Why are liberals against the second amendment?

[donato]

Dear Joe,

Sorry, bad last post. I do know what a libertarian is.

 

[Dr. Fresh]

Joe Demko:

It's impossible to really understand where a rabid anti is coming from, since their whole ideology (with regard to RKBA) is based on lies.

I do not give credit to people who have opinions that are not based at all in reality. Once the antis become more intellectually honest, I'll actually attempt to understand their platform.

 

[tonelar]

Side Note:
DiFi gave up her CCW publicly (when called on the fact she had one). I believe she did it when she became a senator. Her ever present security detail has been bristling with weaponry since.

I agree with Mike, most antigun peeps I've encountered have only experienced them through the press. Alot of them can change their minds when presented with a chance to learn first hand.

 

[lionking]

quote donato "

I'm a libertarian[/QUOTDear Joe,

Is this something further right than a conservative or what??

Glad your not left of left."

lol interestingly when I debate a "progressive liberal" on a topic and they don't agree with me like social security or firearms they call me a paranoid conservative.

And when I debate a conservative on a topic when they don't agree with me like unchecked war on terror or government banning gay marriage they call me a dirty liberal.

When in my mind I was being Libertarian consistant to live and let live stay out of people's lives philosophy.You can't demand protection for your rights while demanding government intrude on someone elses because you don't agree with their lifestyle.Yet this happens often.

 

[Joe Demko]

It is intellectual laziness to write off your opposition by claiming their position is too irrational to bother trying to understand it. This is exactly like the people at DU who paint gun owners as dangerous paranoids who must be disarmed. They figure they don't have to bother listening to you because you are crazy.
Both sides are fond of painting the other side as irrational. Both sides may be right.

 

[donato]

 

[Rob360]

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.......

Bingo!

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Joe Demko, while I agree with you in principle as to your last statement, the idea of disarming people is surprisingly simple your your average liberal.

People cannot be trusted with weapons, and why would you want to have them when the government will protect you?

 

[Joe Demko]

A good start would be to recognize that neither liberals nor antis are monolithic groups where all hold the same beliefs...kind of like the gun owners at this board.
Thus, sweeping statements about the antis are seldom true. Are there some who want to disarm you in the interest of unfettered state power? Yes. Is that what all of them want? No. Most of them? I doubt it.
It's easier (and lazy) to lump them all together as a homogeneous "they" and rail about the most extreme beliefs of a few as if they were the goals of all, though, than to find out the true beliefs.
See, when the lady across the street is an anti because she believes fewer guns in circulation would result in fewer people being shot, which she considers desirable, but you respond by ranting about political beliefs she does not hold or by questioning her intelligence/sanity, you are doing a fine job of acting like the whackjob guncrank stereotype.

 

[skeet king]

Because they are wrong

 

[jimmyraythomason]

When I speak of liberals or anti-gun liberals, I am (generally) referring to politicians. People in power whose anti-gun attitudes are dangerous to our RKBA. Anti-gunners in the general population are only a threat to our rights by voting for anti-gun politicians. If my neighbor HATES guns it is none of my business UNLESS he actively seeks to curtail my RKBA.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

this is such a silly thread- ooh ooh! if liberals are agains personal freedom, the conservatives MUST be pro-choice

"Pro-choice" is a meaningless phrase.

Pro-choice what? Bank robbery? Rape?

Every human act is based on choice -- but that doesn't mean every human act is moral or acceptable. To say "I'm pro-choice" is essentially saying, "I oppose all laws and rules. Let everyone do as he or she chooses."

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Thus, sweeping statements about the antis are seldom true. Are there some who want to disarm you in the interest of unfettered state power? Yes. Is that what all of them want? No. Most of them? I doubt it.
It's easier (and lazy) to lump them all together as a homogeneous "they" and rail about the most extreme beliefs of a few as if they were the goals of all, though, than to find out the true beliefs.
See, when the lady across the street is an anti because she believes fewer guns in circulation would result in fewer people being shot, which she considers desirable, but you respond by ranting about political beliefs she does not hold or by questioning her intelligence/sanity, you are doing a fine job of acting like the whackjob guncrank stereotype.

There is one statement that can be applied to all in the anti-gun rights crowd: They have to be - must be - anti Second Amendment. They ignore it, interpolate upon it, rail against it, twist it, any or all and possibly more. The WHY of it is immaterial. The fact remains that "they" are anti-gun. Regardless of the WHY, if "they" had their way the end result of disarming us would make us vulnerable to unfettered state power, criminals, and render us nearly helpless if we had to hunt for food.

The unintended consequences of disarming us for supposed safety reasons plays into the hands of those who would disarm us for that unfettered state power and makes all of these people just as dastardly as any tyrant, dictator, or ochlocracy.

I, for one, will continue to lump them into that one category.

Woody

What dastardly deed a person might do and when is nigh impossible to predict. What another person can do to stop him IS predictable. You can't prevent what you fear, but you can prepare to deal with it. Arm yourself. B.E. Wood

 

[Joe Demko]

Yes, you can do that. "They" vote, though. Whether you like it or not, converting some of them to our side and making still yet more of them neutral, at least, on the topic of guns is crucial to long-term preservation of the 2A right. You do not convert people to your point of view, generally speaking, by calling them irrational or stupid. You do not convert them to your point of view by ascribing beliefs to them that they do not have and then going into red-faced-and-spitting screeds about those beliefs.
Some of the more radical and intellectually lazy antis do those things to us. How persuasive have found them?
If the lady across the street sees it as a safety issue, you have to understand and address her point of view if you want to convert her to your side.
This isn't true of just the gun issue. This is true of anything over which two people might disagree. Have you never seen a married couple get angry and argue with each other? Once things get to the name-calling stage and the false characterization stage, nobody is going to be persauded to change his or her mind.

 

[lionking]

quote""Pro-choice" is a meaningless phrase.

Pro-choice what? Bank robbery? Rape?

Every human act is based on choice -- but that doesn't mean every human act is moral or acceptable. To say "I'm pro-choice" is essentially saying, "I oppose all laws and rules. Let everyone do as he or she chooses."


.................................................................................



There is a difference with "do whatever you want" and "do whatever you want as long as you don't tread on someone else".

Owing a gun is freedom,using it to harm or rob is abuse and interfering on someones elses freedom.

Driving a car on a desert road 120mph is freedom,driving it 120mph on a crowded freeway is abuse.

Drinking or getting high is freedom,driving while intoxicated is abuse.

Engaging in sex with a consenting adult is freedom,raping is intruding on anothers freedom.

It should be nobodies business to nanny or legislate morality as long as it is not abused.People are free to call others names,persuade others to join or agree,voice opinion,associate or not associate with but when government is used to legislate a person's lifestyle just because they don't like it that is crossing the line.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Yes, you can do that. "They" vote, though. Whether you like it or not, converting some of them to our side and making still yet more of them neutral, at least, on the topic of guns is crucial to long-term preservation of the 2A right. You do not convert people to your point of view, generally speaking, by calling them irrational or stupid. You do not convert them to your point of view by ascribing beliefs to them that they do not have and then going into red-faced-and-spitting screeds about those beliefs.

This is sage advice, no doubt. The damnable shame, though, is that it is perceived that these people need to be won over when their opinion, beliefs, and tactics shouldn't amount to a hill of beans when you take into account that our RKBA is protected as it is in the Constitution. In a democracy where each and everyone's opinion does matter, and there is no constitution to set powers and limits, every ass must be kissed.

None of this would be an issue if the Constitution were to be obeyed - unless this debate took place in a constitutional convention wherein it would be necessary to convince others, espouse opinions, and justify change. Alas, too many of those of us in power seem to think it is permissible to simply ignore the Constitution instead when it is expedient to their various causes.

This sad state of affairs adds some credence to what you say, but in my experience, with the lies most politicians spout to win elections, it is a coin toss at best whether whoever wins an election will be on your particular side of an issue.

The battle must be won in the Court at this stage of the game. If we loose in the Court and cannot convince Congress to overrule a bad court ruling, the last hope for freedom is on the battlefield.

Woody

Our force of arms, and the right to keep and bear arms that the Constitution forbids the Union or any government under it to infringe, must be displayed from time to time. This must be done so that those who would usurp our freedoms, or dictate their unrighteous causes, or enslave us under some self-serving tyranny, will know to remain humble before us and keep their distance. B.E.Wood

 

[Joe Demko]

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. Sometimes the pro-gun people remind me of Piggy from Lord of The Flies. They whine about The Constitution the way he whined about having the conch.
Dark mutterings about solutions on the battlefield play well to some on our side. I, however, prefer to use other methods. If things go to your battlefield, I'm reasonably certain the resulting civil war will not yield results that will make either side believe they actually won.

 

[Dr. Fresh]

It is intellectual laziness to write off your opposition by claiming their position is too irrational to bother trying to understand it. This is exactly like the people at DU who paint gun owners as dangerous paranoids who must be disarmed. They figure they don't have to bother listening to you because you are crazy.
Both sides are fond of painting the other side as irrational. Both sides may be right.

I never said I didn't bother trying to understand it. I've read plenty of anti-gun stuff and I know plenty of anti-gun people. I firmly believe in knowing your enemy. What I meant was, the anti-gun ideology cannot be understood. If you try to analyze it, it doesn't hold up.

To understand the anti-gun mentality is to cast off everything you learned about critical thinking, because the evidence backing up their beliefs just isn't there.

As for your last point. Not at all. There are some nutcase gun owners out there for sure, but there is only ONE side to this particular issue that has the weight of factual evidence behind it.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Dark mutterings about solutions on the battlefield play well to some on our side. I, however, prefer to use other methods. If things go to your battlefield, I'm reasonably certain the resulting civil war will not yield results that will make either side believe they actually won.

I prefer other methods than the battlefield as well, but the uncrossable line cannot be drawn at the edge of that battlefield unless one prefers slavery. It cannot be denied that the Founding Fathers had enough insight to know that fending off tyranny might be necessary one day. Whether the defense of our rights and freedom should end up on a battlefield plays well to some and is abhorrent to others does not diminish the fact that such action might be necessary and should not be disregarded.

As for the results of such a battle, there will be a winner and a looser. Pray that the winner shall be the people and the looser will not be around to ponder the results.

Woody

"There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math. But don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate." B.E.Wood

 

[Poor East Texan]

Gun control is not about guns. It is about control.

Radical antis be they "liberals" "progressives" Democrats or Republicans are just WRONG!!!

 

[Kim]

I have thought about this for some time. I think there are several reasons. They do NOT like people to kill in self-defense. This goes againist there mis-guided idea of peace at any price. It also goes againist they aganist over the death penality. If people can be convinced that you should not kill in self-defense them the death penalty seems more morally wrong. They KNOW they can not stop murder with laws and do not like to place blame on the murderer (goes aganist all their hair brained theories of social justice, racist instutuions and all thery other lefty intellectual clap trap on society and the common good. They hate the State on some things but they love a STATE that can control the people. Gun control helps control the peons and makes them more dependent on the kindness of government. Some are just following the pack cause they are ideologically tied to the left and support EVERYTHING preached to them. And I believe there are some(very few) that think they are getting back at rural whitey by taking something from them they cherish (like the former black panther congressman from IL) just hates anything associated with tradition in this country and therefore wants to destroy it.

 

[ganymede]

wow so many posts. A lot of people have had great insight and are helping me out a lot. I will read every post people make.

I've been very frustrated as of late politicaly. scince i was young i always thought of myself as a libral, now at the ripe old age of 25, i find myself diverging from democrates and green party candidates on a lot of things. I guess i'm doing some soul searching to find the party that upholds my beliefes and values. so far that seems to be libertarianism, but i cant agree with everything they say either.

one thing i know for sure (maybe the only thing) is i absolutley WILL NOT vote for an anti-2a canditate.

I'd like to add that i come to THR because of the caliber of people who post here. on many other sites this would have quickly degenerated into hate-filled, anti-obama garbage. I continue to be very impressed with this site

 

[Kim]

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

 

[Deanimator]

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

And even if gun control "worked", all it would do is lessen crimes committed with guns. My godsister would be just as dead, since her boyfriend stabbed her to death. If she'd lived some place besides Chicago, she could have had a gun with which to defend herself. Gun control made it MORE likely that she would die. It's pathetic to see some anti-gunner in one breath, deny that an elderly woman or someone with a physical handicap could defend themselves with a firearm... then claim in the next that they could defend themselves WITHOUT one. Apparently 110lb. women are too weak to keep 210lb. rapists from "taking their gun away and using it against them"... but strong enough to whip those same 210lb. rapists barehanded. It's the "thought" process of a five year old who's seen too much "Xena".

My signature enrages anti-gunners... because of its undeniable truth.

 

[rickomatic]

Maybe it's about time we just got rid of the old "conservative" and "liberal" titles. They don't really mean anything anymore anyway. There are plenty of "liberals" and "conservatives" in BOTH parties. They just each lean a little more one way or the other respectively. And you know what. They both play off of our fears.
Howabout this. I think maybe we can all put ourselves firmly into one of these better titled groups.
Stateists and Individualists. Take a look at whichever party you usualyy vote for. I bet you can find examples of each.
I think I like calling myself an Individualist. I'd be willing to bet that most of you here consider yourself Individualist too. To hell with the Stateists.