Why are liberals against the second amendment?

[SharpsDressedMan]

Simple. Liberals want to institute a better world for us all, to save us from ourselves. It is only logical to them to do away with guns. If there were no guns, there would be....peace and harmony. If only they could get rid of all the guns. Unfortunately, that is where it all breaks down. First of all, they should start with the criminals. When they take the last gun from the last criminal, then they can come after mine. Of course, they can just outlaw guns, thus making me a criminal, and then come for mine.......

 

[Cannonball888]

Modern liberalism is an oxymoron and a philosophy of self-castration.
Today's liberals think they are all about freedom and diversity...as long as everyone thinks and speaks as they do. Political correctness is nothing but a euphamism for censorship. Democrats were a different breed before the 60's but since have been infiltrated by hippie leftists. For example, Reagan was originally a Democrat and when asked why he left the party he replied "I didn't leave them. They left me".

 

[benEzra]

The rabidly pro-gun-control caucus within the Democratic party is primarily not liberals, but "Third Way" communitarians and the authoritarian/corporatist Democratic Leadership Council, who adopted the ban-guns-for-the-good-of-the-peons views of Amitai Etzioni as a way to look "tough on crime" to right-leaning law-and-order types.

This may surprise a lot of conservatives, but most liberals consider Dianne Feinstein a conservative DINO.

In my opinion (as one who lines up somewhere in the political center, perhaps slightly left depending on how heavily you weight social vs. economic issues), the gun issue is NOT about liberalism vs. conservativism, but about freedom vs. Authority. Lovers of Authority tend to like gun bans, regardless of whether they are on the far left (Barbara Boxer), center-left (the Clintons), center (Dianne Feinstein), or the right (Sarah Brady, Mitt Romney, William J. Bennett).

 

[Uncle Curt]

A search of voting in Congress during the 1990's shows that 20% of Democrats in the House and Senate voted against gun control laws, while 33% of Republicans voted for gun control laws.

Or to say it without the spin..... 80% of Dems voted for gun controll laws and 67% of Repub's voted against gun controll laws............

 

[nascardalejr]

fix the people don't take away the guns

from a woman's point of view, I think a lot of the problems in this country with our young children is the politician's took away our abilities to discipline our children, given them too much power and not teaching them any respect. These young kids/adults today don't care about human life, don't repect their elders, etc... They pick up guns and kill someone over nothing. To repeat an old saying Guns don't kill people, people kill people!! I say, put things back the way they used to be when I was a child. Prayers in school, a swat on the rear if your child needs it and get rid of this "Time Out" and our next generation will be better people for it!!!!

Outlawing guns doesn't fix the problem, just creates different ones.

 

[Cannonball888]

If there were no guns, there would be....peace and harmony. First of all, they should start with the criminals. When they take the last gun from the last criminal, then they can come after mine

I hope you are joking. Even if there were no guns there will always be criminals. So, you would advocate that a 70lb old lady must defend herself with fists or knife against a 200lb young male? Silly rabbit. A gun is an equalizer that makes us more equal. It's a shame the libs haven't figured that into their equality equation.

 

[nc76]

They are anti-violence and anti-war. They think that means that being anti-gun means you won't have those two things. However, they are only anti-violence when it doesn't involve a protest against something they don't like.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Let me explain. I am going to take everything you have and "spread the wealth."

Naturally, you won't like this, and may try to resist, so I have to be more powerful than you are.

Then I'll take everyone else's property and "spread the wealth." They won't like that either, and may try to resist. So I have to be more powerful than everyone else combined.

Is it any wonder that I don't want them to have guns?

 

[Deanimator]

I'm a liberal. I'm also militantly pro-gun.

One reason why so many liberals are anti-gun is that they work from a script. There's a list of things you're supposed to "believe" if you're a liberal. People just accept what people tell them without question. If they're not just fanatics, you need to show them the truth.

Anti-gun is anti-self defense.
Making women defenseless in the face of rape isn't liberal.
Making women defenseless in the face of domestic violence and stalking isn't liberal.
Making gays and lesbians defenseless in the face of gay bashing isn't liberal.
Making racial, religious and ethnic minorities defenseless in the face of bias attacks isn't liberal.

If they actually believe in things, you can change their minds. If they're just part of a "gang", they're hopeless.

 

[Walkalong]

Vern nailed it....

 

[TexasRifleman]

Or to say it without the spin..... 80% of Dems voted for gun controll laws and 67% of Repub's voted against gun controll laws............

That's pretty much it. It is true that some legislators occasionally cross party lines to vote outside the norm on gun control but in the end one party has gun control in it's platform and one does not.

It is and will remain a partisan issue as long as one party has that in it's platform.

 

[lionking]

quote"smaller goverment, personal freedom, pro-gun....sounds kinda Republican"

I use to think so also,but the last 8 years showed me that the majority of the GOP are not interested in that,they are more than willing to nanny and use government for their pet goals while accusing Dems of doing so,although the GOP is still more firearm ownership friendly than the DNC,although having debated a few Dems some are very pro firearm ownership also.

These days I vote 3rd party namely Libertarian.Here is a site I debate on often that covers wide array of topics with many viewpoints including firearms if interested in open discussion without strict rules of topic.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

ganymede, let me say first of all, I am a small "l" libertarian. And you sound like one yourself.

Secondly, liberals aren't inherently anti-gun. There are a couple of communists I've known that are in fact very pro-gun.Being on the right is no guarantee of being pro-gun.

Basically, in addition to right and left, you also have authoritarian and libertarian. Authoritarians are the people who want to tell you what to do with your life, how to do it, when to it. I don't have any use for these people, and in my mind, their elimination is the best use of a gun.....

They can be right or left. It matters not whether a person's authoritarianism is driven from a desire for peace, love, and humanistic virtues, or if it is driven by religious extremism, or corporate policies, etc. Authoritarianism is what you are really against. There are those on the left who aren't very Authoritarian. And they also tend to be more pro-gun. There are those on the right (look at the last administration) who are more authoritarian. They tend to be less pro-gun.

Now, as a general rule, there are probably more libertarian shaded conservatives than liberals in American politics, but you shouldn't discount anybody who wishes to leave you alone, regardless of their own personal beliefs, or lifestyle.

 

[Pilot]

I love the comment about Sarah Brady...it is true.

Sarah Brady did not become anti-gun because of political ideology. She became anti-gun for two reasons.

1. Money. It gave her and her family careers and she has been able to support herself after her husband was injured by the shooting.

2. Emotional anger at what happened to her husband. It gave her an outlet for her anger and a focus on what she thinks is doing something about gun violence.

 

[doubleh]

Funny how meanings of words are twisted. My dictionary gives the defination of "liberal" as: tolerant; broad mined. The political defination is anything but that. They think government knows how you should live and think better than you do. I'll never fit the political definition of "liberal".

 

[runrabbitrun]

The labels were/are put in place by those in charge
and their buddies in the main stream media.

We as people, I think, are more alike in many areas than those who
wish to divide and conquer us would like to see.

Don't fall for the rhetoric from either side.
They are mostly on the same page and that page is control over us.. All of us.

Seems their not doing too well these days trying and keep us 'divided'.

Long live freedom.

 

[SundownRider]

There are two types of liberals.

The classical liberal, whose values and attitudes tend to mirror what we call libertarian.

The social liberal, which is a new animal, tends to favor less personal freedom and more authoritarian control.

 

[Airman193SOS]

Whether we like it or not, the parties are beholden to certain constituencies. You can see a vivid demonstration of that when you examine voting patterns. With few exceptions, urban dwellers vote Democratic.

Cities are also prone to greater amounts of crime due to population density. It therefore stands to reason that the people in those cities will be proponents of policies intended to limit crime. Gun control is one of those policies. Since those people vote Democratic, the Democrats have assumed that as one of their policy positions.

I'm not arguing the efficacy of those policies, mind you. I do not believe that gun control policies are effective, and I certainly oppose their implementation. But that isn't what the OP asked. The OP asked why it is that "liberals" (used pejoratively, apparently) support gun control. It isn't at all hard to discern. Unfortunately, it's often clouded by rhetoric. It certainly has been in this thread.

 

[runrabbitrun]

I think they (the new animal) are called progressionist? (sp?)

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Cities are also prone to greater amounts of crime due to population density. It therefore stands to reason that the people in those cities will be proponents of policies intended to limit crime. Gun control is one of those policies.

But gun control doesn't limit crime -- just the opposite. It mades crime easier and less risky because the victims are defenseless.

 

[ranger335v]

Doubleh has it correct. Liberals have changed the word meanings. Don't expect dictionary meanings to be helpful, dictionaries are written by bookish liberals so they will always come across as nice and conservatives less so.

But no one is more resistant to "change" than liberals, other than to toss more of other people's money at every "problem", real or imagined. Liberals have dominated the education system since the late 50s, disasterously so, but they won't tolerate any "new ideas", they only want to extend the failed ideas.

Ditto with "crime". This nation was far more civil AND safe before liberals started trying to disarm us. When I grew up in the south in the 40s, childern of both races could attend a movie on foot and safely walk through the others living sections in the dark of night while returning home. Now that liberals have worked so long and "effectively" to improve race relations by force of law that isn't safe and it hasn't been for a long time.

In the 40s many polite and peaceful "red neck" Southern farmers (legally) carried pocket pistols when going to town on Saturday so the ladies could buy groceries and the men saw the newest cowboy movie or played checkers on the county courthouse square. I NEVER saw one of those guns displayed nor heard any bad language towards each other or anyone else, nor towards any black passing through and around. The young people also conducted themselves well and dressed modestly. That's no longer true, not after liberals have improved public manners , strengthened "personal image" and made the weak defensless before the strong for so long.

One thing I've learned from a long life of observing ilberals; they have grand ideas and plans but they learn absolutely nothing when those plans fail.


Government power attacts liberals (of both parties) like blow-flies to a pasture patty, political liberals are no one's friend except the powerful and that means government. Granting liberals control of a population deprived of its only means of resistance from foolish government (is that redundant?) is the worst thing we could allow. Our forefathers knew it and strove to provide us the means of stopping tyanny by our own government as well as for national defense if needed. But those wise men are gone. We are left to defend our liberty or lose it. The threat is real because the big government mindset hates the idea that us common folk might effectively resist the eletists.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Cities are also prone to greater amounts of crime due to population density. It therefore stands to reason that the people in those cities will be proponents of policies intended to limit crime. Gun control is one of those policies.

Gun control has never been, and will never be, about reducing crime.

We've shown over and over that since the 1968 Gun Control Act the use of guns in crime has not really been impacted in any measurable way.

 

[SCKimberFan]

A true liberal is for personal freedoms.

What we have now is a group of progressives, who have all learned at the feet of Wilson & Roosevelt (FDR). It is an entire 'government is the answer' to all your problems mentality, when in actuality, government is the cause of your problems. The more folks they get to drink at the government trough, the more they can count on their votes when they claim the other side wants to take away your subsidies. That is why there is such a hue and cry for socialized healthcare. Once they get that passed, then liberalism (or libertarian thinking) and conservatism will be nothing more than an afterthought.

Liberals, in the true sense of the word, are for the 2A as well as much less government intervention in our lives.

 

[Airman193SOS]

But gun control doesn't limit crime -- just the opposite. It mades crime easier and less risky because the victims are defenseless.

Did you bother to read the rest? It was only one more short paragraph. Geez.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Did you bother to read the rest? It was only one more short paragraph. Geez.

I read it but I disagree that crime is the reason gun control is advocated by the people we're talking about here.

I agree that it is often the excuse given to some of their uneducated voters, but it's not the real reason.