Why are liberals against the second amendment?

[BornAgainBullseye]

Post has been fixed!

 

[runrabbitrun]

I have to agree about getting into a debate with opponent/s
one must understand where the opponent/s are coming from.

Unless I'm misunderstanding Joes posts about this
I believe he's saying each side needs to make the other side understand
what it is they wish to debate BEFORE entering the debate?

For example say a poster comes along with a debate title:
We need more gun control.

This poster (if I'm understanding correctly) should
then set up his/her premise (in his/her FIRST post) as to WHY 'We need more gun control'.
What statistics back up their assertion that more gun control is needed.
What proposed gun control they are seeking and so forth.

Do I have this right?
If not perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Now with that aside, and assuming the opponent did indeed provide his/her premise...
(i.e. facts as to WHY more gun control is needed)
then the opposite side's opponents need
to show WHY we don't need 'more gun control'.
This also needs to be backed up by statistics and facts as well, I presume.
(Which I've seen DONE time and time again by the way)...

But here's the kicker for me.
What WE continually and usually see from the 'other side' (the so called anti gun opponents)
is that (as far as I've ever seen) THEY NEVER back up their reasons WHY with statistics or facts.
And when called to task about this serious omission, they usually turn pretty ugly.
The other side usually responds in kind and there goes the debate right out the window.

So how is it you go about debating an opponent effectively, who wont acknowledge facts presented
by the other side and is also unwilling to present facts of their own to support their
We need more gun control stance in the first place?

 

[Joe Demko]

Let's try a little practice exercise. We'll use my hypothetical lady across the street. For the discussion, let's say she's a woman in her late 30's. She works at an office job and has some education. Her dad and grandfathers owned a .22 rifle or shotgun and hunted a little, but no handguns or military type weapons. Her dad and grandfathers served in the military during the days of conscription. IOW, she's a very typical woman.
In conversation, she tells you that she'd like to see civilian ownership of most firearms severely restricted or even eliminated, especially handguns and military-style weapons. Why? Because if there were fewer guns around, fewer people would get shot. She considers fewer people getting shot a worthwhile goal.
See if you can address her concerns without calling her stupid or irrational. See if you can address her concerns without jumping from where her concerns lie straight to roving government death squads kicking down the doors of defenseless conservatives.

 

[runrabbitrun]

That's very good Joe. Very good indeed.

If it was me, I'd take the time to speak to her about her concerns in a civil manor.

I imagine the first thing I'd do is commend her for her 'concern'
for her fellow man and agree that 'fewer people getting shot' is indeed a worthwhile goal.
(Compliment your opponent, find some common ground and gain an ounce of mutual respect off the bat)...

I guess next I would ask her why she feels that handguns and military-style weapons are
the problem, reassuring her that I can see how these weapon may look intimidating.
(Again gaining common ground and perhaps fostering even further the notion that we may not be too far apart on the issue, just yet.)

I could go on, but for the sake of brevity, I'll leave it that for now
only to say I would hope the ensuing discussion could be fruitful
and I would assure her I do NOT hope to change her
mind on her stance about fewer people getting shot.
I'd simply and gently as possible try to show her evidence,
in hope that she would eventually see she does not
have to be so scared of those weapons
(using stats) but to be fearful of those using them in the commission
of a crime against her or her fellow man.

 

[BornAgainBullseye]

If just tell her that more people die in car crashes than being shot with guns..... So with that will she be for banning all sports cars and 18 wheelers?? If she was that liberal then she would say yes! That is a great idea! Ill run that one by Pilosi right away!!! And when that happens stock car racing and trucking will end with a stroke of a pen. Effectively ending the world as we know it. About the same as if you took definsive carry weapons away from law abiding citizens. That way only criminals only have those weapons. Which is the liberal end goal. A defenceless country that banned NASCAR and trucking

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Nice sentiments, but there's that bad ol' history backing up my statement. The Constitution was a compromise worked out by political rivals.

Which in no way detracts from the quality of their work. The Constitution of the United States is a magnificent statement of rights, as well as a blueprint for government better than anything before or since.

And to the extent we fail to follow it, to that extent we fail, period.

 

[runrabbitrun]

BornAgain

I think the point trying to be made here is civility rules the day.

However, I've witness first hand that the 'other side' (antis)
tend to 'go off' in left field very rapidly.
I imagine most of that is due to THEIR frustration as
I've yet to see one of them 'effectively' convince me (and other pro 2a peeps)
why we need No guns or limited use guns.

Sadly they have been successful in convincing
our politicians (some of them anyway) with-out evidence in fact.
Moreover, I'm not convince that gun grabbing politicians are 'buying' the
anti gun argument, but will use it to help further THEIR control over the population
as evil is as evil does.

So I guess who we really need to be debating is our officials... NOT the Joe's on the street.

 

[TravisB]

The title of this thread is a question that seems to display either ignorance or insincerity. As others have pointed out, it's a bit like, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

I doubt you could get even a single-digit percentage of liberals to answer "yes" to the question, "Are you against the Second Amendment?"

However, if the question is, "Why do we not have more liberals standing with us?" as an answer I would point to the title of this thread, as well as several signature lines in posts in this thread.

How would you feel about joining a community that accuses you of having a hidden control-freak agenda, of desiring totalitarian Communism, of essentially having the motives of a monster?

Obviously, you'd know that this cartoon accusation isn't true, but it's still insulting -- why join a community that slanders you? Also, you'd have evidence that many gun-rights advocates are paranoid nutcases driven by a need to invent villainous enemies: namely, you. (You might start thinking for the first time that some people should have their guns taken away! After all, they seem just one step away from coming after you.)

I'm worried about the state of gun rights in the U.S., but not because of any threat by evil libruls gonna take mah guns. I'm worried because much of the gun-rights movement has tied itself politically to a sinking ship -- a Republican Party that now has a record low party-identification of 21%, and a discredited conservative movement that almost no young voters are interested in becoming a part of.

Just browse the Gallup website to see how polls strongly demonstrate that most people in the U.S. agree with liberal positions on the major issues of the day: The want the health care system reformed, an energy policy in the citizens' interest rather than corporations', an environmental policy that expands protection, and a foreign policy that favors diplomacy over eagerness for war. And just look at the recent election results to see confirmation of the public's support for liberal policies.

Support for individual gun rights (or other civil liberties) is not in any way contradictory to these popular mainstream liberal goals. Yet many in the gun-rights movement -- including the NRA -- seem to make being a conservative Republican a prerequisite to supporting gun rights.

That's not just illogical, it's bad strategy.

If you use the word "liberal" as a term of disparagement, as if everyone agrees that anything liberal is bad, I'd suggest you take a look at the real world. It's liberal, but that doesn't mean they want to take your guns. It just means they're liberal.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

What individual is most responsible for the organized anti-gun lobby in America, for the most far-reaching gun control procedures like background checks that affect you at every purchase, for proposed legislation to ban certain types of firearms arbitrarily, and whose name is synonymous with gun-grabbing in the name of ending violence and crime in America as if the gun is committing the crime and the criminal is innocent?

Is it a Liberal?

Is it a Democrat?

No, it is a lifelong committed Republican conservative: Sarah Brady.

Guys, before you say that all liberals or even most are pro-gun, or just as pro-gun as conservatives:

According to gallup polls, only 31% of republicans want stricter gun laws, only 47% of independants, while about 2/3 of Democrats want stricter gun laws.

And the Brady campaing endorses liberal Democrats.

I'm worried about the state of gun rights in the U.S., but not because of any threat by evil libruls gonna take mah guns. I'm worried because much of the gun-rights movement has tied itself politically to a sinking ship -- ,

This is the Democrat's official take on the matter

We can work together to enact and enforce common sense laws and improvements- like closing the gunshow loophole,, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban,

Here's the republican's official take on the matter.

We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller affirming that right, and we assert the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. We call on the next president to appoint judges who will similarly respect the Constitution. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend themselves, their property, and communities.

We rely on the republicans because the Democrats are anti-gun.

We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment.

and a discredited conservative movement that almost no young voters are interested in becoming a part of.

Really? Priot to 2008, in which almost every demographic voted for Obama, about half of the youth voted republican, 47% I believe, while around 52% voted Democrat. Only 3% would need to change from Democrats to republicans for the republicans to win. And records have shown that people do change to republicans as they get older.

a Republican Party that now has a record low party-identification of 21%

The republicans have historicly not had as many people as the Democrats. However, many of these people are in conservative states that traditionally are Democrats, yet they have voted republican for years on the national level.

Just browse the Gallup website to see how polls strongly demonstrate that most people in the U.S. agree with liberal positions on the major issues of the day: The want the health care system reformed,

I believe that according to mr Jindal, so does the republican party

an energy policy in the citizens' interest rather than corporations',

You mean like cheaper fuel from offshore drilling?

an environmental policy that expands protection, and a foreign policy that favors diplomacy over eagerness for war.

Well, even the liberals are showing their eagerness for war. For instance, the president plans to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq and increase the troops for Afghanistan.

And just look at the recent election results to see confirmation of the public's support for liberal policies.

No, they thought that McCain wouldn't solve the economic problems. McCain was winning until the financial collapse.

Support for individual gun rights (or other civil liberties) is not in any way contradictory to these popular mainstream liberal goals.

First you need to define mainstream. How many people really support these, and how many are really concerned about them. Then define liberal, as many of these goals are supported by both parties. Then, while they might not be opposed, why is it that almost 2/3 of democarts support more gun control, while independants and republicans oppose it?

Yet many in the gun-rights movement -- including the NRA -- seem to make being a conservative Republican a prerequisite to supporting gun rights.

So we need to bash the NRA now? Anyone can join the NRA, however, the NRA usually endorses conservative republicans. Why? Becasue these are the politicians that stand for, or at least don't try to destroy, our gun rights.

So, their argument that it will reduce overall deaths by criminals is invalid.

That doesn't mean they won't try it though.

 

[PT1911]

so... the question would have to be... why do 31% of republicans, 66.7% of Democrats and 47% or independants want more gun control or gun laws?


I am tired of seeing specific beliefs attached to a broad categories of people... perhaps someone designates themselves as liberal because they are pro-choice about abortion or they support the rights of someone to marry whomever they like without being judged for it.... last I checked there are men, women, old, young, blacks, whites, latinos, asians, hetero's, homo's,sensibles, and finatics who own guns and support gun rights and there are many LEO's and sportsmen who support gun control for all but themselves...this is much more than simply liberals and conservatives, republicans and Democrats... this is us and them with one hell of a blurry line between the two.

 

[EP1990]

Just to say something about the sentence at the end, It is not speaking about the army, it is speaking about the militia, which is made up of citizens or "the people." The reason they are so anti-gun is because they want to be. its just the same as me being anti-government, they are probably asking the same questions, but with different subject matter. but it also, just because you are a liberal, does not mean you are a Democrat, and vise versa.

 

[ROBBY.1911]

learning to swim

as we navigate the stormy waters of our society, an eye to the heavens is always recommended. but as we feel the salt sting on our faces, we must never dismiss the reef, the shoal or the rock. for these, which approach silenty, will most certainly change our lives. as our knees buckle, will we reflect on the lack of preparation or the distance to the shore?

 

[Rob360]

Support for individual gun rights (or other civil liberties) is not in any way contradictory to these popular mainstream liberal goals. Yet many in the gun-rights movement -- including the NRA -- seem to make being a conservative Republican a prerequisite to supporting gun rights.

That's not just illogical, it's bad strategy.

How so?

The simple fact of the matter is that liberal Democrats are far more likely to infringe on gun rights than conservative Republicans.

You seem to suggest the NRA should align itself with Democrats, which seems rather ridiculous considering the above.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

this is much more than simply liberals and conservatives, republicans and Democrats... this is us and them

Yet most of "us" are either republicans or independants and "their" strongest supporters are Democrats. I am also guessing that most republicans are conservative and most Democrats liberal.

However GOP conservatives are more than willing to intrude on life liberty and happiness using government when it suits them for instance their attempt at a amendment banning gay marriage

Do you actually know what that law does? Does it prevent them from having a wedding? No, it just doesn't give them a license, A.K.A. federal funding.

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

No, because abortion infringes on people's right to life. If you want your gun rights protected, you have to protect other's right to life.

 

[PT1911]

yup.. no such thing as a liberal republican or even a liberal that supports gun rights....Forgive me while I laugh at such BS.


lets just make ourselves ignorant to everything around us and reserve ourselves to only the beliefs that were founded hundreds of years ago.. nevermind that our founding fathers were the liberals of their day. Anyone who classifies themselves as just one thing and cuts themselves off from everything else only makes themselves ignorant to the world around them.

You are correct as to who makes up the majority of one side or the other... but the broad acceptance of ideas such as all Democrats believe this or all republicans believe that (stereotyping much) is simply incorrect...

 

[JImbothefiveth]

yup.. no such thing as a liberal republican or even a liberal that supports gun rights..

I didn't say they don't exist. I said that most republicans are conservatives and that most Democrats are liberals. Most Democrats support gun control, most republicans oppose it.

The most fanatical anti-gunner in Chicago is a priest:

Yes, a liberal democratic priest.

 

[tasco 74]

i'm with TPAW on this...........

the free love and peace and utopoia crap from the sixties and early seventies has matured is giving us all grief...... if the firearms were taken from all the law abiding citizens in america is something these freaks haven't or can't think through.... can you say MAD MAX?? i hate to think of all the ciaos that would surely insue.......... it's not paranoia it's just human nature.............................................


life is short.....

 

[Yellowfin]

The NRA knows better than to strictly align itself with the Republican party as there are too many states where you don't get into office without a D in front of your name. This isn't always readily apparent as sometimes they have to keep quiet about it.

 

[SCKimberFan]

Just browse the Gallup website to see how polls strongly demonstrate that most people in the U.S. agree with liberal positions on the major issues of the day: The want the health care system reformed, an energy policy in the citizens' interest rather than corporations', an environmental policy that expands protection, and a foreign policy that favors diplomacy over eagerness for war. And just look at the recent election results to see confirmation of the public's support for liberal policies.

And all the other pablum they have been fed by the public school systems in our country, with the MSM as a co-conspirator.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

No, I don't think it's the stuff from the people from the 70's causing the problem. As it stands right now, most people that age oppose more gun laws.

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

Have you considered either the republicans or constitutionalist party? The constitutionalist party is like the name says, however, the republican party has a much better chance of winning.

Many conservatives want the government to protect them from behaviors that make them uncomfortable. That leads to laws against gay marriage,

You do realise that laws against gay marriage don't stop any behavior, right? They just stop federal funding for said behavior.

 

[Deanimator]

so... the question would have to be... why do 31% of republicans, 66.7% of Democrats and 47% or independants want more gun control or gun laws?

It's not complicated at all. In my personal experience, 99% of the those you cited have not the SLIGHTEST idea what gun laws are in force NOW.

I've repeatedly run into people who think that the AWB regulated machineguns, and that now anybody can buy a full-auto AK47 with no paperwork over and above a NICS check. And half of them don't know that you have to have a Brady check to buy from a dealer. This no accident. Josh Sugerman has openly stated his intention to confuse semi-automatic and automatic firearms in the minds of the public.

My relatives in Chicago have asked me if my guns were "registered" and if I have a "license" to own a gun.

Ask somebody to define the "cop killer" bullets they want to ban, and you might as well ask them to explain in detail the rank insignia of the Imperial Japanese Army.

The gun control movement has two categories of members. At the top are the pathological liars and charlatans who intentionally feed disinformation to the rank and file, who are expected to swallow the lies without question. When they do question, they're savagely attacked.

 

[Joe Demko]

It'd be swell if this thread could be more than another "liberals suck" thread, which some of you are relentlessly trying to make it. When you get it there, it'll be locked as you well know. Then you'll feel all persecuted and martyred. Is that what you want? Or do you have the intelligence and courage to discuss this?
So far, one guy had the courage to attempt the practice exercise. What of the rest of you?

 

[GEM]

Most of you don't understand the polls and opinions about gun control. You have tantrums based on simple questions from polls run for politcial purposes. More complex polling and research indicates that:

1. Most of the country is in favor of law abiding citizens being able to own firearms for self-defense and sport.

2. Most of the country is in favor of gun control which means to them that law abiding citizens can own guns and laws or procedures which reduce the availability of such to criminals or the mentally ill are OK. That's what they mean by gun control.

3. Some extremes want total bans and NO guns. Some extremes want absolutely no laws and to own any sort of weapons. Such extremes rant at each other. They quote each other and miss the moderate and reasonable middle.

As in my Sig - it is clear to me that I can grow up not in a gun culture with Gramps teaching me to shoot a rabbit and also not have to buy into social conservative doctrines (which contain awesome threats to liberty) and support gun rights.

If you lock gun rights into a social conservative position - one section of religion and one ethnic/racial slice - then the changing demographics predicts a revulsion to this group and then a revulsion to the associated gun rights position. You need to convince the middle that gun rights are to be supported rather than the usual ranting that takes place in these discussions. Like I said before, it feels good to be in a purist, ranting group even when you end up losing. Ah, the joy of being bitter.

Internet forums bring out extremes and they tend to drive away moderate folks when they rant and call names.

 

[benEzra]

According to gallup polls, only 31% of republicans want stricter gun laws, only 47% of independants, while about 2/3 of Democrats want stricter gun laws.

Here's why you could strive for civility, understanding, and standing together with pro-gun Dems and independents, IMO---even IF those figures are correct, what happens to the gun rights movement if you demonize and alienate the 53% of independents and 33% (probably more) of Dems who are pro-gun?

Fully half of U.S. gun owners registered to vote are registered Dems or independents (including me). I am not a Republican, and while I am glad to stand shoulder to shoulder with gunnies of various political stripes, I will not become a Republican to do so.

It is not necessary to line up politically with Ralph Reed or Mike Huckabee in order to support gun rights, and many of those who do (William J. Bennett, Mitt Romney) are anti-gun.

I'm not saying stop fighting idiotic gun-control proposals, regardless of who introduces them. I'm saying please be careful not to demonize people based on their views on other issues. A lot of liberals are pro-gun, and a lot of leading gun prohibitionists (Bennett, Brady, Helmke, Feinstein) are not liberal.

 

[jerkface11]

I still haven't figured out how progun liberals can be progun when they vote for antigun politicians.