Machina
Member
Well, you can't paint all liberals as hippies.
Hippies are 'liberal' in the new political sense, moving toward communist, and as far as I'm concerned, hardly the best people to make any suggestion on how to run anything.
Peace and harmony is all great, but it's not the sharpest person that thinks we can all just get along and love each other.
In the literal sense, a real liberal is more for their own rights.
In my case--and I'm moderate, not truly liberal--pro gay marriage, pro early term abortion, pro self defense, pro-gun, and so forth. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not hurting anyone without being attacked first, I could care less what you do.
It's really a shame to see that some people on both sides think others don't have the right to live their lives, whether it's bible-thumpers insisting that gay people don't have the right to their lifestyle, or the Brady Bunch insisting people shouldn't have the means to protect their life.
Besides, from a purely neutral standpoint, putting holes in paper and cans is just plain cathartic.
Hippies are 'liberal' in the new political sense, moving toward communist, and as far as I'm concerned, hardly the best people to make any suggestion on how to run anything.
Peace and harmony is all great, but it's not the sharpest person that thinks we can all just get along and love each other.
In the literal sense, a real liberal is more for their own rights.
In my case--and I'm moderate, not truly liberal--pro gay marriage, pro early term abortion, pro self defense, pro-gun, and so forth. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not hurting anyone without being attacked first, I could care less what you do.
It's really a shame to see that some people on both sides think others don't have the right to live their lives, whether it's bible-thumpers insisting that gay people don't have the right to their lifestyle, or the Brady Bunch insisting people shouldn't have the means to protect their life.
Besides, from a purely neutral standpoint, putting holes in paper and cans is just plain cathartic.
wacki
Member
I used to shoot AK's with a two dozen George W. Bush-bashing grateful dead playing on the stereo 24/7 dreadlock hair bob Marley worshiping hippies. So ya, I've experienced it. To be honest, I find it the norm.
FourNineFoxtrot
Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 361
In my more optimistic moments, I consider my friends and myself (all of us in our early 20s) to be sort of representative of a new political movement. I think of it as "The New Right", a conservatism born of constitutional rights, a longing for freedom, and not social conservatism; a generation of young men dissatisfied with the role of government and the slow dissolution of their rights.
Then again, those are my optimistic moments. The rest of the time, I consider how apathetic they are, and realize they aren't the "new" anything, save perhaps the new Proles. Well, every regime needs proles, I guess. This proletariat won't be storming any Bastiles, I think. The sans culottes are dead.
Well. At least, perhaps, we won't have our Robespierre, nor a Napoleon. Small, are the blessings of apathy.
It's New Years, I'm drunk, and rambling. Vive la revolucion!
Then again, those are my optimistic moments. The rest of the time, I consider how apathetic they are, and realize they aren't the "new" anything, save perhaps the new Proles. Well, every regime needs proles, I guess. This proletariat won't be storming any Bastiles, I think. The sans culottes are dead.
Well. At least, perhaps, we won't have our Robespierre, nor a Napoleon. Small, are the blessings of apathy.
It's New Years, I'm drunk, and rambling. Vive la revolucion!
eventer289
Member
Thanks for posting this. I tend to be a moderate that leans slightly to the left, however I am extremely pro-gun and right to SD. I'm tired of hearing the liberal=anti gun analogy. While this may be true of many politicians, it is not true of everybody. When conservatives make this assumption, it seems to alienate the pro-gun (not just "pro-hunting") liberals/Democrats.
notorious
Member
My stepdad is as liberal as you can get while being a hardworking American who is not on the big government gravy train. He voted early for Obama and he wholeheartedly believes in the big government should take care of its citizens via redistribution of wealth and welfare and other social programs. Funny for someone who works 60 hours a week to also be okay to give it away too via government seizure. Maybe it's his generous nature that allows him to reconcile the 2 sides.
He owns several guns and loves shooting. Heck, the first time we met, he took me shooting (I was 10).
He is also pro-CCW as long as it's within certain parameters... set by him of course, but not totally shall-issue either. So, while he is by no means hardcore RKBA, he is not even close to what we would associate with a bleeding heart liberal who voted for Obama and thinks George W. Bush is the devil. (My stepdad really does think that)
Give people a chance, they often will defy stereotypes.
On the other hand, my buddy from elementary school who I've known since I was 8 never changed from his liberal leanings which emerged early in his high school years. He was, is, and always will be anti-gun and sees no reason whatsoever that a private citizen would need a gun.
He owns several guns and loves shooting. Heck, the first time we met, he took me shooting (I was 10).
He is also pro-CCW as long as it's within certain parameters... set by him of course, but not totally shall-issue either. So, while he is by no means hardcore RKBA, he is not even close to what we would associate with a bleeding heart liberal who voted for Obama and thinks George W. Bush is the devil. (My stepdad really does think that)
Give people a chance, they often will defy stereotypes.
On the other hand, my buddy from elementary school who I've known since I was 8 never changed from his liberal leanings which emerged early in his high school years. He was, is, and always will be anti-gun and sees no reason whatsoever that a private citizen would need a gun.
barry960
Member
Great to see this thread because I have been noticing that practically everyone these days seems cool with regular honest citizens keeping arms. It seems in my personal circle of connections, people who are otherwise left leaning have dumped the anti rkba if they ever bought into the propaganda in the first place. Perhaps people are beginning to realize the literal meaning of 'liberal' in the sense of being pro liberty! Second amendment supporters probably haven't had a better chance to charge forward in many decades. I think the public is probably heavily on our side, but there still must be eternal vigilance against the politicians and special interest 'anti' groups who will always persist.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
to make the assertion that "every" member of a group is something based on one new age "mixer" is more than a stretch
It's good to see that not everyone clings to the myths around gun owners and gun ownership. "We" can be a closed-minded and prejudiced as we claim the antis are, but when we find our cherished beliefs are challenged by real experience I hope gun owners can be more rational and accept the fact the tidy little boxes are for putting toys into instead of people. It makes our world a little more complex, but a lot more fun.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
And yet they vote for people who seek to disarm us.
- Status
