Why are liberals against the second amendment?

[DFW1911]

Read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky and you'll find your answer: an unarmed populace is much easier to control using the Alinsky Method.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Exactly, gun control is less about guns and more about control. At least for the "evil" ones.

 

[lionking]

Regarding Clinton,the town hall meeting he went to for the aftermath of Columbine I remember him saying "I just want America to be a safe place".A noble goal,and I believe most anti gun people are people who do want to strive for peace,I don't think they are evil or unAmerican I just think their desire for peace misguides their thought process.I do take a even more mistrusting attitude over a politician though compared to a everyday person who is antigun.Clinton's statement is misguided because government can't make people safe,unless you want to give up freedom and live in a police state and even then "safety" is really not there.


But to say liberals are the only ones for big government and are "evil" is wrong though.Any person who becomes self wrapped in their righteousness to the point they think they are superior to everybody is a potential tyrant and conservatives can be just as guilty.How many tyrants in history justified murder because it would make things "better and safe".I once had a debate with a self proclaimed right wing conservative who touted Jesus was his savior,touted he was extremely pro gun,touted he wanted small government and took every chance he could to lay blame on liberals for ruining America and wanting to make America communist yet when the discussion turned to drug users,prostitutes and gays he flat out said he believed they should be rounded up and executed.Seems the 2nd amendment is needed to defend away from some right wing conservatives as much as commy liberals given the right set of circumstance.

The more I have engaged in conversation and debate with left and right wing people the more I have realized there are extremists on both sides who sware their rights are under attack yet are more than willing to attack others and limit rights for what they don't agree with in lifestyle or thought.

 

[rogertc1]

Liberals voted for Obama for a change.

 

[Joe Demko]

Belittle gun owners? No. I want gun owners to wise up and actually be as intelligent as they like to think they are. Think. Don't parrot. Think. Don't appeal to authority. Think. Don't demonize. Think. Think. Think.
The Founding Fathers were some powerfully intelligent men. If you want to preserve their legacy you will do more than parrot snippets of their writings as why you should have a gun.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Parroting good ideas does not mean that one does not think for themselves. To suggest such is pure ignorance. To understand, acknowledge, and repeat good ideas is a form of intelligence. It is simple, that is what makes it so easy to understand.

You are belittling gunowners by failing to recognize they truly are intelligent and that they are parroting common sense and brilliance.

 

[Joe Demko]

Tell me one thing you believe that you know to be untrue.

 

[TT]

eye5600: It's a sincere interest in making certain dangerous places into better places to live.

Doubt it. Far more likely Billy was just interested in disarming the citizenry (because citizens are redneck idiots), but was smart enough to couch the idea in terms of ‘protecting the children’. It’s no accident that Democrats claim their gun control intent is aimed at criminals, but their actual legislation targets common citizens.

 

[Rob360]

Belittle gun owners? No. I want gun owners to wise up and actually be as intelligent as they like to think they are. Think. Don't parrot. Think. Don't appeal to authority. Think. Don't demonize. Think. Think. Think.
The Founding Fathers were some powerfully intelligent men. If you want to preserve their legacy you will do more than parrot snippets of their writings as why you should have a gun.

What exactly is it that you are looking for?

It seems that you are engaging in some type of intellectual argument with no one but yourself. Everyone else here is just "parroting" something that they heard elsewhere in your opinion.

 

[Grey Morel]

To me, being liberal is more about alowing people to choose for themsleves what they should do

You can think of yourself as whatever you want, but you my friend are a textbook Libertarian.

 

[rbernie]

It seems that you are engaging in some type of intellectual argument with no one but yourself. Everyone else here is just "parroting" something that they heard elsewhere in your opinion.

If you cannot find novel and compelling ways to make your argument to those who've tuned out the standard pro-RKBA movement rhetoric, then you will never effectively communicate with them. More important to this thread, if you cannot describe the WHAT and WHY of your opponent, then you cannot possibly craft a successful strategy to counter them.

You may not like the message, but in many ways Joe is correct - this thread has danced around the issue but many of the posts in it fail to TRY to describe 'why are liberals against the second amendment' in any sort of realistic and nuanced manner. In fact, many have instead retreating to the comfort of canned 'conservative' platitudes.

'Liberals believe that if there were no guns, there would be peace and harmony.'
Liberals are for big government.'
'Liberals hate freedom.'
'Liberals live in fear.'

In my world, none of those statements represent a successful attempt to describe 'why are liberals against the second amendment'.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Tell me one thing you believe that you know to be untrue.

In regards to what? What kind of question is this?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I'm Calling Bollocks

Liberals are not, by definition, for "big government." They believe there are certain things that the government can handle better than individual citizens.

You are slightly right. Liberals ARE for big government. Liberals are for big government because they believe government can handle EVERYTHING better than individual citizens. I'd be hard pressed to come up with one aspect of our lives that liberals haven't stuck their fingers into, or wish they could. Mostly, the Constitution gets in their way.

Conservatives also believe government can handle some things better than individual citizens. They just don't agree on what things.

Here, you are partly right. Conservatives believe government can handle some things better than individuals. But then again, it isn't so much that "government" per se can do something better, it's that government in this country is pooled power of the individuals, therefore, "government" in this case can assemble that power(and money and other resources) and perform certain tasks much more efficiently and powerfully than each individual can do - like build roads, coin standardized money, and defend the Union. You are wrong about what conservatives agree on. Conservatives agree on the Constitution.

One thing I've noted in this thread is that people on our side are every bit as likely as any anti or politician to launch into "sound byte mode." You are dealing here with an audience who is already essentially on your side WRT to the gun issue. We aren't even discussing that! Yet go back and read how many posts are the same stuff that gets trotted out for arguments with antis.

It can't be helped that those arguments remain to be true and effective. New arguments do crop up from time to time as well, however, usually in response to some contrivance of the anti-gun-right crowd.

I'm really tempted to think that a lot of people on our side have put no thought into this matter at all. You don't know why you believe what you believe, so you can't explain it, let alone make it attractive to the uncommitted. You don't understand yourselves, much less the antis.

Let your temptation pass, my friend, for it does a disservice to your persona. It reveals who you truly are by exposing your haughty pretense.

Is it only on the gun issue, or is it everything in your life where anybody who disagrees with you is automatically stupid or evil?

Me thinks thou dost project. At any rate, your comment it's derisive and serves no other purpose.

I'm from the planet where thought, introspection, and effective communication of one's ideas are more valuable than just being a doubleplusgood duckspeaker for your side.

So sure of this are you?

Belittle gun owners? No. I want gun owners to wise up and actually be as intelligent as they like to think they are. Think. Don't parrot. Think. Don't appeal to authority. Think. Don't demonize. Think. Think. Think.
The Founding Fathers were some powerfully intelligent men. If you want to preserve their legacy you will do more than parrot snippets of their writings as why you should have a gun.

I think it's pure ignorance to suggest that the Founding Fathers were the first ever in the human race to espouse the principles this country's constitution is based upon, and that to "parrot" the Founders as you say is nothing more than duckspeak. These are universal truths, basic truths, human truths; all well known by the Founding Fathers and "parroted" BY THEM as much as we might "parrot" those who "parroted" those same truths first espoused in antiquity when first realized. Do you consider the Founding Fathers to be nothing more than parrots?

I'll appeal to authority. I'll appeal to the the authority of the Constitution and demand obedience to it. If the anti-gunners have what they believe is a good enough reason to diss the Constitution, I'll insist they go through the amendment process, but abide the Constitution as it stands until it gets amended(if ever). Does that sound familiar? George Washington said about the same thing in his farewell address, and I parrot, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all." ( George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.)

I'm waiting....

Still waiting...

Nope. I have no desire to call for a cracker.

Those who diss the Constitution NEED to be demonized. To disrespect the Constitution is to think little of We the People.

If you cannot find novel and compelling ways to make your argument to those who've tuned out the standard pro-RKBA movement rhetoric, then you will never effectively communicate with them. More important to this thread, if you cannot describe the WHAT and WHY of your opponent, then you cannot possibly craft a successful strategy to counter them.

You may not like the message, but in many ways Joe is correct - this thread has danced around the issue but many of the posts in it fail to TRY to describe 'why are liberals against the second amendment' in any sort of realistic and nuanced manner. In fact, many have instead retreating to the comfort of canned 'conservative' platitudes.

'Liberals believe that if there were no guns, there would be peace and harmony.'
Liberals are for big government.'
'Liberals hate freedom.'
'Liberals live in fear.'

In my world, none of those statements represent a successful attempt to describe 'why are liberals against the second amendment'.

Some of those "canned answers" still work. The anti-gun-rights crowd "parrots" their same old platitudes and it remains true that our "parroted" platitudes - actually, our "platitudes" are the truth - remain valid and effective. As for that "WHAT" and "WHY" of our opponent, an answer to those queries is simply arrogance. They know better. They are educated by the Utopian academic establishment. The old main-stream media follows suit. (Ever notice how that old main-stream media never reports on anything that they can't make an issue out of for their agenda?)

Liberals don't live in the real world. If they unencumbered the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and kept violent criminals and lunatics locked up, they'd lose that issue to squawk about. They'd surrender one of the reasons they espouse as to why we need them. There are many other such aspects of this debacle along the same lines. Once the people find out life is better without liberals and their nanny-state-ism, the liberals are out of a job. Disarming us makes us dependent upon them for the supposed safety only they can fictitiously provide. It is simply one part of the big liberal picture. But it is an important part. Our arms are the only guarantee for freedom, liberals know this, and that is the what and why of all this.

Liberals sold too many of us a bill of goods they cannot supply by using bombast, pretense, and emotion. It's bread and circuses, too. All that does get old and exposed for what it is eventually, and if we remain effectively armed, we can put a stop to it when the liberals think their utopia can wait no longer.

Don't confine this argument to the Second Amendment, or think it's only about the Second Amendment. It's about arrogance and ambition.

Woody

 

[prozach007]

I'm going to throw in another "L" word here that Rush uses very well. In place of Liberal insert Leftist sometimes it makes more sense. The current Democrat party has taken the view of "We're smart and you're dumb, so listen to us." There in lies the problem. As was previously alluded to; too many in our society have become so used to being spoon fed ideals and beliefs that all they want is someone to take care of them. They feel that they are entitled to happiness, security, and successfullness. That's why I feel that anyone under the age of 25, or those who don't own property are ineligible to vote. If you have some life experience, and have a stake in your country(property) then you will be more inclined to pay attention to the real track records of your potential leader. This big "Change" platform that the current administration ran on is ridiculous. They have'nt changed a thing. Just like the 100 hour plan of the most recent Congress. They held the majority, but accomplished nothing. If so many people want to live in a utopian Europeian world move the HELL to France. Leave my good ol' USA alone.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

ConstitutionCowboy,

I gladly parrot all that you have written. I endorse your post.

 

[RDak]

Belittle gun owners? No. I want gun owners to wise up and actually be as intelligent as they like to think they are. Think. Don't parrot. Think. Don't appeal to authority. Think. Don't demonize. Think. Think. Think.
The Founding Fathers were some powerfully intelligent men. If you want to preserve their legacy you will do more than parrot snippets of their writings as why you should have a gun.

Joe: What is wrong with a pro-gunner just plainly stating: "The 2nd Amendment provides for self-defense and guards against tyranny".

Are you saying anti-gunners are too stupid to understand that basic philosophy/argument?

After you state that and, if they disagree, then ask them "why"?

I'm sure most of us, if not all of us, have a multitude of replies that would defeat or neutralize any answer they might provide.

In the last year I can now add: "Because the Supreme Court ruled as such in Heller, supra, and the 9th Circuit followed that decision/reasoning in Nordyke, supra".

Now, that's what I'm talkin' about!!

 

[eye5600]

Lionking said: Clinton's statement is misguided because government can't make people safe,unless you want to give up freedom and live in a police state and even then "safety" is really not there.

I agree with this. Life is so much safer now than it was 100 or even 50 years ago that a lot of people have bought into the notion that all risk can be contained. How any parent can fall into this trap, I don't really understand, because every child has a few close calls. The same with anyone who drives a car. There are a lot of lawsuits based on the notion that life can proceed without risk. 'Taint true, of course.

 

[benEzra]

I think part of what is being missed here by some is the fact that "liberals" is not a monothic bloc, any more than "conservatives" is.

There are communitarian liberals who believe that the state exists to control people's behavior, yes. There are also communitarian conservatives who believe the same thing (William J. Bennett, Ralph Reed, and the late Jerry Falwell come to mind).

There are also libertarian-leaning liberals who believe that true liberalism is about empowerment of ordinary individuals (a la the Enlightenment), compassion, and trust, not controlling people's behavior. And there are libertarian-leaning conservatives who believe that true conservatism is about letting people make their own choices in freedom.

And just as there is a war inside conservatism between the authoritarian law-and-order/enforced morality bloc and the libertarian/leave-us-alone bloc, there is a war inside liberalism and the Democratic party between the authoritarian law-and-order/communitarian bloc and the libertarian/level-the-playing-field-and-leave-us-alone bloc.

Demonizing all liberals as "hating the second amendment" is no more productive than demonizing all conservatives as "hating the first amendment". Both ends of the political spectrum contain both authoritarians and libertarians.

The problem with reckless generalization about people who are Not Like You is that you cannot put all gun owners, or even most gun owners, in a neat little box that says "conservative" on it. Tens of millions of gun owners are NOT conservatives, and while we may disagree on other issues, we MUST stand together on Second Amendment issues or, as Ben Franklin said, "we shall surely all hang separately."

 

[Tim the student]

benEzra - thats among the most thoughtful posts in this thread.

 

[TT]

benEzra: the libertarian/level-the-playing-field-and-leave-us-alone bloc

There is no such thing as a libertarian who wants the government to ‘level the playing field’. Using government to reshape society to suit the whims of the nation’s underachievers is a communitarian idea, not libertarian.

Demonizing all liberals as "hating the second amendment" is no more productive than demonizing all conservatives as "hating the first amendment".

Recognizing that Democrats are overwhelmingly communitarians, and that communitarianism is inherently opposed to individual self-defense is important for evaluating how valuable ‘pro-gun Democrats’ really are.

 

[Rob360]

In my world, none of those statements represent a successful attempt to describe 'why are liberals against the second amendment'.

Well, what is it then?

There are only so many reasons that someone can be "against the second amendment". I would say that most of those reasons have been listed in this thread.

Is it the way that those reasons were phrased that you take issue with?

 

[rbernie]

There are only so many reasons that someone can be "against the second amendment". I would say that most of those reasons have been listed in this thread.

What lost in the platitudes is the fact that most 'liberals' are NOT 'against the second amendment' at all, at least not in the strictest sense. Folks that oppose the RKBA do so because they do not support behaviors and activities for which they have no empathy nor value on an intellectual plane. I have known MANY, MANY folk (both R and D, both Left and Right) who would happily and cheerfully restrict the RKBA movement to that of an elective hobby, simply because that's how they view it. Very few of them actually view their perspective as 'anti-Second Amendment'.

Lumping all of them into the chum bucket of 'they live in fear' or 'they want big government' misses the mark because it fails to consider the WHY and focuses on one of the potential end results.

Saying 'they're scared of freedom' is probably the closest to the truth, because most folk that want a restriction on something desire that restriction due to a constant and willing migration towards 'condition white'.

 

[spartywrx]

Tell me one thing you believe that you know to be untrue.

Women want me, men want to be me.


Seriously though as for liberals, 105 Democratic House votes for the Coburn Amendment; 145 Democrats opposed the bill.

105/250 = 42% of "liberals" are pro gun on this issue.

The anti's are just really loud and really annoying. My girlfriend would have you guys calling her a communist in about 30 seconds, but she's totally pro-2a.

 

[riverrat373]

Liberals

Check out www.liberalswithguns.com.

 

[Rob360]

What lost in the platitudes is the fact that most 'liberals' are NOT 'against the second amendment' at all, at least not in the strictest sense.

That may very well be true (I have a liberal friend who has about 10 guns), and perhaps the title of the thread is a bit misleading since it implies that all Liberals are against guns. However, the fact of the matter is that those who are "against the Second Amendment" are far more likely to be "liberal" than anything else.