Why are liberals against the second amendment?
- Thread starter ganymede
- Start date
- Status
Interesting thread and I read through most of it. But I actually wonder if it is also a case of experience and millieu that liberals or conservatives step from. If your background does not include good, safe people who own guns and who are of good character, regardless of political swingings, it might be easier to ascribe to a lump of metal and plastic all the fears and insecurities you have over gun ownership since you get hyptnotized by the media that guns are always in the hands of criminals and thus bad.
What's not expressed, unless you grow up around shooters, is the kindness and goodness of these people that never seems to be attributed the other way towards guns and their ownership. If you work it out from this standpoint though, regardless of right or left leanings, you may very well see that gun ownership and the goodness of people mostly go hand in hand and the terrible deeds of a few are an abomination of that ownership and not representitive of most all gun owners.
In any case, regardless of political labels, it seems that people will espouse what they 'think' and are told is 'correct' if they have no other experience to mitigate it with.
What's not expressed, unless you grow up around shooters, is the kindness and goodness of these people that never seems to be attributed the other way towards guns and their ownership. If you work it out from this standpoint though, regardless of right or left leanings, you may very well see that gun ownership and the goodness of people mostly go hand in hand and the terrible deeds of a few are an abomination of that ownership and not representitive of most all gun owners.
In any case, regardless of political labels, it seems that people will espouse what they 'think' and are told is 'correct' if they have no other experience to mitigate it with.
riverrat373
Member
I Agree
I agree with Butter that much depends on how a person is brought up and how they feel about gun control. In today's society, we live in a much more crowded, urban world and it is getting more difficult to find open space to shoot. 20 years ago I could drive 15 minutes to state land and fire my weapons. The state land is still there, but million dollar mansions have been built right next door and restrictions have been enacted because of safety reasons.( It's kind of like when people build homes in the woods then want all the bears killed because the bears are eating their poodles! )
What we need to do is not condemn someone just because they are a liberal or support gun control. We need to use LOGIC and FACTS to EDUCATE others! Do you have a neighbor who rails against firearms? Invite him to the range the next time you go. Show him( Or her ) that not all gun owners are criminals or the slobs with big beer bellies that are portrayed in anti-gun cartoons! By the way, that advice pertains to educating elected officials too!
One final point I would like to make, about "Assault Weapons". I think that we as gun owners, and the gun industry in general need to redefine what we now call "assault rifles" The term was first coined by anti-gun proponents to begin with and by continuing to use it we are shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot! Go to www.a2dems.net and read "Don't Think of an Assault Weapon".
I think it will be an eye opener!
I agree with Butter that much depends on how a person is brought up and how they feel about gun control. In today's society, we live in a much more crowded, urban world and it is getting more difficult to find open space to shoot. 20 years ago I could drive 15 minutes to state land and fire my weapons. The state land is still there, but million dollar mansions have been built right next door and restrictions have been enacted because of safety reasons.( It's kind of like when people build homes in the woods then want all the bears killed because the bears are eating their poodles! )
What we need to do is not condemn someone just because they are a liberal or support gun control. We need to use LOGIC and FACTS to EDUCATE others! Do you have a neighbor who rails against firearms? Invite him to the range the next time you go. Show him( Or her ) that not all gun owners are criminals or the slobs with big beer bellies that are portrayed in anti-gun cartoons! By the way, that advice pertains to educating elected officials too!
One final point I would like to make, about "Assault Weapons". I think that we as gun owners, and the gun industry in general need to redefine what we now call "assault rifles" The term was first coined by anti-gun proponents to begin with and by continuing to use it we are shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot! Go to www.a2dems.net and read "Don't Think of an Assault Weapon".
I think it will be an eye opener!
Joe Demko
Member
It's a really simple question. Tell me one thing that you know isn't true, but you choose to believe it anyway.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
It's a question designed to find out if your beliefs are based in reality. As for me, my beliefs are based in reality.
Woody
Joe Demko
Member
Are you me? No? Then don't speak for me. Where I am going with the question will be evident if he chooses to answer. You, in the meanwhile, are answering questions I did not ask.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
I am the most interesting man in the world.
justanothersoul
Member
Good thoughts...good conversation
In my experience people who are against private gun ownership are afraid of guns. That simple. As for inviting them to the range, we can try but it isn't easy to do what you fear.
I've introduced three men to guns. One became a shooter. Hurrah for me.
The next is still having his thinking done for him by NPR, Mainstream Media (MSM) and Newsweek.
The last is still skeered of guns and convinced the clan is coming to get him and believes every word the Southern Poverty Law Center tells him.
Hey, one out of three ain't bad, right?
In my experience people who are against private gun ownership are afraid of guns. That simple. As for inviting them to the range, we can try but it isn't easy to do what you fear.
I've introduced three men to guns. One became a shooter. Hurrah for me.
The next is still having his thinking done for him by NPR, Mainstream Media (MSM) and Newsweek.
The last is still skeered of guns and convinced the clan is coming to get him and believes every word the Southern Poverty Law Center tells him.
Hey, one out of three ain't bad, right?
Uncle Curt
Member
This from page two..........
There are many pages of self described Dem's proffesing there love, and defending the 2nd amendment, but after all these pages the above still holds true :banghead::banghead::banghead:
There are many pages of self described Dem's proffesing there love, and defending the 2nd amendment, but after all these pages the above still holds true :banghead::banghead::banghead:
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Joe Demco said:
I wasn't speaking for you. I speak for myself. I'm just giving whoever the question is meant for a heads-up. Playing mind games is not what any of this is about. Plus, don't forget that this is an open forum. If you wish to keep it private, try using the PM feature.
Uncle Curt said:
Yup. Not many Democrats who hate/fear guns comment here, so the Democrats who do love guns and the Second Amendment who comment here will appear to be numerous compared to the antis.
Woody
ScotZ
Member
I agree with the "do what you can do attitude". Labeling people and then tearing them down is wasted energy in my book. The labels are rarely if ever accurate. That same energy could be spent writing a congressman or introducing someone to the joy of shooting.
LibertyCalls
Member
Because they haven't figured out that they don't need mommy and daddy(or the almighty government) looking out for them.
If everyone were to realize that liberty is your RIGHT and protecting your liberty your obligation, then who would pay for their big government spending? Not them. And then, without government to tell them what to do, where would they be?
They fear the 2nd because they fear having to stand on their own.
If everyone were to realize that liberty is your RIGHT and protecting your liberty your obligation, then who would pay for their big government spending? Not them. And then, without government to tell them what to do, where would they be?
They fear the 2nd because they fear having to stand on their own.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
DWH said:
One MUST "pigeon-hole" his opponents. Know thy enemy. One must pigeon-hole his allies as well. Know who you can count on.
Woody
Liberals, or anyone else for that matter, against the 2nd amendment are just plain ignorant.
PERIOD.
Aside from the individual right to defend oneself, the bigger picture is more important imo...
History has shown over, and over, and over, and over ad nauseum, that governments and security agencies CAN and WILL become THREATS to the very people they are supposed to PROTECT, and it is absolutely necessary for the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms for their defense when these institutions run amok.
Our forefathers figured this out almost 250 years ago.
It stands true today.
"It can't happen here!"
Phhhffftttt.....
That's what many upstanding Jewish citizens of Germany thought at the beginning of the last century.
PERIOD.
Aside from the individual right to defend oneself, the bigger picture is more important imo...
History has shown over, and over, and over, and over ad nauseum, that governments and security agencies CAN and WILL become THREATS to the very people they are supposed to PROTECT, and it is absolutely necessary for the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms for their defense when these institutions run amok.
Our forefathers figured this out almost 250 years ago.
It stands true today.
"It can't happen here!"
Phhhffftttt.....
That's what many upstanding Jewish citizens of Germany thought at the beginning of the last century.
What you're talking about is not "level the playing field," it's erase the scoreboard. A level playing field is pretty much exactly what the libertarian would espouse. Equality of opportunity based on a basic set of rules that apply equally to all. This is different from the social(ist) engineering espousing equality of outcome, wealth redistribution and encouragement of the free-rider at the expense of those who have taken advantage of the opportunity provided. The word "pursuit" is the key word in the phrase "pursuit of happiness" that is lost on the communitarian.
Joe Demko
Member
If any here (including you) cannot bear to have their beliefs challenged, or to be made to think about and articulate them, in a mere internet forum, then I question whether those people would actually be willing risk their real world *** for those beliefs.
The other members here are, presumably, able to make decisions for themselves and don't need you to run interference.
Lumping your opponnent into a catch all basket that over generalizes, marginalizes, and stereotypes, makes you a less effective adversary. Knowing your enemy means understanding the fine nuances, that make them tick. Pigeon-holing erases those nuances and weakens your understanding of their position. It is also a waste of time categorizing, when your energy could be spent fostering positive firearm interactions in your commuity and abroad!
I LIKE IT!
Member
Get used to it, this war will NEVER end. Hell we're split minimum 50/50 at birth(woman), sounds bad I know but it's generally true.
It's the nature of the beast.
It's the nature of the beast.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Not really. Most gun-control advocates map out centrist to center-left, with some outliers on the right and far left.
Barbara Boxer? Yes, she's a liberal.
Dianne Feinstein? Centrist communitarian, hated by liberals for her authoritarian leanings and corporatism.
Charles Schumer? Center-left "Third Way" schemer.
Carolyn McCarthy? Single-issue zealot who votes center-left in order to keep her seat, but didn't even bother to change her Republican voter registration until after serving two terms in Congress.
Sarah Brady? Center-right neoconservative and single-issue zealot.
Paul Helmke, head of the Brady Campaign? Center-right neoconservative and single-issue zealot.
Wesley Clark? Center-left authoritarian.
William J. Bennett, father of the first Federal AWB (the Bush the Elder XO later codified in 18 USC 922)? Far right neoconservative.
Alberto "No Habeus Corpus" Gonzales, father of the "No Fly, No Buy" proposals? Center-right neoconservative.
Bill/Hill Clinton? Centrist Third Way communitarians.
Rudy Guliani? Centrist authoritarian law-and-order type.
Yes, it is true that too many liberals are anti-gun, primarily due to sheer ignorance and aided by a general lack of skepticism toward the media. But it is not true that "most anti-gunners are liberals," and the gun-owner-hells that are the UK and Australia were made that way by their respective conservative parties in order to be "tough on crime" (or in the case of most UK gun controls, "tough on Communists").
I'm not saying that you should ignore anti-gun positions by various liberals, OR that the anti-2ndA planks in the Dem platform (put there by centrist nonliberals, BTW) are somehow OK and don't need to go (they most certainly do). I'm saying that stereotyping gun restrictions as a "liberal issue" will keep you from seeing who your real enemies are, and will cause you to lump a good many of your friends in with your enemies and a good many of your enemies in with your friends.
Pigeon-holding prevents you from knowing your enemy. Such superficial classification lumps friends in with enemies, and enemies with friends.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
It takes more than a couple of pages of people on a forum spread across the enormous expanse of the country to make a meaningful political representation.
aka108
Member
They are also against the First Amendment unless it is to express their point of view.
All -
Free speech + free possession of firearms
Is the ultimate check and balance to
Those who would tear away the rights
Of personal freedom.
Of course, that being said,
You will then have the much more difficult task
of being responsible for your own actions
The framers of the Constitution sure as hell
Knew what they were doing.
Period.
isher
Free speech + free possession of firearms
Is the ultimate check and balance to
Those who would tear away the rights
Of personal freedom.
Of course, that being said,
You will then have the much more difficult task
of being responsible for your own actions
The framers of the Constitution sure as hell
Knew what they were doing.
Period.
isher
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Joe Demco said:
And on that note, what makes you think that what you are doing is not running interference, and that they need you to run interference since they ARE capable of making their own decisions?
Since "parroting" is no longer considered bad or weak minded, what's next?
DWH said:
It's those "nuances" that put these anti-gun-rights people into the pigeon holes. I don't have a problem dealing with these people as a group or one-on-one. Their position is anti-gun-rights. They get placed in the anti-gun-rights pigeon coop in one or a few of the pigeon holes within the coop.
benEzra said:
Knowing my enemy puts them in those pigeon holes.
benEzra said:
None of my friends share pigeon coops let alone pigeon holes with my enemies.
Whether all liberals hate guns or not doesn't matter. People who hate guns(gun rights) and actively participate in actions that lead to "gun control" must take liberties with the Constitution. Ignoring or bastardizing the Second Amendment is to take liberties with the Constitution, making those people liberals. Regardless of each liberals "nuances" vis-a-vis the Second Amendment protected right, they most certainly fit in that pigeon coop into one or many of the pigeon holes.
Isher said:
I parrot this wisdom.
Woody
Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
