Why are liberals against the second amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it sad that we cannot have a discussion of idealogy without using the terms Democrat and Republican.

Just so we are clear...

Being a Democrat or a Republican does not automatically assign an ideology to you.

We'd get a lot further if we stopped defending our favorite "team" and discuss the ideologies that we must contend with.

For the purposes of this discussion, "Liberal" and "Conservative" have sufficed well enough, but even those are not perfect.


-- John
 
Quote:
Fully half of U.S. gun owners registered to vote are registered Dems or independents (including me).
Since in many states there is no requirement to declare party affiliation when registering (Arkansas is one such state) I doubt that.
 
I dare_no, I double dog dare_one of you to explain without hyperbole or sarcasm what you believe the core beliefs of liberals/antis to be and why they have them. Do not, in the same post, go into why you believe the liberals are wrong or evil. You've already had plenty of opportunity for that and will have again. Right now, I'm just interested in finding out exactly what it is that you believe you are against.

I believe most of the anti's feel crime would be reduced if all guns were prohibited.

I believe their irrational fear comes from the fact they don't trust themselves with a firearm. It's as if they feel, (that eventually), they will lose their tempers and use a firearm in a stupid rage, accidental discharge, child getting at a gun even though locks are easily obtainable, etc.

For those liberals who are knowledgable about firearms and crime statistics, they clearly know that anti-gun laws have not reduced crime to any great extent. Why do they still support anti-gun laws? I don't know except to say they are for totalitarian regimes IMHO.

Those types of liberals must also have a power/control fetish IMHO. Afterall, MANY of the rich and powerful liberals have armed guards protecting them. So, they see the value that can come from firearms ownership. Just not for the masses. Power/control freaks, plain and simple IMHO.

Just anecdotally: There was a show called the West Wing on TV for a while. (Maybe it's still on TV, I don't watch TV much.) I watched it once for about 10 minutes and found it to be boring and silly.

My liberal friends at work LOVED that show and I believe fantasized themselves as being one of those powerful West Wing employees/politicians. (Control/power freaks, plain and simple.)

I simply could not believe they liked that boring, silly, wannabe show as much as they did.

I'm against that control/power type of desire, I believe in the motto: "Live and let live".

I also believe in the "individual" and not in the "collective". I believe in that VERY strongly.

How the modern day liberal got away from the "individual" philosophy is beyond me. Maybe they weren't true liberals in the first place?
 
Last edited:
OK, Isher

Be honest and tell us who you voted for in this last national election. Did you vote for the Democratic candidates?
 
I still haven't figured out how progun liberals can be progun when they vote for antigun politicians.
I don't. I'm almost a single issue voter. I frequently vote Republican or not at all. Both of my Republican senators were utterly worthless on 2nd Amendment issues. Now, I've got one Democrat and one Republican senator, still equally worthless on 2nd Amendment issues.

Contrast this with the governor, who is STAUNCHLY pro-gun, VASTLY more so than any previous Republican governor since I moved here in '86.

I'm a liberal, not a Democrat, although I was one briefly in the '70s. I've been an independent since the '80s, mostly on the gun issue. I'm not a good fit for either the Republican or Democrat parties, since I don't want to ban guns OR abortion.
 
OK, Deanimator

Answer the same question that I asked Isher - you so totally beat around the bush on your last reply.

Did you vote for the national Democratic candidates in the last election?
 
I note that, after all that typing, you still haven't made an attempt to show how you would convince the lady across the street of the correctness of your postion. Do you have an answer for that?
Some people like being lied to. The ones who don't often really HATE it.

After more than twenty years of these debates in usenet, FidoNet and web based discussion boards, there isn't an anti-gun argument I haven't heard, and eviscerated.

I just ask the person in question where he or she heard that "Glocks can't be detected." or "Now anybody can buy machineguns.", etc. I then say, "X lied to you, here's how." I can usually cite chapter and verse from memory, and if not, I've got a library more than large enough to give page and paragraph proof that something's a lie with a little research.

My favorite is always, "You don't need a gun, the police will protect you!", especially from somebody in Chicago. That's good for hours of amusement. Some of my relatives at Christmas dinner seemed genuinely astonished that the police don't have any legal duty to protect individuals... and usually don't.
 
OK, Deanimator

Answer the same question that I asked Isher - you so totally beat around the bush on your last reply.

Did you vote for the national Democratic candidates in the last election?
I thought I made it clear. NO, I didn't.

I wouldn't vote for somebody with THAT record of hysterical support for not just repressive, but fascistic gun controls under ANY circumstances.
 
Gang - you were doing great right up to the point where you introduced the R and D colorations. That was/is unnecessary and starts to tip the scales towards thread lock. Jwarren hit this nail right on the head in Post #200.

Keep it outta the political party arena if you wanna keep chatting about this, ok? No more 'who voted for whom' schtuff.... This is a discussion about political values and messages, not about political parties or presidential candidates.
 
Sorry about party references - I'm still trying to learn the rules. Could have accomplished same without those.

So many people will not walk the talk when election time comes. An earlier post asked the question about how anti-gun control folks can vote for gun control candidates. This is a good point. Nice to know where people are really coming from, especially if touting themselves as being liberal pro-gun/pro-life/pro-whatever people.
 
Last edited:
Remember people, the D word and the R word are labels too.
Don't let THEM (media etc...) label you.

If you want to assign yourselves a label...
How about: I'm an American.
 
Deanimator I'm missing how you're a liberal if you don't vote for them.
Maybe I think I'm a liberal, and they're not.

I find nothing at all liberal about somebody who tells a woman that her response to a forcible rape should be to soil herself and hope that the rapist decides to go after somebody else. I don't consider misogyny a liberal value.

I find nothing at all liberal about somebody who would give the police a monopoly on the means of armed force, and tell people they don't need guns because Justin Volpe, Stacey Koon, Tony Abbate and Drew Peterson will "protect" them, knowing beforehand that police protection of individuals is a lie. I don't consider obsequious fawning over armed authority a liberal value.

A person can call himself anything he wants and tell any kind of lie. I accept no obligation to believe him.
 
Seems there are several new terms (labels) to define liberal.

This one below is what I think a true liberal is.

liberal:
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible,
esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

Source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal?jss=0

So my stand is that ANYONE voting against the maximum individual freedom possible,
is NOT interested in protecting our civil liberties.

The reason I believe people get upset when debating topics like gun control
is it's an erroneous argument the gun grabbers are using to restrict those civil liberties in the first place.

erroneous:
Synonyms:
1. inaccurate, untrue, false.

Source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/erroneous

Is it any wonder why people get POed or hot under the collar when lied too? :rolleyes:
 
This one below is what I think a true liberal is.

liberal:
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible,
esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

That's Classical Liberalism. Its lineal descendant in modern times is Conservativism.
 
This one below is what I think a true liberal is.
There is a difference between classic liberalism and modern liberalism. Classic liberalism has pretty much taken form as modern conservatism. Modern liberalism is quite different, with such values as gun bans and wealth redistribution.
 
JImbothefiveth wrote:

There is a difference between classic liberalism and modern liberalism. Classic liberalism has pretty much taken form as modern conservatism. Modern liberalism is quite different, with such values as gun bans and wealth redistribution.


I don't know if it should scare me, but I followed, and agree with JImbothefiveth completely on this.


Does anyone else feel like you almost have to do Trigonometry to keep up with the historical evolution of the ideals?

We need a chart-and-graph fuction on THR. :)


-- John
 
Conservatism is hardly a modern version of Classical Liberalism. I believe the word you're looking for is "libertarian."
 
Folks that are not supporters of the RKBA often come to that conclusion because they do not trust themselves or others to have weapons that can be so callously dangerous, and who in many cases inherently do not understand firearms. Some come at this viewpoint for personal reasons, and many others because of groupthink.

This groupthink is not unique to the foes of the RKBA; it's a characteristic of the human race and it's not restricted to the RKBA issue.

The net result of the erosion of empathy for firearms is that masses of folk are being conditioned to accept a 'protective' caste of police and military as a normal and desireable condition. So long as they accept that state of affairs, they will never grok why the RKBA has any value.

This is a viewpoint held by both the self-described conservatives almost as much as liberals. It *is* statistically more prevelant among those who claim to be modern liberals, but it's not a 'liberal' condition. It's a 'statist' condition, and statists exist in both parties and across the political spectrum.

Because "liberals" like to live their lives in fear
No. They want to live WITHOUT fear. As long as they believe that they are protected by the police and military and other .gov entities, then they can live without fear. And, frankly, the law of averages pretty much means that many of them can live out their lives without ever being assaulted or worse - thus validating their perspective.

They fear YOU - the guy with a gun. They don't need one, because the cops protect them. Why should you need one? Doubtless, they conclude, because you intend to predate upon them. And so they seek to de-fang you, in the mistaken belief that it places you on equal footing with them.

Only when they are forced to confront the failure of their premise - that they are NOT actually safe in their little bubble - will they grok that they have only been the sheep in the center of the herd and that the fact that they didn't see the wolf wasn't because the wolf wasn't there but because their vantage point was occluded.

Of course, you will always have those statists who wish to disarm the common folk to make social reengineering more successful. They will never support the RKBA, and they exist in all political folks pretty much equally (seeing as how they are usually political opportunists who have fewer core values and simply maneuver for power).
 
Last edited:
Conservatism is hardly a modern version of Classical Liberalism. I believe the word you're looking for is "libertarian."
Classic liberalism had such ideals as low taxes, limited government, and gun rights. The founding fathers were classic liberals. Conservtism and liberatarianism both are forms of classic liberalism.

This is a viewpoint held by both the self-described conservatives almost as much as liberals.
Well, I suppose if you define "almost as much" as 31% of conservatives versus more than twice that many liberals.

It's a 'statist' condition, and statists exist in both parties and across the political spectrum.
Statist does't always mean anti-gun. For instance, there are probably some people who want the state to intervene to protect guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top