"Liberals" and guns - stand up!

[dmallind]

OK time to stick my neck out a bit.

While not personally offended (that's exceptionally difficult to achieve trust me) I am often disappointed by the blanket assumption that anyone who is not a die-hard neocon or Libertarian is some kind of anti-American, anti-freedom and of course anti-gun snake. Not only is that of course untrue but it's a sloppy debate tactic. Of course some "Liberals" - let's define that for the sake of discussion as non-hardcore right wing - want to severely limit or even ban guns. I suspect very few are anti-American or anti-freedom - they (heck we I suppose - I definitely qualify as a liberal by THR standards) may however have different ideas about what those conceopts are to the hard right.

So I think it's time to stand up. If I'm the only one who does then so be it but I suspect there is a lot - no not a majority - of THR posters who are by at least some definition "Liberal" (it's not really a dirty word you know - look it up!)

No I'm not a socialist. No I'm not an Al Qaeda sympathizer. No I'm not a pinko fag. Been called all those and worse so go ahead. However I am someone who believes that taxes aren't always evil, that Christianity is not the answer to all political questions (heck make that any), that people should be left alone to live as they see fit with who they see fit as long as they don't harm anyone else, that some attention to the environment which we inhabit may not be a bad thing, that people who live in other countries and have other skin colors and other religions are not inferior and certainly not cannon fodder, and so on.

And yes I have guns. A few of them and looking for more. I like using them. I'm not particularly good with them but I'm getting better. I (along with quite a few Democratic House and Senate members here in MN by the way and against some Republican ones) think we should be able to carry guns if we're not criminals or loonies.

By demonizing and excoriating those who may disagree on politics in other areas but agree on guns what are you doing to advance the cause of gun ownership? What are you doing but alienating potential allies? The first time MNCCRN sent me a notice asking me to call my reps and ask for a passage of the new single-issue carry bill I did so, because I agree with them (for non locals the MN carry law was just ruled unconstitutional on a technicality) on this issue.

The next time the fax came it started with vitriol about liberal judges (the lead judge was a former Marine officer and one of the others was appointed by the gun-friendly Ventura) and then asked me to supoprt them again.

Nope. Blanket insults and demonization do not inspire me to help in the cause even if I do agree with it, sorry guys - until your language gets more restrained and more positive, not to mention more accurate, I'm not calling for you. Neither will I join most of the gun lobby groups - they are political partisans instead of cause and advocacy partisans.

So I think it's time for those who aren't on the hard right to say that we are gun owners and carry permit holders and advocates too - and every time you assume that no one left of Limbaugh is a gun owner you risk losing the support of the many who are.

I suspect some will not want to acknowledge their political views are outside of the THR majority. I suspect some have already departed from these boards - especially the political ones - because of the unwelcoming, adversarial and hateful tone against anyone not in lockstep with the far right, so whatever response happens I suspect it will understate the number of "Liberal" gun owners - but I hope at least there are enough to give pause to some of the less entrenched and partisan who are thinking of making a political post with attacks against a group that is as diverse and as varied as the nation itself.

I am a Liberal. I have guns.

 

[dolanp]

I find myself to be socially 'liberal' but on economic matters more conservative. That makes me more a Libertarian than anything else if you want to categorize it I suppose.

 

[dasmi]

I agree! I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think that freedom-loving, gun-owning liberals need to stand up to their party and make their voices heard.

 

[kfranz]

If you aren't a libertarian, you are anti-freedom.....

 

[dmallind]

Thanks - and I'm not that far away myself. I part company with Libertarians when they assume that individual private transactions are the only way to achieve efficiency. Economics is not that simple - there are many things that are public goods (in the economics sense not necessary good and for the whole public) that can only be efficiently transacted in some collective way. Telecommunications, utilities etc spring to mind.

But much of the Libertarian agenda I have some sympathy for as I am essentially a laissez-faire capitalist with regard to most discrete goods (no get your mind out of the gutter - things that are banned in Alabama for example would be discreet goods ). Trust me I have plenty of issues with the Dems too - I'm no fan of unions and a staunch supporter of the death penalty for example. I try to make my mind up on the issue rather than on the parrty line so I end up ticking off all parties!

 

[GEM]

dmaillin - good post.

 

[dasmi]

that some attention to the environment which we inhabit may not be a bad thing, that people who live in other countries and have other skin colors and other religions are not inferior and certainly not cannon fodder, and so on.

Conservatives don't think any of those things either, despite what the media and Democrats say. Yes, some conservatives are out of their minds, but so are some liberals.

 

[dmallind]

Yes, some conservatives are out of their minds, but so are some liberals.

That's probably the most universally insightful political post I've seen in a long time and far shorter than mine. Can't imagine a truer statement.

 

[dasmi]

Thank you, I try.

 

[Rebar]

I find your rant to be rediculous.

The sheer volume of "right-wing" stereotypes is breathtaking. It's a classic case of left-wing "projecting":

According to the theories of Sigmund Freud, it is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings, and so forth onto someone else

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

It's the left who are racists, who look down on people who don't adhere to their dogma, who want to run other peoples lives. You complain about "Blanket insults and demonization", yet do those very things to everyone who is "hardcore right wing", which by your definition is the vast majority of Americans.

The number of leftists who are pro-RKBA is tiny, and have no power. The huge majority, and those with all the power, are dead set on total civilian disarmament. This is a fact no one can deny, nor can your smokescreen obscure it.

 

[RavenVT100]

The terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' have been used to describe so many different things that they're worthless to me as far as giving any type of insight into a person's political beliefs.

 

[hillbilly]

Dmallind, this part of your post is the most telling:


"that people should be left alone to live as they see fit with who they see fit as long as they don't harm anyone else,"

I hate to tell you this, but this statement right here automatically disqualifies you from being a "modern" liberal of any kind.

You are liberal only in the sense that you are a "classical" liberal, with silly notions about the value of individuals and whatnot.

But you are most certainly not a modern liberal, as the term is now used, to denote a leftist communitarian who is all for "individual rights" just so long as what the individual does stays within the rigid, orthodox boundaries of political-correctness, multiculturalist diversity-worship, and a very strict set of political litmus tests and shibboleths.


For example, Dmallind, you probably think that if a woman makes the concious, informed choice that she wants to stay home and raise her own kids, that she should be allowed to do so.

Of course, for a real modern liberal, any woman making such a choice is obviously some sort of brain-dead, rightwing, intolerant nutcase who probably lives in squalid poverty and horrible oppression is some red-state hillbilly backwater like Ohio or Iowa, and who has never had her conciousness raised to the appropriate liberal level.

That's why, in a nutshell, that you may like to think you are a liberal, Dmallind, but you are patently not one.

hillbilly

 

[RavenVT100]

But you are most certainly not a modern liberal, as the term is now used, to denote a leftist communitarian who is all for "individual rights" just so long as what the individual does stays within the rigid, orthodox boundaries of political-correctness, multiculturalist diversity-worship, and a very strict set of political litmus tests and shibboleths.

See, that's my point right there. The both of you are using a different definition of the same word. Wheras "leftist communitarian" is far more descriptive and leaves much less room for interpretation. The OP describes something much closer to Libertarianism, and you're describing something akin to Marxism.

That is why I don't like using the term "liberal." Nobody knows what it means anymore.

What I usually encounter are the young people who self-identify as "liberal," and to them "liberal" means whatever is orthogonal to what they consider "conservative," which usually equates to whatever the GOP's current policies are. They appear to have very little understanding of the genesis of any of the political philosophies they claim to identify with, and their articulation of the reasons they hold these beliefs is done through cookie-cutter soundbites. It's almost as if they're "liberal" because it's popular to self-identify as such, and that's what the cool kids are doing. At that point, it becomes blind ideology, which is absolutely worthless.

Then of course there are those who consider themselves above idealism, and will therefore label you as an idealist simply for disagreeing with their position on a given political issue, because apparently their belief is not an idealist one and yours is. This, in the absence of any clear and logical justification, is a fallacy as well.

 

[Sean Smith]

"Oooh, look everyone, I'm being stereotyped by [insert stereotypes here]! Boo hoo!"

 

[Don Gwinn]

Some good responses and some not-so-good responses.

In particular, I was impressed by the gentleman who thought it would be helpful to offer the choice of either joining his favorite political party or choosing to be labeled an "enemy of freedom."

Folks, if you want to know why half the country refuses to get on board with what many conservatives think of as simple common sense, here's your answer. This guy just wanted to have a conversation about why he thinks as he does. Some of you engaged in that conversation; the others chose to mock him instead. And still you wonder why he's not on your side.

Well, I don't wonder.

 

[dmallind]

I'll ignore rebar's pop psychology except to say if you are so familiar with projection you might want to read your post again. As for racism I wonder how many KKK members and Aryan Nations members vote Dem these days?

On to more thoughtful responses hillbilly I see what you are trying to say but I'm trying to make the same point from the other way. The only reason you think that's what liberal means is because the propaganda machine has pounded that meme into the ground so that this misuse of the term as liberal = extreme PC/extreme social control has become accepted. That's NOT what a liberal IS - that's what the far right CALLS liberal. I'm about as un PC as you get. I think facts and data should rule and the truth can never be offensive. So do many of my acquaintances who many here would call liberal simply because they, for example, oppose the Iraq occupation (my own personal opinion there is somewhat in the middle in that the idea had merit but the strategy sucked). So I don't give a damn if women, or men, stay at home with the kids - and VERY FEW non-Republicans I know do either. I do give a damn if that's their only option either by law or by hiring policy, because that's harmful and restrictive. Similarly while I don't have a racist bone in my body - at least consciously - I think it's perfectly OK to say that violent crime rates are higher amongst blacks and that SAT scores are lower. There may be any number of reasons why that are nothing at all to do with ability or morality being race-based, but facts cannot be racist and I am as annoyed as anyone when I hear arguments that are excessively PC.

So whether you would call me a liberal or not (I suppose it depends on the issue as to whether you would) the fact remains that the word doesn't mean the extreme ideas you say it does, and can't if you consider that then you'd have to apply those extreme positions to about half the country, which is obviously false.

 

[Robb]

Thanks - and I'm not that far away myself. I part company with Libertarians when they assume that individual private transactions are the only way to achieve efficiency. Economics is not that simple - there are many things that are public goods (in the economics sense not necessary good and for the whole public) that can only be efficiently transacted in some collective way. Telecommunications, utilities etc spring to mind.

See, that's where you start to misunderstand Libertarians. We aren't ALL complete anarchists with isolationinst tendencies. There's nothing wrong qith starting a company and hiring people to do a job, such as Telecommunications. It's when Government steps in and forces monopoly through protectionism that libertarians get steamed. Given a very strong civil judiciary (or a strong private sector mediation market), it would be very difficult for an AT&T or a Microsoft to rise to power unless they were extremely careful of not infringing on others' rights. And with all the lawyers exported to China(grin), it would be harder for them to hire a shyster to outtalk the other side. Not perfect, but a damn sight better than what we have atm!

 

[dmallind]

I'm pretty sure I avoided stereotypes. If you think any of the positions I listed have NOT been attacked as liberal and extreme then let me know which one and I'll rustle up a few examples for you.

Perhaps you are worried about my terminology of hard-right etc? Why? that's a perfectly neutral term and an accurate descriptor of a common political stance on these boards.

For example how fond are most of the people who throw around the liberal insults of say Lincoln Chaffee or Arlen Specter or John McCain or Schwarzenegger? Are they on the right side of the aisle? Sure looks that way on the electoral map- so if you think they are left doesn't that pretty much make you far right? You'll note I did not, and will not, use pejorative terms such as fascist and wingnut and wacko - that would have been hypocritical as well as equally sloppy argument tactics.

 

[dmallind]

Jeez Robb I don't think I could have been fairer or more sympathetic to Libertarianism. I said I part company WHEN they take extreme positions not that they all do.

When Libertarians say let the market work I'm with em. When they say stop all the silly "morality" laws that don't hurt anyone I'm with em. BUT WHEN and only when they say things like food safety and pollution control are the responsibility of individual consumers thats a bit much for me - I mean sure if I find out meat from brand X gave me salmonella I'll never buy it again true but that's a bit late for my taste. Asking me to know whether brand Y chemical factory is pouring thousands of gallons of crap into the river I fish out of before I buy food using their ingredients is a bit lax.

Similarly there is no way private transactions can build all the roads we need and effectively collect discrete payments for each user - heck the tollroads we have now are a mess.

So yep if there were a "Semi Libertarian but use government to provide regulations for safety, damage, and services that cannot be effectively allocated to individual consumers" party then count me in.

 

[Rebar]

I now find you to be disingenuous.

Your original post spews out the usual left-wing PC propaganda - the "right" are racists, dispoilers of the environment, holy-rollers, war mongers, etc.

Then you say "pretty sure I avoided stereotypes"? That you're not a PC person? Please.

It's you who needs to reread your original post, and recognize what it says. Because it makes you sound like the usual DU troll, and your lame attempts to repaint them only makes you look lamer.

 

[billwiese]

Unfortunately liberals think that all the problems that supposedly need solving can be solved by "the rich".

Lotsa workaday folks are considered "rich" by so-called liberals.

I'm an engineer in CA and by the design of tax tables it certainly makes it appear as though they think I'm "rich" - 40+% goes to govt.

They say that it "pays for services that I use". BULLPUCKY! I DON'T USE SERVICES that I haven't paid for already. Roads - wasn't gas+sales tax supposed to pay for that? Schools? I don't have kids, never have, never will. Hospitals? I pay for my own health insurance.

I regard taxation - anything more than 10% - as theft. In fact, given that my little free time is precious to me, the fact that taxation means time is stolen from me means taxation is, in effect, "fractional murder" by the state.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

 

[dmallind]

Yep sure Rebar you know what I meant and said and I don't. OK. Yep That makes sense.

Somewhat strangely since you mention them, on DU the extremists on the other side call me a crypto-fascist and think I'm a Freeper troll. Free Republic of course just banned me.

Guess I must be that supposedly common but hard to find political creature - the true moderate.

 

[Control Group]

dmallind, my compliments on an excellent post (for whatever that's worth). Personally, I'm fairly small-l-libertarian, and historically I've been a conservative Republican (based on voting record), so I imagine you and I would disagree on any number of points. But you seem like the kind of liberal/Democrat I enjoy talking to, insofar as you've thought about why you think the way you do.

In any event, you mention your refusal to join most gun-rights advocacy groups because, in your mind, they're as much or more political party advocacy groups as gun-rights advocacy groups. That's a stance I respect, and more power to you. It makes me wonder, though, if there's a niche for someone to fill with a new organization. Democratic Firearm Owners of America, or some such, which spent its time and money lobbying Democratic politicians to respect gun rights.

Despite my political beliefs, that would be an organization I'd probably donate to.

 

[bill2]

Since the war on terror began, and especially since Iraq war started in 2003, many news outlets and people think that if you support the war you're a conservative and if you're against it then you're a liberal.
Many people try to put you in a box that they're comfortable with - if you're a gun owner than you must be far right, and if you're against the war you're a leftie. Political beliefs, whatever they were 50 years ago, are not that helpful in trying to identify a person as conservative or liberal. and people should stop trying to do that. The Democrats of 40 - 50 years ago would be considered hard right today (Pres Kennedy saying we would fight the cold war and blockading Cuba). I'm liberal on social issues - I don't go to church, lived with my wife before we got married, am not against gay marraige, but I own guns, support the 2nd amendment, and support the war in Iraq. Some people would say I'm a right winger and others would say I'm far to the left. Maybe we should stop labelling each other and just consider an individual's opinions. I know plenty of liberals who own guns, that in and of itself doesn't make them conservative or liberal, just common sense minded.

 

[dolanp]

I think a lot of you misuse the word 'liberal' as a synonym for socialist and that is inaccurate. Most socialists are indeed liberal but many people in the US who have liberal ideas about civil rights are not socialists. I only wish we could break out of this two-party system because I am willing to bet that a good portion of 'moderate' Republicans and Democrats would vote for a Libertarian or other candidate if they really analyzed their values. Considering how abysmal voter turnout is in the US it really wouldn't take much to change things.