Why are liberals against the second amendment?

[JWarren]

rickomatic wrote:

Maybe it's about time we just got rid of the old "conservative" and "liberal" titles.

The terms have value IF-- and that is a big IF-- the terms both have an accepted usage.

Many people who define themselves as liberal are not liberal. Many who define themselves as conservatives are not conservative.

However, I think what you are getting at is that we should not automatically assign the terms "liberal" or "conservative" to any particular political party.

As long as the likes of Mitt Romney exist, I'll never do that.

I will, however, also not pretend that a party that specifically states that they want an AWB in thier political platform ISN'T an enemy to my freedoms.


-- John

 

[scalper]

I think the answer to the question is simple. I believe the liberal hatred of guns stems from a belief that they can successfully micro-manage human behavior. I think this can be seen in all aspects of liberal legislation and is not limited to firearms.

For the record, I am a Conservative Libertarian ideologically (but vote Republican since they typically push for gun right, pro-life legislation, lower taxes, less regulation, you get the drift...). I believe that all men should be able to live as free from the influence of government as possible, provided they don't trample the rights of others. For me, it is as simple as that. Implementing this, however, has proven problematic.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

In the end, the Constitution is a couple century old political compromise. It has no intrinsic value or power beyond what people ascribe to it.

No, the Constitution, among other things, is one of the finest statements of human rights ever written.

And in the end, every soldier, every public official swears an oath to uphold the Constitution -- and that oath has no expiration date.

 

[Joe Demko]

Nice sentiments, but there's that bad ol' history backing up my statement. The Constitution was a compromise worked out by political rivals. Nobody came away completely happy with it. Since it has been in place, it's been modified, subverted, and ignored.
If you want a country where people excercise their rights unhindered, then you need to work with people. Whining "But I got the conch!" will just get a rock dropped on your head.

 

[wvshooter]

Ganymede, you may have thought of yourself as a liberal but your original post says otherwise. My take on liberalism is a person who thinks government can meet their needs for them. Liberalism always seems to remove freedoms and is anti business. Also almost exclusively anti 2A. The whole thing scares me.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Why are liberals against the second amendment?

I don't know.

Why do conservatives beat their wives and children so much?

Can we close this blatantly political thread based on slanderous half truth now, please?

 

[SCKimberFan]

My goodness my spelling and sentence structure are terrible when I type while thinking fast. Sorry my bad.

You are not alone.

 

[SCKimberFan]

The Constitution was a compromise worked out by political rivals. Nobody came away completely happy with it. Since it has been in place, it's been modified, subverted, and ignored.

That doesn't mean that it is not the best rules of governance that the world has ever seen. Yes, it was compromise, but it was a compromise because they would work back and forth to try to get an agreement. We have not had that in DC for way too many years now. The Founders were students of governments from the early Isrealites, to the Romans, to the English and others. They tried to take the best from each of them to form what has proven to be quite an extraordinary experiment in governance. We now have people who are wanting to destroy, yes, destroy, that experiment and try something that has failed every time it has been tried.

The best way to achieve that is to discredit and disarm any resistance.

***********************

Why do conservatives beat their wives and children so much?

For the same reasons liberals do.

Can we close this blatantly political thread based on slanderous half truth now, please?

Why? Instead, can you offer anything to clear up these half-truths you are talking about?

 

[Deanimator]

Can we close this blatantly political thread based on slanderous half truth now, please?

I consider myself a liberal, and not of the "classical" variety either, and I consider it half slanderous, half truth.

"Movement" people have a tendency to put on an ideological mantle the way workers at Walmart put on that blue smock. Movement conservatives have a tendency to take anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc. as a package deal. To pretend that liberals don't tend to similarly unthinkingly take anti-gun, anti-war, pro-gay as a unit betrays either ignorance or dishonesty. Lots of conservatives and liberals do this not because they believe in any particular thing, but merely to fit in with their friends. Going along is a lot easier than thinking for yourself.

Liberals are "supposed" to be anti-gun. If you're NOT anti-gun, you're going to be "punished", or at least people will try to punish you until you start ripping faces. Be BLACK, liberal and pro-gun, and it's total war. So-called "liberal" big city anti-gunners feel completely free to use the sort of language that you'd expect at a cross burning in Mississippi in the '20s. They can hurl all of the racial slurs they want if a Black person won't blindly support repressive gun controls, because they're "liberals" and CAN'T be racists.

Wake up and see the truth. It's all there in the Google Groups archives of usenet talk.politics.guns and talk.politics.misc.

 

[Joe Demko]

All of which is true, but none of which contradicts my statement that The Constitution has only as much power and value as people ascribe to it, SCKimberfan.

 

[Hutch]

Joe, I've found myself attempting to use your strategy of "stating your opponents argument" without the discipline you have outlined. Your approach is brilliant.

Gun control propoents don't want to disarm the law-abiding, they want to "make the streets safe". Laissez-faire capitalists don't want widows and orphans begging in the street, they want people to retain the fruits of their own labor. Green activists don't want $5.00/gal gasoline, they want the wilderness protected (whatever that means).

Committed activists (of all stripes) will always have some "Motherhood and Apple Pie" ends to which they strive, and with which almost noone disagrees. Who could be against, safe streets, clean air, feeding the hungry, or freedom of speech? It requires critical thinking to peel the onion back, one layer at a time, to expose the means that the ends demand. Getting an activist to acknowledge the unintended consequences of these means is the sticking point. Getting that activist to then evaluate the relative merits of the unintended consequence to the desired result is even more difficult. History teaches us that very few people learn from history.

Given the way our republic is evolving, it seems as if the only choices we are offered are politicians who want to use the power of government to intrude upon our lives, or those who want to use the power of government to intrude upon our business. I forget which pundit wrote it, but he said there are two parties in politics; the Evil party, and the Stupid party. Sometimes they get together and do something both stupid AND evil. This is called bipartisanship.

I sure wish some "little L" libertarian could get some political traction and change things. I'm not optimistic.

 

[LibShooter]

Most of us want the government to do certain things. Many liberals want the government to make everyone completely safe from everything. A sweet but naive dream that leads to gun control laws among other bad legislation.

Many conservatives want the government to protect them from behaviors that make them uncomfortable. That leads to laws against same sex marriage, flag burning and other bad legislation.

 

[Justin]

I opened this thread with the intention of closing it. However, after reading it, it has become apparent that the majority of you are being thoughtful, and nearly all of you are being civil. Only a couple of posts have been deleted for off-topic or rude content.

Thanks to all of you, especially Joe Demko, for keeping this one on The High Road and engaging in a thoroughly readable discussion. As long as the posts remain thoughtful, this thread will stay open.

 

[justanothersoul]

Labels, always labels----why?

As a newby, I'm amazed at the civility and cogency of the posts here.

A question for all you seasoned posters: Why all the labels? Why must we all lie on Procrustes' bed and stretch or chop ourselves until we fit under one of the labels approved by media? Isn't any thinking person of independent mind a mixture of Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative?

 

[Justin]

Some of us would like to think that being libertarian is a mix of the best positions out there with the highest level of internal philosophical consistency.

 

[GEM]

Joe is quite on the money. The debate brings on group polarization and a shutting of minds to rational argument. It is a well known cognitive effect. Folks also want to look evidence that supports their position and not look at things that don't support them.

Group polarization on an issue then leads to ascribing a whole series of negative characteristics to the group you disagree with.

Groups also sometimes prefer ideological purity and defeat on an issue than a compromise. It is more fun to stew and rant than cooperate in any manner with your 'opponent'.

I could give examples from all sides of the political spectrum but I'm afraid that those locked into a position wouldn't read it.

Last - folks in the middle, see the debate driven by nuts of both extremes and tune out.

 

[SCKimberFan]

A question for all you seasoned posters: Why all the labels?

For the same reason we all have names: to help us to indentify.

 

[otcconan]

I forget which pundit wrote it, but he said there are two parties in politics; the Evil party, and the Stupid party. Sometimes they get together and do something both stupid AND evil. This is called bipartisanship.

That would be P.J. O'Rourke.

 

[Rob360]

Last - folks in the middle, see the debate driven by nuts of both extremes and tune out.

Most so called "folks in the middle" or "moderates" are people that are afraid or incapable of making a firm stand in what they do or do not believe in. In the end, they usually don't stand for anything.

 

[grampster]

"As a newby, I'm amazed at the civility and cogency of the posts here."

That's why we call the place The High Road. And because our mods and admins work hard at herding we cats.

"A question for all you seasoned posters: Why all the labels? Why must we all lie on Procrustes' bed and stretch or chop ourselves until we fit under one of the labels approved by media? Isn't any thinking person of independent mind a mixture of Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative?"

Probably the most cogent remark of the day.

Oh, and welcome aboard, justanothersoul. Newbies supply the beer for tonight's campfire.

 

[GEM]

Rob - thanks for making my point. The purist extremes just rant and rant and can see no other positions. Of course, your view is correct.

 

[BornAgainBullseye]

My answer to this thread is simple. And to those here that don't want to accept it and deleted my previous reply....are just as bad as the anti gunners that we so despise. To sum it up anti gunners are mostly fatherless or had no father figure that handed down timeless traditions of fieldmenship respect and the safe use of firearms. Therefore these others have no respect for shooting sports or hunting that is so enjoyable to the ones who are foutinate enough to have a father

 

[Joe Demko]

This has nothing to do with hunting or shooting sports. Those things are merely hobbies. What we are trying to discuss here is something far more important.

 

[BornAgainBullseye]

See this is where you all are wrong. Not teaching your children respect and safe handeling of firearms has a direct effect on raising future of support of the 2nd ammendment! Those who were not influenced by their father or grandfathers have a greater chance of hatred of everything firearms. Pull your heads out of the sand

 

[Joe Demko]

If you can make a cogent argument for what you want to say, without use of words like "vermin," please do so. I'd like the thread to stay open and to include you in the discussion.