Why do neo-liberals hate guns?

[KBintheSLC]

I don't want to turn this into a political debate. Its more that I consider the founding fathers of this nation to have been true grass-roots liberals... or more so, libertarians.
I don't really understand how a liberal, hell-bent on freedom of speech, media, expression, religion, sexual orientation, etc. could possibly ever want to be disarmed by their own government.
What is it that neo-libs don't understand about the correlation between all of their civil liberties, and the 2nd amendment?

PS... for the sake of the thread, lets not make this a political analysis... lets make it a psychological analysis of this irrational fear of guns and gun owners.

 

[Zundfolge]

I've posted my 4 basic classifications of antis before.

• The Duped: The majority of people who say they support gun control or vote for anti-gun candidates ... these people have bought the lies told by the gun control movement. They honestly believe that gun control would make us safer. There is hope to turn these people to the truth as they are just lied too and not committed to believing the lies because of other personal reasons like groups 2 & 3 (and they are by far the largest group).
• The Partisans: They are Democrats/liberals/progressives ... and their party says "guns are bad"...or more to the point "those who support gun rights are our enemy" so they support gun control and vote for anti gun candidates. These people are pretty much unreachable unless Republicans became pro gun control. Most could care less one way or the other whether guns are legal, illegal, restricted, or whatever (although most are partially duped and I'm sure there are plenty Hoplolphobes among them too).
• The Hopolophobes: just simply people with an irrational fear of guns ... they are unreachable. Therapy for their phobia is required. (this is a somewhat small group ... smaller than 1 and 2).
• The Power Seekers: These are the Schumers and Feinsteins ... these are the leaders of the movement who know guns aren't bad but know they can't implement their other diabolical plans against us as long as we're armed (this is actually a very small group ... even most anti-gun politicians are just Partisans, Dupes and/or Hopolophobes, only a very select few are trying to enslave us).

"Neo-liberals" tend to be among The Partisans.

 

[jackdanson]

IMHO it is because many people either declare themselves republican or Democrat. At that point of decision every belief held by "your" party is the correct one, regardless of logic. This works both ways. A great many people (including most politicians) find it impossible to take a view point away from their party.

 

[jackdanson]

I've posted my 4 basic classifications of antis before.

The Duped: The majority of people who say they support gun control or vote for anti-gun candidates ... these people have bought the lies told by the gun control movement. They honestly believe that gun control would make us safer. There is hope to turn these people to the truth as they are just lied too and not committed to believing the lies because of other personal reasons like groups 2 & 3 (and they are by far the largest group).
The Partisans: They are Democrats/liberals/progressives ... and their party says "guns are bad"...or more to the point "those who support gun rights are our enemy" so they support gun control and vote for anti gun candidates. These people are pretty much unreachable unless Republicans became pro gun control. Most could care less one way or the other whether guns are legal, illegal, restricted, or whatever (although most are partially duped and I'm sure there are plenty Hoplolphobes among them too).
The Hopolophobes: just simply people with an irrational fear of guns ... they are unreachable. Therapy for their phobia is required. (this is a somewhat small group ... smaller than 1 and 2).
The Power Seekers: These are the Schumers and Feinsteins ... these are the leaders of the movement who know guns aren't bad but know they can't implement their other diabolical plans against us as long as we're armed (this is actually a very small group ... even most anti-gun politicians are just Partisans, Dupes and/or Hopolophobes, only a very select few are trying to enslave us).


"Neo-liberals" tend to be among The Partisans.

Great post.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

As I've said before, I think Zundfolge mostly nails it with that analysis. I'd guess that groups 1 & 2 make up 99% of the "antis". I'm not sure I agree with the motivations listed for the last group, but their reasons don't really matter in the end. They are entirely unreachable.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is there are a lot of people who aren't necessarily "antigun" but simply have no strong feelings one way or the other and typically know little about guns. It's easy for them to be swayed into the "Duped" category. There are plenty of folks who don't see any real use for guns, particularly "scary" ones, and as such, they don't see downsides to restricting something that might make people safer.

 

[Grassman]

Although misled, there are a certain number of gungrabbers who honestly feel that guns cause crime, and that people are not responsible for their own actions.....and in the same argument they feel that YOU need government to take care of YOU because YOU can't possibly take care of yourself.

 

[TimRB]

I also think that Zundfolge has got the issue covered, except that I would expand "the Duped" to include people who don't really think about guns or gun control at all, but when asked, vaguely remember reading that gun control makes us all safer. Something a little less, perhaps, than having fully bought into the gun control lies...

Edit: By this definition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_groups - the Brady Bunch seems to qualify as a hate group. By the same token, though, so does the NRA. Go figure.

Tim

 

[rainbowbob]

Zundfolge nails it, and I agree that "The Duped" are by far the largest group and, ultimately, the easiest to change.

There is one other group for whom I'm afraid there is no hope short of experiencing a life-changing moment of the gravest extreme. I'm referring to those persons who deny the very basics of human nature: that we are potentially violent omnivores. You know...those who self-righteously proclaim "Violence is never the answer."

That makes me wonder...Are there any vegan gun-owners?

 

[HGUNHNTR]

I consider myself a Neo-Liberal (?) but am fully in support of the 2nd.

 

[benEzra]

I don't really understand how a liberal, hell-bent on freedom of speech, media, expression, religion, sexual orientation, etc. could possibly ever want to be disarmed by their own government.

I'd point out that the primary drivers of gun control in the party aren't the liberals so much as the DLC/"Third Way" communitarians in the mold of Amitai Etzioni, who oppose liberalism's historical emphasis on individual rights. The communitarians explicitly state that responsibilities are more important than rights, and hence support some restrictions on speech, press, religion, and other human freedoms if they perceive those restrictions to be for the "common good."

The DLC'ers pushed the gun issue onto the party in the late 1980's/early 1990's as a way to make the party appear "tough on crime" to authoritarian law-and-order types. They just underestimated the backlash (they had sold it as a win-win).

 

[CoRoMo]

I think many of us continue to wrap our heads around that one.
You got me, but I'd guess that they simply are not well informed.

I recall hearing someone on talk radio interview an NRA board member who said something along the lines of...

Every single prominent gun control advocate that has done real research into the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates has come out of that research pro 2nd Amendment.

I wish I could pinpoint more specifics of that statement.

 

[Nanook]

The old saying, "Gun control is not about guns, it's about control" comes to mind.

It seems to be a power grab by some politicians. They prefer unarmed resistance to armed resistance.

Just one opinion.

 

[okespe04]

Those of us who spent our teens and went to school during the Clinton era had a lot to overcome. Many of us did not make it out without loosing our dignity and our respect for the constitution.

 

[Pilot]

Its socially uplifting for Progressive Liberals to dislike guns as they view themselves as above such Neanderthal implements of violence.

 

[hso]

I don't think that "liberals hate guns" is a useful idea. I know plenty of folks that would be considered to be "conservative" in political, fiscal and social terms, but who believe that only the government should have guns. I also know plenty of folks that would be considered "liberal" by many here who come and shoot with me.

Much like Zundfolge I think what we have is people who don't fit any clear simple classification like "liberal" or "conservative" or "republican" or "Democrat". A lot of these examples will be paired as those who rule and those who want to be ruled.

Some believe that no one should have guns because the means to harm others just shouldn't be around.

Others believe that only the government should have guns because only that level of authority needs them to keep everyone in line (very different from the first group).

Then there are the folks that have been sold the bill of goods that the antis put out. I suspect that most of the "antis" fall into that group.

Coupled with the ones that want the government to keep everyone in line is the Oligarchy that wants to run things and therefore doesn't want the public to have the means of opposing them.

Finally is probably the smallest group, those in power that think that they're actually keeping people safe from harm by trying to remove guns from society.

You'll find "liberals/conservatives" or "republicans/Democrats" in any of these groups.

If you want to categorize people I think it's best to class them in a spectrum from authoritarians to anti-authoritarians. Usually folks on the authoritarian end want the government to have all the guns to maintain order while the folks on the other end aren't interested in telling people what they should do and therefore don't care if the "public" has guns.

 

[Prion]

For me it was being raised in a liberal household and being taught from day one that guns were bad. Just as some of you were raised with guns I was raised anti-gun. Then I very reluctantly shot an AR and found I really liked it and wanted one. It took me years to convince myself that it would be ok. The day I went to buy it I was sick to my stomach and shaky as the part of me conditioned to hate and fear guns rebelled at the thought. When I finally did I was literally nauseous. This was part of the reason I finally did it although I was as close as you can get to backing out. I wanted to get over that ingrained fear and so I faced it head on an made the leap. Let me tell you how empowering it was, I felt a whole weight of fear and mystery lift off my shoulders. But it wasn't easy, I felt like part of me was going to the dark-side and the first few weeks it didn't feel right having a gun in my house. I felt dirty and bad. The first time I pulled the trigger I was reformed. I went through it again when I bought my first handgun because I was taught they are evilest of all. It also went against what my parents had taught me was right which is not easy to do. The fear and conviction that guns are bad is very deep-rooted in some people. Now four firearms and thousands of rounds later I am at peace. This experience was a real eye-opener, it changed my view of the world because it brought everything I thought I knew into question. Never underestimate the impossible task of convincing some people that guns are not the great evil of the world. I know, I used to be one of them.

 

[nutter]

Hi KB,

As a liberal I was ready to be after I saw the thread title, but after reading your post I was more . I think you have a good point.

I don't know how, but gun control got "mixed in" with a Democrat and progressive platform. Probably somewhere back around Carter/Reagan I'd guess. As you so deftly point out, it doesn't really fit, does it?

I find many liberals cling to "gun control" because they have been taught its "the right thing to do" (indoctrination), and because they have little or no experience with firearms (ignorance). In fact, the most successful arguments I have used with antis are along this line.

I don't really understand how a liberal, hell-bent on freedom of speech, media, expression, religion, sexual orientation, etc. could possibly ever want to be disarmed by their own government.

* If you don't believe abortion, don't get an abortion. People should be free to make their own choice.

* If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay. People should be free to make their own choice.

* If you don't believe in drug use, don't use drugs. People should be free to make their own choice.

And right when they are nodding along with you, hit them with:

* If you don't believe in gun ownership, don't buy a gun. People should be free to make their own choice.


I hope the inclusion of incendiary topics doesn't send this thread off track. (Please.) I included them to show that, yes, even most liberals believe in freedom, you just have to show them the error of their ways concerning RKBA.

Again, having talked to many antis about gun control, I don't believe that it comes from a desire to control, but rather its simply indoctrination and ignorance. Take the high road and educate them!

 

[Zundfolge]

If you look at my 4 classifications, the only one that really applies to the OP's question is "The Partisans". There are 3 other classifications so there's plenty of room for anti gun Republicans and conservatives there.

There is a broader issue of why people choose the anti gun position, but in the context of the original post, the main reason that people we would generally consider "liberals", "neo-liberals" or "progressives" choose the anti gun position is mostly out of a sense of partisanship. The more strident they are in their anti gun stance, the more likely they are also duped and/or hopolophobic (unless they're in a position of power which means they could also be in the dreaded "group 4").

I don't know how, but gun control got "mixed in" with a Democrat and progressive platform. Probably somewhere back around Carter/Reagan I'd guess.

Actually I believe gun control became a "Democrat" issue in the late 60s. Part of the anti-war movement (how can you be anti-war and keep the tools of war in your closet?) and part of the Nuclear Disarmament movement* (if we're going to disarm governments we should also disarm people).





*interesting side note, the peace symbol which has come to represent much of the "progressive" movement is actually the logo of a British Nuclear Disarmament organization. The symbol is actually two semaphores stacked on top of each other, one for N one for D.

 

[Zundfolge]

And right when they are nodding along with you, hit them with:

* If you don't believe in gun ownership, don't buy a gun. People should be free to make their own choice.

I've tried that tactic before ... it usually blows up in my face with a response of "Yeah, but someone else being gay, getting an abortion or getting high isn't going to get me or other innocent people killed!"

 

[nutter]

That makes me wonder...Are there any vegan gun-owners?

Howdy!

 

[nutter]

I've tried that tactic before ... it usually blows up in my face with a response of "Yeah, but someone else being gay, getting an abortion or getting high isn't going to get me or other innocent people killed!"

Maintain a cool head.

Explain that shooting someone is a crime, and if someone does that, they should be arrested and rot in jail.

It can be a long and tough discussion. There certainly were many people I could never reach. There are plenty more that have abandoned gun control, even if they still "don't like" guns.

I've been doing this for years with some really rabid liberals. Now that I'm a gun owner myself, I'm about to start phase 2: get away from simple rhetoric and get them to the range.

 

[Leanwolf]

NUTTER - " don't know how, but gun control got "mixed in" with a Democrat and progressive platform. Probably somewhere back around Carter/Reagan I'd guess."

Not really. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrat, was pushing "gun control" after he was elected. Then another "great" Democrat President , Lyndon Baines Johnson, was a firm advocate of gun control. Remember the Gun Control Act of 1968, enacted by liberal Democrats, firmly endorsed and signed by L.B.J.??

Gun control has a long history in this country. Most of it can be laid firmly at the feet of "modern" or "neo" liberals, and a few RINOs.

Classic liberalism has been long dead in this country, with the stake through its heart driven by Pres. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat "neo-liberal."

L.W.

 

[Macmac]

Into which group does one fall, after they have been beaten, robbed at weapon point, and or rapped, where the victim still refuses to be armed?

 

[nutter]

Remember the Gun Control Act of 1968, enacted by liberal Democrats, firmly endorsed and signed by L.B.J.??

To be honest, no. Before my time, and I'm not really studied up.

 

[Old Fuff]

In this country the issue is also defined in a context of rural v. urban. The left wing’s political strength is largely located in or around large cities, or at least in areas with dense populations. Residents therein seldom have any positive experience with firearms, nor are firearms a part of their family culture. They tend to be more dependent on government and amenable to sacrificing rights in exchange for perceived security. Apparently political corruption bothers many of them not at all, as long as their needs are taken care of.

In rural areas people tend to be more self-sufficient because government isn’t just minutes away if there is an emergency. Firearms often do play an important part in their daily life and family culture. Positive experience (and knowledge) is more often found then the opposite. Socialist values that are more approved in urban areas finds less support among people that prize their independence.

And of course there are exceptions to every rule.