Why do neo-liberals hate guns?

[Owen Sparks]

I posted this a while back. Liberals tend to think emotionaly and fear is a very powerfull emotion.
___________________________________________________________

Why do some people fear guns? NOISE!

I read an interesting theory the other day that has real political implications. We all are aware that some people have knee jerk emotional reactions that can be used like handles to manipulate them. How many times have you heard "for the children" used by an unscrupulous politician? This reason this form of manipulation works is because it totally bypasses critical thinking and goes straight for the emotions.

How else can people be manipulated? By FEAR.
People are born with a natural fear of only two things, falling and loud noises. All else is learned behavior. If there were a sudden loud BANG behind you right now, you would jump. No matter how many years you have been shooting, if you did not know it was coming you would revert to natures reaction to loud noise with fear. In fact, as shooters we constantly have to suppress this natural urge to flinch even when we know it is going to happen. Gunfire is loud. It is scary on a subconscious level even to a seasoned shooter. How much more so is it to a person who is unfamiliar with firearms? Guns can have a very negative connotation to people who don't understand them, as they associate guns with loud frightening noises.

Interestingly enough, the type of person who is scared of guns and would not allow one in their home would probably be totally comfortable around archery equipment. Even though being run through with a broad head can be just about as deadly as being shot, it does not make that loud scary noise therefore it does not elicit that strong primordial urge to avoid it.

With the new Congress and President taking power it is critical that we, as gun owners promote shooting in a positive way as we are dealing with peoples deep seeded subconscious fears and the only way to conquer that fear is with knowledge.

Just an observation, OS

 

[jackdanson]

Why do some people fear guns? NOISE!

I read an interesting theory the other day that has real political implications. We all are aware that some people have knee jerk emotional reactions that can be used like handles to manipulate them. How many times have you heard "for the children" used by an unscrupulous politician? This reason this form of manipulation works is because it totally bypasses critical thinking and goes straight for the emotions.

How else can people be manipulated? By FEAR.
People are born with a natural fear of only two things, falling and loud noises. All else is learned behavior. If there were a sudden loud BANG behind you right now, you would jump. No matter how many years you have been shooting, if you did not know it was coming you would revert to natures reaction to loud noise with fear. In fact, as shooters we constantly have to suppress this natural urge to flinch even when we know it is going to happen. Gunfire is loud. It is scary on a subconscious level even to a seasoned shooter. How much more so is it to a person who is unfamiliar with firearms? Guns can have a very negative connotation to people who don't understand them, as they associate guns with loud frightening noises.

Interestingly enough, the type of person who is scared of guns and would not allow one in their home would probably be totally comfortable around archery equipment. Even though being run through with a broad head can be just about as deadly as being shot, it does not make that loud scary noise therefore it does not elicit that strong primordial urge to avoid it.

With the new Congress and President taking power it is critical that we, as gun owners promote shooting in a positive way as we are dealing with peoples deep seeded subconscious fears and the only way to conquer that fear is with knowledge.

Just an observation, OS

Good point, that is why we all need supresssors!!

 

[John828]

Rights and Responsibilities

Not sure if anyone has brought this up, but IMO most neo-liberals are for rights that reduce personal responsibilities. Back in the day of our Founding Fathers, men and women enjoyed their freedoms but were bound (for the most part) also by self-government--they governed themselves in such a way that a 1,000 page criminal code would have been inconceivable.

Over time, we have become (for the most part) a society that includes an increasing number of citizens with no self-control or self-government. I wish I could find the old quote that basically states that a democracy can only survive while its citizens govern themselves.

Until we re-introduce "responsibility," we are fighting a losing battle in gun control. (Sorry for my pessimism) The nanny state is convinced that we do not know how to act; therefore, they must fashion a society that has no consequences or at least one that seriously mitigates them. One day we will all be wrapped in bubble wrap and be wearing helmets. It's for the children.

 

[hso]

This whole "liberals" and gun control idea is misleading. I'll use JImbothefiveth unattributed numbers to try to illustrate the point why it's so idiotic.

In 2007, 68% of Democrats wanted stricter gun laws, while 30% didn't. Only 42 and 43% of republicans and independants, respectively, wanted stricter gun laws, while 57% of republicans didn't and 54% of independants didn't.

Let's turn the coin on those numbers.

In 2007, 32% of Democrats did not want stricter gun laws. 37% of republicans wanted stricter gun laws while 37% of independents wanted stricter gun laws.

Let's look at that for a moment.

More than a third of the very people that so many of us identify with thought that we were wrong and that there weren't enough gun laws restricting RKBA. At the same time a little over a third of the folks that so many of us revile and demean were just like us on this issue. Folks that didn't see any reason for stricter gun laws.

Remember this is after AWB sunsetted without having accomplished anything the gun prohibitionists expected to and without blood running in the gutters after it was gone like some of them said it would.

A third of "those people" don't think there is any need for more gun restrictions while a third of "my people" think there is a need for more gun restrictions. Yet we demonize a whole group and idolize another when we should be working together as gunowners.

:banghead:

It seems like madness to form up into troops and toss monkey poo at the people who agree with us on this issue.

 

[John828]

And that's why I stayed out of the argument for so long, and, when I did post, I tried to stick with generalities.

But, hso, aren't most of the vocal anti's truly on the left side of the political spectrum? And aren't most pro-RKBA individuals either libertarians or to the right of the political spectrum?

Thank you for allowing this thread to survive and thanks to the posters who, for the most part, did not take anything too personal, and, by doing so, kept this thread alive.

(Did I just use too many commas?)

 

[hso]

The people that can truly hurt us are the ones that vote.

That should be our greatest concern instead of prejudice and convenient labels.

Remember, a third of the people we don't bash are against us and a third of the people we do bash might be with us if we just quit insulting them. If we quit the bashing and name-calling we'd have a lot better defense of our rights.

 

[John828]

So basically we should just stick with the positive actions and quit the negative ones. I agree although a thread or two like this can sharpen someone's thought processes.

 

[hairless_ape]

I was rasied by one of these people, so I think I have a good perspective. The short and simple answer is cowardess. The are scared of and detest all things they deem violent and/or dangerous. These people won't defend themselves angainst any threat and think others shouldn't either, because hurting people is bad.

My mother was so extreme that even if someone were to walk up and sucker punch my brother or myself as a child we would get grounded for defending ourselves, because we should have run away. Other scary things like football and hockey were also off limits until I went to live with my father. Yeah not completely related, but it's part of the big picture of "hurting people is bad, run away!"

Just my take on the subject, for what ever it's worth.

 

[barnetmill]

Ever since the LBJ presidency the antigun movement has had the support of federal government and mass media. Since the assassinations of the two kennedys a campaign againist private firearms especially for selfdefense or military rifle practice has been going strong. Since this time the democractic party has adopted this as part of their platform. The democractic party (I am registered as Democrat, but vote independant) has also pushed for the government to provide you with everything you might desire. You are not empowered as a citizen. You are not to take responsibility for yourself. Crime is ugly, do not think of confronting it: it is only for the police to do. Why do you need a gun they say? The criminal will only take it away from you and your child will get shot with it.

People, espcially liberals, just do not want to believe that the world is inherently unstable and that the government can not protect you at all times, and in some cases the government is the worst enemy that an unarmed population faces.

 

[tpaw]

One way or another we'll have automatic (or most likely burst fire) weapons if needed, either buying them legally or taking them by force

One must be very careful how we phrase things. Stick to the "High Road", big brother is reading this as well.......

 

[KBintheSLC]

We may disagree on the particulars, but I think we're all damn proud to live in this country, and work together as best we can to make it better.

I'll second that. x 1000

I know we may all have our differences, but the fact that we have discussed these differences in a civil manner through 5 pages of this "touchy" thread makes me proud to be an American.

FYI... I would gladly fight and die at the side of any one of you people... even the neo-libs.

 

[rondog]

My own worthless opinion is that the majority of Americans are turning into


and they want the government to provide for them, protect them, and give them everything. Ours is becoming a blissninny society.

Of course, the folks like us that hang out and discuss on forums like this are typically NOT in the above flock, but I'm afraid we're rapidly becoming the minority.

 

[Seattleimport]

Add me as another person who could be described as "liberal", and yet who is pro-gun ownership. Honestly, I think it's more useful to describe anti-gun people as "antis".

Me, I'm not comfortable with people telling me (or others) what to do. I want as little government interference as possible. Uncle Sam shouldn't determine who I marry, who I hire, what I worship, what I smoke, or whether or not I can own a gun. It should defend our borders, repair the roads, protect our freedoms, project our power, and invest in infrastructure and research--and that's it. Meddling with personal choices is not why I pay taxes.

Anyway... seems like there's a rising need in this country for a third option to the tired old "liberal" / "conservative" dichotomy. Both carry way too much baggage, baggage that's not necessarily wanted by the majority of those who self-identify as being in one of those two groups.

 

[OcelotZ3]

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.

The only people I personally know who are for a new AWB and further restraints on firearms ownership are fundamentalist Repubs. None of the people who I know are liberals are for any new laws.

Now, perhaps that is not the norm, however I am involved in many clubs (cars, sports, etc.) and volunteer activities for the city so my pool is pretty large.

 

[RPCVYemen]

We may disagree on the particulars, but I think we're all damn proud to live in this country, and work together as best we can to make it better.

I couldn't agree more. The time I spent overseas taught me a lot.

I served my country as Peace Corps Volunteer in North Yemen, and working for USIS in Mogadishu, Somalia in the late 80s. Both of the experiences gave me a deep respect for the US Constitution - and extremely protective of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

Incidentally, for those who believe we need only the 2nd Amendment, Yemen had the most highly armed population I have ever been around, and no freedom of speech, religion, assembly, due process, etc. Most adult males carried handguns in the areas under government control (Sana', Taiz, and Hodeida), and AK-47s outside the cities. Yet it was an oppressive dictatorship at that time. The tribal areas had more weapons, and more freedom from the national government than folks in the cities, but not much more political freedom. As long as the national government did not piss of any two of the tribes at the same time, they could do pretty much what they want.

In fact the freedoms we value in the US arise from all of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

As is true with a lot of Peace Corps Volunteers, I came back with a greater respect for our freedoms and form of government - flawed as it is - than I left with.

I remember the moment in Mogadishu when I realized that for all the wackiness of the method by which we select the President, we have an ideal method for de-selecting a President. When it was clear that Siad Barre was going to need to go, it was also clear the there was going to be blood in the streets in the process. That's just one example, but my respect for the political process in this country is not based on sitting on my butt safe behind the borders listening to 4th of July speeches, but in the dusty hills of Yemen, and the coast of Somalia.

So I am behind you 100%, though rather than "proud", I would say "lucky", because I feel very lucky to live in this country than proud - the pride belongs to my great grandparents who gambled by coming here. Be that as it may, it is my responsibility to see that all these rights, and this "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." I don't care wether those who want strip those rights are waving Kalishnakovs and quoting from the Koran, or waving crosses and quoting from the Bible, I will not let them prevail. A Muslim theocracy and a Christian theocracy both betray our rights.

That's why I belong to the NRA and the ACLU - and I why have no time for Christian theocrats who support only the 2nd Amendment.

Mike

 

[JImbothefiveth]

The people that can truly hurt us are the ones that vote.

I have no time for Christian theocrats who support only the 2nd Amendment.

The other parties are not "Christian theocrats who support only the second ammendment." You say it's bad to "bash liberals", but that's the most blatant example of bashing I've ever seen. BTW, which party wants to take away not only our second amendment(gun control) but also our first(fairness doctrine)? They don't care about the 4th, either. (Guess which president voted how on the FISA bill?)

The people that can truly hurt us are the ones that vote

It doesn't matter if they are pro or anti-gun, if they vote anti-gun, they still hurt us.

 

[Paladin7]

This is an interesting question, and I like the "neo-Liberal" moniker. For me it gets back to what I've observed happening in American Politics over my life time...

The Democratic Party in the US has been co-opted by the far-Left. They are ideologues who adhere to a Marxist political philosophy. For them, gun control is about CONTROL - facts and the lessons of history don't matter to them. These folks detest the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amercian Culture and Values and the Middle Class.

There are many Democrats who would not fall into this category. Many are the "Reagan Democrats," folks who joined the party because it was for the workingman back in the day, or was not as radical in their particular state. Many of these folks support the 2A or would if they were better educated about it.

The Republican Party in the US has been co-opted by Socialists and "centrist" Party hacks, although there is still a core of Conservatives and Libertarians who believe in the values of the Party.

Conservatives and Libertarians support the 2A because they support the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Individual Freedom and Private Property rights.

The Socialists in the Republican party are no different than the far Left Democrats.

The "centrist" Party hacks will say and do anything to get elected, so they cannot be trusted to support the 2A.

In between and within each of these parties are the drones. Mindless idiots who let their televisions do their thinking for them. I'm seeing a lot more drones these days, no doubt the product of our fine Government Schools...

For me the categories are good rules of thumb, but maybe its best to not lump people into a category until we've observed closely what they say and do...

 

[conw]

politicalcompass.org provides a pretty cool, reasonably well-thought-out method of plotting your own views, based on various questions, in the large scheme of things.

MOST of the guys saying they are liberals, like Seattleimport, are more Libertarians. "Classical liberalism" is not necessarily the same as libertarianism, although someone implied it is earlier.

This, as expected, has basically degenerated into an argument where everyone is arguing without defining their points of contention. Which works in favor of Big Government every time. We (people who want personal freedoms, gun rights, and to uphold whatever we think the United States stand for) can't achieve a whole lot by arguing and pointing fingers, although there is a time and place for civil debate and pointing out fallacies.

 

[Seattleimport]

MOST of the guys saying they are liberals, like Seattleimport, are more Libertarians.

I'd say that's correct, and something I've noticed as I've gotten older. I originally self-identified as "liberal" because it was the opposite of "conservative", with all that baggage (abortion, religion, etc.). But as I became more self-aware, I've realized I'm actually more a Libertarian.

Alas, though, because U.S. government is very firmly a two-party system.

I disagree with the notion that more people are sheep, though. I'd argue the opposite it happening, thanks to the Internet. More information + more communication = more free thought. That's why China is so restrictive of Internet access.

 

[RPCVYemen]

politicalcompass.org provides a pretty cool, reasonably well-thought-out method of plotting your own views, based on various questions, in the large scheme of things.

I took the test today - I took it about a year ago, and forget the name of the site.

Interestingly enough, I did not recall the questions, or the way that I answered them, but my score this time was about exactly where it was the last time I took it - about exactly in the middle on the economic Left/Right scale, but pretty far down (towards the libertarian end) of the Libertarian/Authoritarian scale.

That puts me about as authoritarian as the Dalai Lama, whatever the heck that means.

It interests me that taking the test year or two apart produced vary much the same score - that suggests some level of reliability.

Maybe a better question for the OP would be, "How many people who call themselves civil libertarians do not support the RKBA, and why?"

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

The other parties are not "Christian theocrats who support only the second ammendment." You say it's bad to "bash liberals", but that's the most blatant example of bashing I've ever seen.

You seem to be confused. You see to think that I said that some party was Christian theocrats. I did not, and do not think so. However, one party is more friendly to Christian theocrats than the other.

I would define a Christian theocrat as one who wishes to use the power of government to force my daughter to read their Scripture in biology class.

I would define a Christian theocrat as one who wishes to force to use the power of government to force my wife or daughter to accept their Scriptural basis for life begins - in a very clear violation of my Scripture.

I would define a Christian theocrat as one who wishes to use the power of government to force my daughter to listen to their prayers in public school.

I would define a Christian theocrat as one who wishes to use the power of government to deny adults the right to civil marriage if it violates their Scripture - in clear violation of my religious beliefs and my Scripture.

What part of "no law respecting" don't the Christian theocrats understand?

As long as the RKBA is associated politically very strongly with folks who casually dismiss the rest of the BofR, the claims about the correlation of the other rights with the 2nd look pretty hollow.

Prove me wrong. In 2000, a Mormon and a Catholic family sued the Santa Fe school district to prevent their children from a school policy that was

coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship.

Prove me wrong. Give me a list of RKBA supporters who spoke up to help protect the 1st Amendment rights of those Mormon and Catholic families.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer.01/index.html

Mike

 

[BillyBothHands]

Old Fuff I agree totally after having grown up in the sticks and now living/working in the city for several years its just amazing. I've done a lot of thinking and boiled it down to a short statement. People claim they want freedom when what they actually want is just one freedom... the freedom to be comfortable. With all the ordinances/regulations what not in the cities it seems that the gag reflex to losing a freedom has been beatin out of the average urban dweller. As long as some insane new violation of rights and restriction of freedom promises to raise the value of the house they bought that they can't afford then they are on board with whatever you want to do to them... just my observation with a dash of opinion

 

[flat1ine]

I know we may all have our differences, but the fact that we have discussed these differences in a civil manner through 5 pages of this "touchy" thread makes me proud to be an American.

FYI... I would gladly fight and die at the side of any one of you people... even the neo-libs.

You and me both, KBintheSLC, you and me both - although let's hope it doesn't come down to that.

IMO, the only way we're going to get anywhere as a country is to try think about things from the other side - THR has changed my preconceptions of guns and their owners time and time again.

I came here with an interest in firearms and gun culture not really knowing what to expect - and I'm happy that nearly every single stereotype I thought I might encounter doesn't exist.

I'm glad I came here, I'm glad that I'm better educating myself, and I'm glad y'all have changed my mind.

Thanks.

- Erik

 

[JImbothefiveth]

As long as the RKBA is associated politically very strongly with folks who casually dismiss the rest of the BofR,

The alternative is folks who dismiss the rest of the BoR, and the second. According to your definition, the president and president-elect are Christian theocrats. Neither respect the 4th amendment, and according to your definition neither respect the first(though I disagree). At least one of them respects the second. Not sure what one of them thinks about the "fairness doctrine".

would define a Christian theocrat as one who wishes to force to use the power of government to force my wife or daughter to accept their Scriptural basis for life begins - in a very clear violation of my Scripture.

Maybe we should use science to settle the issue. Open a biology book, and get the definition of life. It generally includes attributes like "growth" and "made of cells". Human life is therefore: something living, something that is human, and something that is not another person's cell, as in it has it's own DNA. Therefore, life begins at the moment when 2 human cells fuse, producing a human with it's own DNA, such as, for isntance, at conception.

I would define a Christian theocrat as one who wishes to use the power of government to force my daughter to listen to their prayers in public school.

Are you saying we should infringe on their first amendment rights to pray in school?

 

[conw]

"How many people who call themselves civil libertarians do not support the RKBA, and why?"

Well I think the OP WAS referring to mainstream "liberals," but that many of the people who later self-identified as liberals were not the same breed of liberal, if they were at all.

Again, this confusion really fuels big government. Hard to band together with people who have something in common with you when you're encouraged to identify with one of two tribes.