HISTORICAL evolution of politicization of pro- or anti- 2A

[orpington]

This is meant to be a HISTORICAL understanding of how political parities came to be pro- or anti- second amendment and not to be political and bash individuals in either party.

So, how exactly did it come to be that the Republicans identified with being pro-second amendment, and the Democrats came to be identified as anti-second amendment, and why did that come about.

For example, see the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

I don't think that, for the most part, that those who identified themselves as Southern Democrats, historically, were anti-firearm.

Also, I have a copy of Ken Burns' Roosevelts book, and there is a photograph of Eleanor Roosevelt's handgun license. She wasn't against owning a firearm. Also, one of John F Kennedy's firearms came up for sale recently, so he owned firearms as well.

So, please stick to the topic. How did this HISTORICALLY evolve as such? Is it as simple as the Democratic Party elected to seek the urban vote, this population having little experience handling firearms and maybe mostly being scared of them as they associate them with crime; and the Republican party seeking the rural vote, where firearms are used to hunt, for recreational purposes, and to kill vermin? Is it as simple as that? Or, is there more to it than it seems, at face value.

HISTORICALLY, and presently, it would be impossible to make the blanket statement that all Republicans own guns or that Democrats never own guns.

Again, please stick to the HISTORICAL evolution of firearms rights and the political parties.

 

[DeepSouth]

Is it as simple as the Democratic Party elected to seek the urban vote, this population having little experience handling firearms and maybe mostly being scared of them as they associate them with crime; and the Republican party seeking the rural vote, where firearms are used to hunt, for recreational purposes, and to kill vermin? Is it as simple as that? Or, is there more to it than it seems, at face value.

While I suspect their are many more details, I suspect it really is that simple.

 

[roscoe]

The Republicans and Democrats essentially switched positions. Lincoln was a fairly 'liberal' (by standards of the day) Republican who was not opposed to using big government to impose his vision of society (i.e., one without slavery) on the South. John Calhoun, who was as staunch a defender of Southern slavery as one could find, was a Democrat. These positions held through the beginning of the 20th century (Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was far more 'liberal' on things like race relations and federal powers, than Woodrow Wilson, an infamously racist Democrat).

Things got shifty from the 1930s on, but the entire South was formally Democratic until LBJ, a Democrat, got Civil Rights legislation passed over the vigorous objections of the Southern states. Nixon welcomed them in as part of his 'Southern Strategy', although he personally held contempt for many of their views (such as race relations). In the urban areas, the Democrats' support of Civil Rights legislation assured their political support to this day.

As to why the Democrats are against the 2A - they aren't, specifically. From FDR on they were, however, social engineers, and from a social engineering standpoint, taking away or giving powers to social groups, in pursuit of a specific outcome (like fewer homicides), is part of the package. But it is tough to support the possession of arms to overthrow the government when they support the philosophy of big (and theoretically good) government.

A lot of the idea behind the 2A was, in my opinion, settled, at least with regards to rebellion against the federal government, by the Civil War. Our current idea of personal self-defense was never part of the 2A; many liberal big-government social engineers would reject that notion, on the theory that good urban planning would make it unnecessary, and treat crime as a 'public health' issue absent any moral context (i.e., a dead mugger and a dead private citizen are both equally bad, counting as a single homicide).

Of course, history has not been kind to social engineering in many of its forms, like urban housing, welfare, and poverty law, generally. However, some things, like Social Security, are pretty popular. It is just that many of the social engineers still don't see the difference between providing social security and restricting a personal right (like self-defense).

Since the Civil War amounted to a big form of social engineering ('slavery is bad for our society'), and the federal government was used to apply it (and all subsequent Civil Rights laws), against the will of the South, the South naturally became opposed virtually any form of social engineering. You can see this in the stereotyped attitudes of rebellion that still exist in the South.

Nowadays, some folks (real staunch free-market types) will not see the difference between various forms of social engineering (from OSHA to social security to public schools to gun control), and argue that any social control (e.g. taxes) amounts to slavery, etc., but if you want to have civilization you have to give something up - it just depends on where you want to draw your lines.

For me, I am OK with taxes, just don't take away my individual rights.

 

[Jim K]

It is actually fairly complex. In general conservatives and political parties with that label have been made up of the rich who want to preserve their wealth and privilege and oppose an armed populace for that reason. (It is a given that the police and security forces will be a tool of the wealthy and powerful). "Liberals", on the other hand, have traditionally promoted "freedom" for the "common man", including the possession of arms by the people to prevent the growth of tyranny.

But in the U.S. in the 1930's there was a shift. The tiny and isolated Communist Party, in bad odor over atrocities in Russia and elsewhere, was ordered by Moscow to take over the "liberal" and "progressive" movements, and was given plenty of money to buy support. Since an armed populace is never in the interests of a Communist dictatorship, the "workers" suddenly began to support gun control.

Another interesting subject is the Second Amendment. It never had anything to do with duck hunting or self-defense; it has to do with armed revolution if the government turns against the people. No one wants to admit that: pro-gun people fear they would sound like revolutionaries; anti-gun people fear being recognized as wanting to deprive the people of a last-ditch defense against tyranny. And of course if there are any people actually planning the imposition of a dictatorship, they want to take the guns under any excuse, even one they may create.

Jim

 

[orpington]

I am a student of HISTORY, not that I am a student, per se (my student days are long over), but I read books and watch television shows that relate mostly to American and British history. My observations, HISTORICALLY, were such that I agree that the Republican party tended to be more liberal than the Democratic party, at least throughout the 19th Century, and into the 20th (as someone above pointed out, T Roosevelt was more liberal in his thinking than was W Wilson). I will not even address taxation, which, I think, is rather high regardless of which party is in power, but I will say that there are some things about both parties that are appealing, and unappealing, and it does seem that the Democratic party is more about "freedom", EXCEPT when it comes to the "freedom" or right to bear arms. Then, it seems you are free to have many freedoms, except when it comes to firearms--you can't do that. Unfortunately, the way HISTORICALLY the parties have evolved, it forces those who are into firearms as a pastime to identify with the Republican party. HISTORICALLY, these parties should have evolved independent of certain issues, such as the right to bear arms, abortion stances, etc. Those should not be political issues, and, therefore, one could identify with the party that better represents them overall. For example, the Republican party tends to support big business, the rich and powerful, whereas the Democratic party identifies more with the middle class. However, it would be an overstatement that one must be rich and powerful to own a firearm; HISTORICALLY, those with less money would NEED a firearm to survive. THINK late 1800's to early 1900's, Appalachia, Southern Democrats. So, this is what I was thinking when I came up with this topic. HISTORICALLY, until fairly recently, (e.g., when the Democratic party tended to seek the urban vote and the Republican party went after the rural/Midwestern vote), I would have thought that, if the second amendment was even a political issue at all (which I don't think it should be), the values of each party would suggest that the Democratic party would be more supportive of the right to keep and bear arms?????

 

[JSH1]

Gun control was not a factor in politics until the NRA made it one. For example the Gun Control Act of 1968 passed with LARGE majorities in the House and Senate. When the NRA entered politics the transition of the South from solid Democrat to solid Republican was well under way. These people didn't change their views, they just changed their label.

After the South flipped you had the dynamic that we have today: Democrats are generally in urban areas, Republicans in rural areas. Urban and rural voters have very different views on guns largely because gun deaths have a huge urban / rural split. In urban areas the majority of gun deaths are homicides while in rural areas they are suicides.

 

[gbran]

I guess I'm odd man out here with a totally different view. I think there are two main groups of folks in the anti-gun camp.

One group, made up of politicians, activists, media and others have long term goals of at least UBC's, registration, confiscation of semi-auto handguns, rifles and the institution of many other infringements. To achieve these goals, this first group relies on the emotions and support of the second larger group to help with incremental steps (laws, rules, regulations) toward their goals.

The 2nd group are people from ALL walks of life. They aren't well versed on the actual facts surrounding gun issues and believe the national sense as laid out by the 1st group and their willing press. This is the group the 1st group wants to whip up after notable national tragic shooting events to support whatever new infringement they are pushing to solve gun crime.

This second group is who we need to educate. No sense arguing with the first group.

 

[gbran]

Forgot to add, both groups have been around a very long time. Natural evolution?

 

[yokel]

Another interesting subject is the Second Amendment. It never had anything to do with duck hunting or self-defense; it has to do with armed revolution if the government turns against the people. No one wants to admit that: pro-gun people fear they would sound like revolutionaries; anti-gun people fear being recognized as wanting to deprive the people of a last-ditch defense against tyranny. And of course if there are any people actually planning the imposition of a dictatorship, they want to take the guns under any excuse, even one they may create.Jim

When just-obeying-orders government toadies come to take away the privately owned guns, it is they who are participating in a revolution, not the counter-revolutionary citizens who so courageously resist the illegitimate and tyrannical usurpation of power.

 

[roscoe]

I am a student of HISTORY, not that I am a student, per se (my student days are long over), but I read books and watch television shows that relate mostly to American and British history. My observations, HISTORICALLY, were such that I agree that the Republican party tended to be more liberal than the Democratic party, at least throughout the 19th Century, and into the 20th (as someone above pointed out, T Roosevelt was more liberal in his thinking than was W Wilson). I will not even address taxation, which, I think, is rather high regardless of which party is in power, but I will say that there are some things about both parties that are appealing, and unappealing, and it does seem that the Democratic party is more about "freedom", EXCEPT when it comes to the "freedom" or right to bear arms. Then, it seems you are free to have many freedoms, except when it comes to firearms--you can't do that. Unfortunately, the way HISTORICALLY the parties have evolved, it forces those who are into firearms as a pastime to identify with the Republican party. HISTORICALLY, these parties should have evolved independent of certain issues, such as the right to bear arms, abortion stances, etc. Those should not be political issues, and, therefore, one could identify with the party that better represents them overall. For example, the Republican party tends to support big business, the rich and powerful, whereas the Democratic party identifies more with the middle class. However, it would be an overstatement that one must be rich and powerful to own a firearm; HISTORICALLY, those with less money would NEED a firearm to survive. THINK late 1800's to early 1900's, Appalachia, Southern Democrats. So, this is what I was thinking when I came up with this topic. HISTORICALLY, until fairly recently, (e.g., when the Democratic party tended to seek the urban vote and the Republican party went after the rural/Midwestern vote), I would have thought that, if the second amendment was even a political issue at all (which I don't think it should be), the values of each party would suggest that the Democratic party would be more supportive of the right to keep and bear arms?????

There was a time when folks considered 'liberal', were quite pro-firearm, in the 2A sense. The 'Deacons of Defense' used arms to protect Civil Rights workers from the KKK, at a time when the local sheriff was almost certainly a member of the KKK. Leonard Peltier, and the American Indian Movement, were kind of the Native American version of Amon Bundy's folks camping out up in Oregon. Also, the Black Panthers were pretty pro-firearm. Incidentally, at least in this last instance, the Republicans used it as an excuse to impose fairly dramatic gun control (the Mulford Act, signed by Republican CA Governor Ronald Reagan). All of this, of course, was in the rebellious late 60s/early 70s. You still see some of this in the libertarian leanings of the new information technology crowd, many of whom resent government intrusion and support individual liberties across the board: right to same-sex marriage, freedom of expression, freedom of information, and freedom of self-defense..

 

[JTHunter]

This has gone around the internet for some time but I don't know the accuracy of it.
But, considering what Jim K said about the "shift" in the dems/libs, it may be right.

 

[roscoe]

Yeah, well, he said a lot of things, many of which he later retracted. If there was ever a marginal figure with a loud voice and no influence, it was Thomas.

 

[barnbwt]

Gun control started in the Northern cities, as a way to disarm threatening immigrants in the face of violent organized crime and political machines closely associated with it. The product of a Tammany mobster's diseased (syphilis) mind: the Sullivan Act.

Before the Civil War in the South, the notion of firearms possession by slaves was not even at issue, what with all the violent uprisings that would be expected & had already occurred at the hands of slaves. Though obviously subject to the horrors of prejudice, I believe that it was not uncommon for the few freeman southerners to go about armed in accordance with their economic standing (a very few free blacks were rich/landed), as it was not explicitly banned until post-war in most places. After the Civil War, the same practices of the northern cities were exported to keep vanquished rebel veterans from uprising or making trouble for occupation forces; basically a martial law type rule. Once the peace-keepers and carpet baggers left, however, the still-racist governments found selective enforcement of these laws allowed them to disarm all undesirables while favorable groups could remain armed to intimidate them (mostly black v white, but I have to assume there were often abuses of the political variety). So gun control, born of racism, continued to thrive on racism.

it is not a Republican or Democrat thing. It is a statist thing. And the easiest way to spot "who's the statist party?" is to look at the cities. Who are they pulling for, almost exclusively? In the 1850's it was the Republicans, bankrolled by industrialization of the North. In the 1930's it was the Democrats, bankrolled by the trade unions born of previous industrialization and rapidly expanding federal government. In the 1950s it became both, the Republicans supported by the corporations based out of large urban centers, and the Democrats by the people living inside those booming urban centers. This collusion is why the 50's and 60's were such dangerous times for our freedoms, pretty much every proposal after JFK's assassination becoming adopted. It wasn't until the 1970s that things got so bad, that the writing was finally seen on the wall by influential people in multiple gun organizations (the 68GCA was much worse originally than we see today) and having hit their breaking point, began to organize a push-back against the gun control that had built up by that point. The NRA was a big organization, but had not been particularly active politically, and when it began to force the issue on (initially) both parties, they naturally split apart in order to oppose each other on debate stages. Since Democrats had been the ones actively passing gun control legislation since the 1930s, they took the issue and ran with it. The Republicans remain divided on the issue to this day; some of them support the RKBA fully, while others mostly from urban areas to the north remain hesitant. But since the Democrats completely abandoned all pretense of respecting gun rights long ago, the NRAs resources have become trained solely on Republican politicians (the Democrats have actually strengthened the NRAs hand by being so recalcitrant), and can effectively influence policy by giving or withholding support during the primaries & general.

 

[JSH1]

Gun control started in the Northern cities....

Kentucky and Louisiana banned concealed carry in 1813
Georgia banned handguns in 1837

 

[J-Bar]

The United States had three Presidents assassinated in a 36-year period; Lincoln in 1865, Garfield in 1881, and McKinley in 1901. If there were ever a time for gun control laws to emerge, it would have been by 1901. But it didn't happen.

The 1960s was a decade when everything was being challenged by the counter-culture. Parental authority, government authority, reactions to the Viet Nam war, drug use, promiscuity, censorship in entertainment...every facet of American culture was being questioned and rejected at that time, including the Bill of Rights.

During the 1970s, conservatives felt the counter-culture revolution had gone to far. Many yearned for the good old days before the upheaval of the 1960s. Others thought there was not much point in living like we did in the 1800s. The opinions solidified into political platforms...Progressive Democrats, heirs of FDR, focused on satisfying city folks. Conservatives attracted more rural types who revered independence, self-sufficiency, and self protection.

References? I can't give you any. I just lived through it.

 

[Quincy12]

Very interesting discussion.

 

[orpington]

Yes, very interesting discussion. One interesting point was brought up, and that is about self-sufficiency. Yes, rural living requires self sufficiency. Living in a city does not. One who is into firearms, reloads one's own ammunition, defends oneself at home, is independent...that is self-sufficiency, unlikely to be found in an urban setting. If the Democratic party supports those from more urban backgrounds, they are less likely to support self-sufficient folks...and the reverse is true of the Republican party.

It is interesting that we lost 3 presidents in a 36 year time frame and there were no gun control measures introduced at that time. Mental health issues were relevant at that time...Garfield's assassin was certifiably insane and McKinley's assassin had mental health issues as well (as did the individual who attempted to assassinate ex-president Roosevelt in 1912).

 

[burrhead]

tag

 

[roscoe]

Yes, very interesting discussion. One interesting point was brought up, and that is about self-sufficiency. Yes, rural living requires self sufficiency. Living in a city does not. One who is into firearms, reloads one's own ammunition, defends oneself at home, is independent...that is self-sufficiency, unlikely to be found in an urban setting. If the Democratic party supports those from more urban backgrounds, they are less likely to support self-sufficient folks...and the reverse is true of the Republican party.

I am not so sure about that. People may feel self-reliant, but rural areas in the USA disproportionately receive welfare in its various forms (like SNAP / food stamps), so it would be hard to call them more self-reliant across the board.

But there is definitely a distinction between rural and urban with regards to firearms, since it is so much harder to find a place to learn to shoot in a city. Some rural states like West Virginia are mostly aligned with the Democrats because of support for unions, yet are pro-gun. Nevada is similarly Democrat-leaning, yet mostly pro-gun.

I still argue that gun control has historically been strongest in the older big cities where there was a tendency toward big social programs. That type of top-down thinking naturally leads to social engineering solutions.

 

[barnbwt]

"since it is so much harder to find a place to learn to shoot in a city"

I would argue this is entirely the reason gun rights fades in urban settings at the individual level. Politicians, being politicians, merely exploit this phenomenon for their own personal power gains (as we expect them to).

A high-school course on gun safety and operation would ensure no AWB/safe storage is ever proposed, and televised college shooting sports would ensure no restrictions otherwise would remain. Registration is a separate issue, but there remains enough skepticism in society to make it unpopular (and would be slightly less threatening without any possibility of widespread bans accompanying it)

"Kentucky and Louisiana banned concealed carry in 1813
Georgia banned handguns in 1837"
Concealed carry was widely regarded as a cowardly/criminal practice, and it wasn't just for guns, and it wasn't a recent turn (and it wasn't entirely unsupportable factually). Splitting hairs, but at the time it was a slightly different issue than 'gun control' of the prohibitive variety we saw widespread up North. Do you happen to know a good source for info on the Georgia handgun ban of 1837? I am curious, given the time period, if it was actually enforced towards whites, or was just an early Black Code (or if pistols were extremely uncommon & disproportionately associated with criminal acts vs. self defense; this was very early in the development of practical handguns)

TCB

 

[roscoe]

If the NRA could figure out how to teach .22 rifles to city kids in some context - Biathlon, whatever, then it would make a huge impact on attitudes towards firearms. They might have to conceal that it was the NRA funding it - make it the US Olympic committee or something.

As I recollect, Scalia used to carry his .22 rifle to school in the NY subway. Likely that colored his thinking on firearms generally.

 

[JSH1]

Do you happen to know a good source for info on the Georgia handgun ban of 1837? I am curious, given the time period, if it was actually enforced towards whites, or was just an early Black Code (or if pistols were extremely uncommon & disproportionately associated with criminal acts vs. self defense; this was very early in the development of practical handguns)

It wasn't just a black code. Georgia banned the sale and possession of pistols, bowie knives, dirks, daggers, and sword canes in 1837. That law was overturned in 1846 by the Georgia Supreme Court in Nunn v. Georgia

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia