Why do neo-liberals hate guns?

[AllAmerican]

I wish folks in threads wouldnt say stuff like "its a crime to use a gun to kill people"

Its only a crime if the intent was criminal. When you shoot to stop the threat in a defensive scenario, sometimes criminals die. That is not a crime.

Poorly choosen words IMO.

Just clarifying.

 

[SuperNaut]

I'm more accustomed to talking with liberals than about them. Care to educate me on the terminology?

Sure; Classical Liberals are believers in the free market, individualism, small government, inherent rights, maximum personal liberty, non-interventionism, and so on. They are often called Libertarians today.

Neo-Liberals or Social Liberals are none of the above. They believe in strong government, interventionism, market protectionism, and gov't granted rights. In fact the only connection between Neo-Liberalism and Classic Liberalism is the word "liberal" because there is certainly no philosophic connection.

 

[nutter]

the Second amendment was written almost 222 years ago

Indeed it is!

It is my understanding that at the time it was written the definition of "militia" was (forgive my paraphrase) any able-bodied man under the age of 40 who was willing to fight to defend freedom.

Of course in a modern society we realize that more than just males under 40 are able to fight to defend freedom. And so we allow firearms for women or people over 40.

Sensible. Follows the spirit of what was intended.

In modern society the term "militia" has also morphed to mean "military". Does that mean we should restrict firearms from non-military citizens? Or would it be more sensible to follow the intent, and allow firearms for anyone willing to defend freedom?

 

[nutter]

I wish folks in threads wouldnt say stuff like "its a crime to use a gun to kill people"

Its only a crime if the intent was criminal. When you shoot to stop the threat in a defensive scenario, sometimes criminals die. That is not a crime.

Poorly choosen words IMO.

Just clarifying.

Hey AA,

I am aware of the deficiency of the simple statement. I appreciate you pointing it out.

When arguing 2A I find it easier to simplify so as not to be distracted by the intricacies of nuance.

Yes, it is a poor choice of words in that it is not accurate. But it keeps the argument away from "who has the right to shoot someone" and on "who has the right to own a gun" where I want it.

$0.02

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I also believe (and I'll wager most liberals would agree) that fully automatic weapons have absolutely no place in civilian hands.

Why not?

If the government comports itself so the people love it, government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry.

Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

-- Tench Coxe

 

[SsevenN]

A full auto is no different than a semi in terms of complexity to use.

With a small amount of experience, one can be just as proficient with either.

So once again I see no difference as they both are essentially the same kind of tool. (in the sense that a standard and automatic are still both a car.)

It could (and is, irrationally) be argued that no one but cops and soldiers should have any guns, because they require professional training to use.

Maybe there is a difference in the skill involved. But every full auto I've shot required attention payed to the exact same four rules, and the exact same mentality and the exact same sight picture as shooting a semi-auto.

But maybe I'm missing something, what is it that makes them only suitable for the hands of payed professionals?

Or is it that you just don't trust the average Joe with such an effective tool?

I do understand that a full auto can physically throw more lead in the air, resulting in more collateral damage. But I still can't see any justification as to why people in position of power require these devices, and we don't.


BUT

You can't put Roland and Cort on the same level at Jake's father or Aaron Deepneau, can you?

No matter how much I disagree with you, that line is made of pure, unrefined awesome.

 

[HoosierQ]

Judging from my experiences with people here at work (mostly "city people") I think the proportion of Hoplophobes is higher that suggested above. There are a lot of people who have never experienced guns other than seeing the chalk outlines on the evening news. Some of these people know only that guns are made to kill things (racoons, deer, rats, or the enemy) and anything that is meant to kill is going to be "too dangerous". Education is needed here.

I'd add another category "The Well-Intentioned Ignorant". Let's take my mother for example. She grew up on a farm, shot all her life (brags about being able to roll a tin can along the ground with a .22 revolver), spent nearly as much time teaching me to shoot as my dad, etc. However, she thinks "gun control" is going to be the kind of thing that really reduces violence. She doesn't really get why gun registration is a bad idea (you register a car right?). She has no passion around these opinions whatsoever but...but...if she saw a referendum on a ballot that said "all persons owning a gun must register that gun with the police Y/N" she might well vote Yes because she just doesn't understand the slippery slope that represents. The Well-Intentioned Ignorant is probably related to "the Duped" but in my thinking, the "the Duped" has been duped to believe something...an active anti stance...where the Ignorant, as the name implies, just doesn't understand the full range of RKBA issues well enough...a passive stance that is only anti in its result. Education is needed here.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Judging from my experiences with people here at work (mostly "city people") I think the proportion of Hoplophobes is higher that suggested above.

Fear and ignorance go hand-in-hand.

 

[AllAmerican]

Hey AA,

I am aware of the deficiency of the simple statement. I appreciate you pointing it out.

When arguing 2A I find it easier to simplify so as not to be distracted by the intricacies of nuance.

Yes, it is a poor choice of words in that it is not accurate. But it keeps the argument away from "who has the right to shoot someone" and on "who has the right to own a gun" where I want it.

$0.02

No problem nutter. I understood. I just wanted to clarify. I was just trying to make sure were all on the same page.

 

[flat1ine]

SsevenN - So we disagree - I'm ok with that. It's a bit of a grey area for me, so I'm not gonna push it.

Regardless, you've got damn fine taste in books.

Long days and pleasant nights, sai SsevenN.

 

[KBintheSLC]

so were all the others - if the 2nd is outdated, then the others are as well.

I agree, if were going to say the 2A is outdated, then so is "freedom of the press"... the internet is not a "press" in any form... they were referring to printing presses.

 

[KBintheSLC]

self-deleted

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Would it be out of line to point out that the Founders included a mechanism for amending the Constitution?

And that mechanism is not to simply say, "Well, that part is outdated" or "Meanings change over time."

To those who think we should not have "all the terrible implements of the soldier" I say, "Feel free to start the amendment process."

 

[nutter]

To those who think we should not have "all the terrible implements of the soldier" I say, "Feel free to start the amendment process."

Ya, but of course the response is that the 2A says the military should have guns, not the populace,. So feel free to start the amendment process if YOU want "all the terrible implements of the soldier".

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Ya, but of course the response is that the 2A says the military should have guns, not the populace,. So feel free to start the amendment process if YOU want "all the terrible implements of the soldier".

If that's what it meant, it would say, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the military to bear arms shall not be infringed."

But instead of "military," it says "people." And the Founding Fathers meant everyone had a right to keep and bear arms -- and spoke very eloquently on that point.

 

[nutter]

I agree, of course.

By the way, did I mention that this thread is awesome!

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Old Fuff hits the nail on the head and I also agree with Zundfolges 4 categories. Growing up in a big city like LA, Chicago, New York City, etc. most people probably see crime committed with firearms as a major problem. The local media carries on the drumbeat of how guns cause crime and it's no wonder big city folks tend to be anti gun or at least susceptible to being duped into gun control.

What kills me is that gun control really started as a way to disarm blacks in the post civil war south, yet since so many blacks live in the inner cities where gangs and crime are running wild, they hate guns and want the government to ban them. Jesse Jackson is a bigtime gun hater for example. So is Al Sharpton. I'm sure others can name more of them. They typically fall on the left side of the political spectrum as well. As others have noted, there are exceptions. Walter Williams and Micheal Steele come to mind.

Most of it is probably determined by how one was raised and what messages were hammered into them by parents, family members, and school teachers. They eventually end up in one of the 4 categories.

 

[TimRB]

"Ya, but of course the response is that the 2A says the military should have guns, not the populace"

No, as the Supreme Court has confirmed recently, the 2A says the populace has a right to keep and bear arms. The bogus "militia/military only" argument has finally gone out the window. Let's hope it stays there.

Tim

 

[RPCVYemen]

Why do neo-liberals hate guns?

Uh, because you defined the term "neo liberal" to include "anti gun"?

What is it that neo-libs don't understand about the correlation between all of their civil liberties, and the 2nd amendment?

I suspect that many liberals are unswayed by arguments from people who support the RKBA because so may people who support the RKBA defend no other right.

People who will go apoplectic at the mention of any kind of gun control don't bat an eyelid when American citizens and others are denied due process and/or tortured as part of the war on terrorism.

Gun control groups can't shovel money fast enough at politicians who give lip service to the RKBA, and then use warrant-less wiretaps on phones and using "Letters of National Security" to snoop.

Many RKBA proponents seem to be happy to side with men hell bent on tearing down the wall between church and state by employing agents of the state to lead prayers in public schools, and funneling taxpayer money to church owned and operated institutions.

If you were correct about the correlation between the RKBA and the other civil rights, then you would expect supporters of the RKBA to be in the forefront of the vanguard to protect those other rights, but they are not.

Did the NRA even utter one peep when the current administration was dismantling the Bill of Right like a drunk on Sterno? Not one word.

Mike

 

[KBintheSLC]

People who will go apoplectic at the mention of any kind of gun control don't bat an eyelid when American citizens and others are denied due process and/or tortured as part of the war on terrorism.

Really?... I guess you don't know me very well do ya?

Did the NRA even utter one peep when the current administration was dismantling the Bill of Right like a drunk on Sterno? Not one word.

I don't donate to the NRA to protect the entire Bill of Rights... just the 2nd. Frankly, I wish the NRA was not forced to be a litigious bull dog. Unfortunately, we need some kind of protection from the ever increasing infringements.

Anyway, the same can be said about your friends over that the ACLU... they don't hesitate to start fires over racial discrimination, but have they ever stood up for the 2A... even once? No way. They don't consider the 2A to be a valid civil liberty... despite it being one of the first civil liberties in this nation.

Uh, because you defined the term "neo liberal" to include "anti gun"?

I think that most of us here would agree that the assumption is not too far fetched.

 

[nutter]

I don't think he's saying "everyone" KB.

I'm often amazed how tunnel-visioned some people are about 2A rights, keeping themselves blind to other issues concerning rights just as fundamental to America. I appreciate the comment.

 

[alde]

One only has to read the writings of the Founding Fathers to understand what they meant in 2A. When they refer to "the people" they mean everybody. Jefferson was a liberal by todays standards and he felt very strongly about the right to arms for self defence.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Really?... I guess you don't know me very well do ya?

I don't know you specifically. The post should make it clear that I am a supporter of all of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights - as I guess you are.

But all of the major RKBA spokesmen have been silent when other rights are savaged. If there is truly a correlation or some kind of causality between the various rights, shouldn't a spokesman for one right speak up when another is violated?

Since folks who tend to focus on another right never hear an RKBA spokesperson speak up when the right they are interested in is threatened, aren't they justified in thinking that the rights are in fact independent?

Mike

 

[KBintheSLC]

I'm often amazed how tunnel-visioned some people are about 2A rights, keeping themselves blind to other issues concerning rights just as fundamental to America. I appreciate the comment.

Nutter,
I agree with you and Mike that a lot of gun owners tend to let our leaders literally get away with murder as long as they protect our 2A.
However, I also believe that all of our other civil rights rest at the mercy of the 2nd Amendment. Without it, I really believe that freedom is lost.

If there is truly a correlation or some kind of causality between the various rights, shouldn't a spokesman for one right speak up when another is violated?

I think you are absolutely right Mike. Sadly, I feel that our society in America is divided between the 1A and the 2A people... forgetting that they all go hand-in-hand.

 

[Zundfolge]

Judging from my experiences with people here at work (mostly "city people") I think the proportion of Hoplophobes is higher that suggested above

Let me clarify what I mean by Hopolophobe.

Simply being "afraid of guns" isn't enough, it has to be a deep seeded, irrational fear on par with fear of heights, fear of spiders, etc.

Fear of guns that comes from ignorance is only enough to get you tossed into "The Duped" category because their fear will dissipate once their ignorance does.

People who are truly phobic about guns and weapons are somewhat rare.

Did the NRA even utter one peep when the current administration was dismantling the Bill of Right like a drunk on Sterno? Not one word.

If you didn't hear it its because you weren't listening.

The NRA fought McCain/Feignold, it fought parts of the Patriot Act, its gearing up to fight the coming Fairness Doctrine.

That said it is the National RIFLE Association, their PRIMARY reason for existence is to support gun rights. You don't see the NAACP out there fighting for the rights of Pit Bull owners, you don't see the AARP out there fighting for the first amendment rights of highschool students, you don't see the Sierra Club fighting for banking reform. And I don't see you complaining about them.