If gun control isn't truly a "liberal" thing, that what is it?

[Green Lantern]

Not wanting to start a fight, I'm wanting some "schooling" here after reading a long post from a self-proclaimed liberal gun owner elsewhere last night. And he made some good points - in his view, being liberal is about being TOLERANT. And so it would follow that by wanting to impose THEIR idea of "self-defense" on EVERYONE (ie, call the cops and hope you survive till they arrive), gun control (or anti self-defense) advocates are NOT truly 'liberal.'

Then again, seeing debate on a lot of things besides guns...if being tolerant of ALL views makes a liberal, could it be that a lot of people that say they are liberal actually are not?

He offered up some 'alternatives' to label gun-control agendas, like communist, socialist, or fascist. His main point was directed at someone that had blasted the recent article on how a gun confiscation could work as "liberal." - the other poster was pointing out (rightly, I'd imagine) that if gun owners are going to be able to keep up the 'good fight,' we're going to have to stop the 'liberal/conservative' INFIGHTING!

So...like I said, "school" me or at least discuss...

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Controlling or banning of things runs both sides of the line. Guns, censorship, drugs, you name it, someone somewhere wants to ban it.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Gun control is an authoritarian thing. Both the Democratic (“liberal”) Party and the Republican (“conservative”) Party are authoritarian in nature, so both support some degree of gun control.

~G. Fink

 

[jlbraun]

I'm a liberal. I believe that the role of the state is to provide a fecund environment for capitalism to flourish. I believe that government does have a role in providing for laws that require or encourage companies to provide good information to the consumer about their products and practices - ie. no quack medicines.

My personal label for gun control is "against human rights".

 

[Green Lantern]

"Authoritarian." I think that covers it quite well:

1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

 

[royh]

Besides authoritarianism, it's a cultural thing. The right wing in this country is partly authoritarian just like the left, but it's not so pro-gun-control because guns are more a part of its culture, and authoritarians want to control other people.

 

[Glockman17366]

The descriptions "Liberal" and "Conservative" swap definitions every now and then. Even now, there isn't too much distinction betwen the two.
A "true" Conservative wouldn't want abortion banned. The thought would be it's not government business, therefore government should not be involved. (I am NOT opening a debate on abortion, so don't continue on this)

I think most Americans lean toward libertarian, but don't embrace the Libertarian philosophy in it's entirety. Most don't trust government (good idea) or big business (also, a good idea).

 

[SuperNaut]

IMO gun control is an byproduct of a Statist/Authoritarian mindset. Statists/Authoritaritans are found on both the right and left.

It should be no suprise that Libertarians, Classical Liberals, and Objectivists are staunchly pro-gun. However, look at the range of belief just among those three philosophies.

More telling is the dfference between NeoCons and PaleoCons, there is a huge philosophical divide just among what are considered Conservatives.

 

[ozwyn]

gun control is pro-slavery.

might be a inflammatory view but history shows it to be an accurate one.

 

[tube_ee]

Great question....

Here's my take. FWIW, I am a proud liberal, and a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment (and the other ones too).

First, I have to acknowledge that, for the most part, it has been my party that has been the drivers behind gun control for many years. I'm not happy about that, and I and others are trying to change it. I think we are suceeding. From where I sit, the worm has turned. No, we're never going to change the minds of folks like Ted Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein, but they won't be around forever, either.

So why has the Democratic party and the Left been pushing gun control? I think it really started getting bad back during the crack-n-crime scares of the 1980s. Before that, while we had the 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA, things were pretty good for gun owners, overall. Politicians of all stripes felt enormous pressure to "do something" about crime in the 80s. Murder rates were soaring, fueled by the drug trade. The idea that making it harder to buy guns would reduce the number of guns "on the street", and thus the murder rate, was simple to sell and must have seemed like a good way to fight off charges of being "soft on crime." It didn't work, as we now know, but that was the idea at the time.

I really don't think that any of the Legislators involved "hate freedom" or any other such bumper-sticker BS. They really believed that what they were doing was going to work. They were wrong, but they were not ill-intentioned.

Why did it sell? Fear. Scared people, as many were back then, are suckers for anything that will alleviate their fear. We've seen that very clearly since 9/11, as well. It's emotional, not logical, because most people (liberals and conservatives alike) react from their guts and hearts, not from their heads. For politicians, being seen as someone who actually thinks about things, and formulates policy based on logic and reason is actually a serious disadvantage come election day. This is where we get stupid polling questions like "which candidate would you rather have a beer with?" We're picking a President, not a drinking buddy. I'd rather have a competent jerk than a friendly idiot, but I'm in the minority.

Ideologically, the only common thread among those who would disarm the citizens is authoritarianism. There have been right-wing authoritarians (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Wilhelm II, etc.) and left-wing authoritarians (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, etc.), all of whom have disarmed their people. So it's observably not a left-right issue. Communism and Socialism are primarily economic theories, so it's tricky to apply them to this, a non-economic issue. Communism is authoritarian in principle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat," so it's maybe closer to what we're looking for, but there have been plenty of authoritarian anti-Communists who have disarmed their people, so that's not right either. European Socalist Democracies are free societies. That freedom has expressed itself in ways that most Americans wouldn't like, but I assume that, since they could change the policies of their governments and haven't done so, that they're happy with them. And a pacifist Europe may not be a bad thing, considering history.

It's not a simple issue, that's fer sure.

--Shannon

 

[Dravur]

Liberals are tolerant?

hmmmm, some of the most intolerant people I have ever seen are Liberals. Unless you think and believe like them, they want you banned, or thrown off the planet.

Rosie Odonnell comes to mind.....

 

[ArmedBear]

"Liberal" and "conservative" are brands, not truly descriptive terms, in the US.

In the Anglosphere at large, "liberalizing trade policy" means moving towards free trade, "liberalizing the market" means moving towards free market policy, especially deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts.

In the US, "economically liberal" means protectionism, moving towards central planning, with political and bureaucratic bodies using taxation and tax codes, regulation to the point of micromanagement, and even government-sponsored monopolies in some industries in an attempt to control the marketplace. "Economically conservative" means favoring unregulated trade, lower taxes, simpler tax codes that don't try to manipulate the market, deregulation sometimes to the point of allowing private monopolies, and privatization. These are generally the opposite of what they mean elsewhere where English is the language of politics.

Now "socially conservative" and "socially liberal" in the US, are even more bizarre. Social liberals might favor allowing free expression about sex, gay marriage, and they might support some civil liberties, but they might oppose not only RKBA but also basic pro-self-defense laws, as well as the freedom of political speech ("fairness doctrine", requiring political bloggers to register with the government, "speech codes" in universities, etc.). Social conservatives might favor RKBA and self-defense, and free political speech, but also government censorship of pornography and even sexual language. They tend to oppose gay marriage, or at least calling it "marriage", adamantly.

This is all, of course, a source of further confusion. One person might say, "I am a Democrat because I think gay people should be able to marry." Another might say, "I am a Republican because I think Democratic economic policies are self-destructive." These two people might possibly agree with each other 100% on every issue, but they choose "sides" based on different political priorities.

It might be advantageous to join a major party if you want to have some influence in America, though the Libertarian self-love-fests are sort of temporarily satisfying. But I have met few people who actually fit the "brand" of "liberal" or "conservative" as they're being sold to us. Mostly, sometimes, but not entirely.

 

[glummer]

Since “gun control” has primarily an emotional base, perhaps it is merely that liberals are more likely to let emotion, rather than reason, affect their actions?

 

[SuperNaut]

Liberals are tolerant?
hmmmm, some of the most intolerant people I have ever seen are Liberals. Unless you think and believe like them, they want you banned, or thrown off the planet.

Rosie Odonnell comes to mind...

For every Rosie there is a Fred Phelps. Closed minds are apolitical.

 

[Deanimator]

It's neither a liberal nor a conservative thing.

It's an AUTHORITARIAN thing.

That's why BOTH Rudy Giuliani AND Dennis Kucinich support it.

If you want to do really bad things to a lot of people, it's always safer for you if they're disarmed first.

 

[Chui]

It's Globalism.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

So why has the Democratic party and the Left been pushing gun control? I think it really started getting bad back during the crack-n-crime scares of the 1980s. Before that, while we had the 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA, things were pretty good for gun owners, overall.

Wow you dont know how wrong you are about the NFA. After an assassination attempt on his life, FDR pushed the NFA act. Which makes the 'tax' about equal to five months salary in 1934. (the tax is the same now as it was in 1934) A similar thing was done with Marijuana not long after, only that was later struck down.

FDR is the father of gun control.

And dont get me started on the GCA - 'sporting clause'? Import bans? I guess you dont remember the JBT Carter years of the BATF.

 

[Scanr]

AUTHORITARIAN is the proper word for it, but to put it into a layman's term how about the word POWER. The politicians want power over you and I and our having firearms is a threat to that power.

Liberal is such a sorry word for what they are, there is nothing liberal about them. They live for passing more and more laws and forcing big government more and more into our lives. Restrictionist would be a more accurate label to place on them. They restrict what you can do, say and think.

 

[TX1911fan]

The term "liberal" means seeking change from the status quo. "Conservaitve" means preferring the status quo. Liberalism has nothing to do with tolerance, except that people who have a generally liberal bent like to look at themselves as tolerant, as long as its what they want to tolerate.

The Founding Fathers were liberal and the Royalists were conservative. I am a liberal with respect to gun control given that I want the current laws changed,I don't like the status quo. I want gun laws taken back to the way they used to be, so I guess I'm conservative too. See, labels like that just don't fit.

Keep in mind that Rosie would identify herself as a liberal, and I can't think of a more intolerant person.

 

[kludge]

edit: sorry not very high road of me.

 

[MHBushmaster]

Lets cut thru all the political two-stepping:

A vote for any of the democratic presidential candidates is a sure endorsement of gun control.

A vote for some of the Republican presidential cadidates is not a pure endorsement of gun control.

That is all there is on the subject of gun control and liberals. If you are a liberal that is pro 2A, you have got your head screwed on wrong. DiFi, Chuck Schumer, Pelosy, Dirty Harry, and the rest of the liberal gang = Pro Gun control and pro entitlement programs

Liberals= Pro Abortion, Pro Illegal Alien Amnesty, Pro Gun Control, Pro Big Government, Pro Higher Taxes, and overall, Pro Entitlement programs that will continue to rot out the foundation of America turning us into more and more closer to a Socialist society.

The gun culture is inherently tied to conservatism, less big gov, less instrusion into our private lives, less taxation...I could go on, but it is pointless. Check out the Democtrate UNderground and see the gems that lurk their: "reasonable gun control", "reasonable background checks", blah, blah, same story: Incrementalism Doctrine. The libs know that it would be civil war if they outright banned guns, so what they do is incrementally work towards their ultimate goal, all the while along the way, they sell you an idea like: its not unreasonable to have to wait 2-3 days before you buy a gun, etc. The whole frog in the pot of water: Boil the water and throw the frog in, the frog will jump right out. Put the frog in the water while it is room temperature and not uncomfortable, then slowly (incrementally) warm up the water to boiling, and the frog will never catch on until it is to late and its boiled frog for dinner time.

 

[ArmedBear]

For every Rosie there is a Fred Phelps.

So for every wackjob leftie conspiracy theorist getting paid millions of dollars to spew her BS on network TV, there's a totally marginalized leader of a small cult, utterly deplored by people of all political stripes, whose only form of public communication consists of holding offensive placards at events, and maintaining a bad website?

 

[PercyShelley]

I would say that gun control comes in two flavors, neither of which is substantively different to freedom minded individuals, but are nonetheless distinguishable and interesting from a sociological standpoint.

The first, and most obvious grounds for a government to implement any sort of arms control would be that the government it totalitarian, by which I mean that they seek to control all aspects of their citizens' lives. Good examples of such governments would be North Korea, Fascist Italy and the USSR. I don't have particularly outstanding information on gun ownership in those nations prior to takeover by totalitarian regimes, it would seem reasonable to assume that whatever private ownership of guns there was was severely restricted, if not eliminated. Indeed, private ownership of anything is usually severely restricted in totalitarian countries.

The second catalyst for gun control is a sort of utopian vision that eliminating the arms of private citizens will eliminate violence. The Enlightenment thinkers, perhaps utopianists of a sort, realized rightly that the great republics of antiquity not only tolerated private arms ownership, but lived by it. The Roman Republic, for example, died concurrently with the fielding of armies comprised of private citizens bearing their own weapons.

Thus, the usual sort of gun control proponents in the United States are ideologically distinct from both Enlightenment thinkers (who typically saw private ownership of weapons as a fundamental empowerment of the individual), and from Totalitarian theorists (who see the absolute authority of the state as an axiomatically justifiable goal).

This is not to say that gun control, as advocated by the deluded who think it will reduce violence, and by the corrupt who know better and don't care, does not play into the totalitarian tendencies of a creeping bureaucracy that seems increasingly convinced that everything is its business. Rather, it is that they are being used by those with such an end, or that they do not care.

 

[camslam]

Why Liberals drive me crazy

To me it comes down to a couple of simple items.

1. Liberals tend to always make their arguments based on feelings and emotions. I.E. what "feels" right regarding this issue, or what emotion drives them to take a position. Conservatives also take positions based on emotion, but far less of the time. They usually make their arguments based on logic or reasoning.

2. I also find that many liberals look at the micro of what is best for one individual person versus a conservative that is looking at the macro approach and what is good for the society as a whole.

I.E. - A few examples. Many more would fit.
-Welfare - better to take care of 1 person versus that 1 person being productive and contributing to society.
-Gun contol - better 1 person isn't killed by accident with a gun versus how a society benefits from firearms.
-Illegal immigration - better that 1 person or family have a chance at a better life versus the overall cost to society to give that 1 person or family a better life.

 

[SuperNaut]

...there's a totally marginalized leader of a small cult, utterly deplored by people of all political stripes, whose only form of public communication consists of holding offensive placards at events, and maintaining a bad website?

Yep, that sounds like Rosie!