Why do so many Liberals Love Firearms

[DesmoDucRob]

...doesn't really answer the question, but it is some food for thought: I took a JROTC class as an elective in high school and one of the skill sets that was introduced was rifle marksmanship. .177 caliber air rifles were used to introduce basic marksmanship skills to students whose only experience with firearms had been television. I suspect that many of them liberal or not, view shooting as a sport rather than a threat, because of that high school experience. ...kinda like gossamer said, it adds a tangible aspect to previously foreign idea.

 

[bensdad]

seriously, who really needs full auto high cap anyway?

He had you guys goin' for a while there, didn't he? Some take longer than others... some are smoother than others... but, well you know.

 

[HeavenlySword]

who said that when? i think he edited it out!

 

[Second Amendment Liberal]

I like to look at everything through a scientific perspective. firearms are just tools that uses a chemical reaction to propel a projectile, nothing more. I think alot of people don't like guns because they let irrational feelings get in the way (the loud noise guns make is scary!). it's the same with nuclear power. yes, fission nuclear power produces dangerous radiation, but if we can learn how to harness fusion nuclear power, it would be the most efficient, clean energy source we can use (all it does is release helium instead of radioactive isotopes!).

now, the modern "liberals" you see in washington, like nancy pelosi, hilary clinton, etc. etc. are nothing but soccer moms and dads. a true liberal wouldn't want to ban "violent video games", they would know it's a parent's responsibility to know what their child is up to, not the law. I personally identify with "cold war liberals" that were ready to fight if necessary, e.g. adlai stevenson.

 

[Bud Tugly]

I'm mostly liberal on social issues while conservative on fiscal ones and also a life-long gun owner. IMO it's a huge mistake to think all liberals are anti-gun and all conservatives are pro.

Some of the most anti-gun people I know are staunch conservatives who are terrified of guns and want them banned, while I know lots of pro-gun liberals. IMO it has an awful lot to do with how you were brought up.

I was raised with guns in the house and learned to shoot very early on, but I was also taught to treat guns with great respect. People I've seen who were raised in gun-free households tend to fear guns rather than respect them.

What we need is more programs to introduce kids and even adults into the shooting sports in a way that isn't intimidating or threatening. The average person unfamiliar with guns would probably never dream of dropping in at their local shooting range since those places can seem awful unwelcoming to inexperienced folks.

Maybe gun clubs could sponsor open house days at a range and invite the general public to come in and try their hand at shooting for just a minimal fee. If advertised heavily with an emphasis on fun and safety, it might spark more public interest.

More and more people are raised in cities or suburbs these days instead of out in the country. That means if something isn't done to promote gun sports we're likely to see gun ownership drop drastically over the next generation or two, and that would be a shame.

 

[BHP FAN]

Some of you folks who describe yourselves as 'Liberals' really sound like Libertarians.Do you not know the difference? Good on you for liking guns,either way,anyways.

 

[colemanw]

libertarians are borderline anarchists... do whatever feels good-

 

[BHP FAN]

Wrong.Personally,I'm a Republican with strong Libertarian leanings,but listen to this:
''1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition...''

 

[Prion]

I'm not liberal or conservative. I find that both parties run at the mouth and stick to the party line rather than thinking. Party bosses and the party loudmouths are the ones that set the agenda and everyone else follows. It is easy and makes a person feel good and secure to judge and condemn others. Gun ownership is used as another 'us against them issue'. There is too much feeling and not enough critical thinking surrounding the RKBA. I wish we had a valid third party. I can't stand Libs or Repubs but I am no anarchist either.

 

[ronwill]

The Second Amendment isn't a partisan line, many Republicans are anti. If you look at the following definitions of Liberal and Republican there is no real stance on the 2A.

Liberal - Represented by the Democrat party, or the political Left. A Liberal is one who generally leans towards Democratic Socialism and even some degree of Marxism. They support the welfare state, Social Security and Socialized Healthcare. They believe that by raising taxes, and redistributing wealth, Government can eliminate the social inequalities they abhor. Their champion is probably Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Republican - often called "Conservative" and represented by the Republican party, or political Right. One who generally favors economic liberty, free markets, private property and lower taxes. They encourage personal responsibility, want less, or limited Government and privatization of business. They prefer personal freedoms over equality and they support a strong national defense. Their champion is probably Ronald Reagan.

Source: http://www.ircpolitics.org/glossary.html

 

[Second Amendment Liberal]

I don't consider myself a libertarian because I don't believe in an unregulated economy. plus, libertarianism seems unusually dogmatic for a political philosophy.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

The entire question and thread is sketchy from the get-go, due to the incredibly nebulous definition of "liberal", but the easy answer that works regardless of definition, is "for the same reasons non-liberals love them".

In any event, not activism.

 

[CPerdue]

Why does a common man need a stirrup?

Surely a serf can plow his field without such. And should a free man of means decide to ride for pleasure, again a stirrup is of no necessity. Some may even wish to join in the hunt; Bah I say, let them apply to their Lordship's master of hounds then when need for beaters arises.

The godless Mongol hordes have shown us what evil a stirrup can do as a weapon of war. It allowed that ignoble mob to wreak great carnage on our brethren, the knights of Hungary. Why should we allow this asp at our breast? For our posterity we must keep the stirrup from common hands.

'nuff said? Damn right, full auto rock and roll. Where is my grenade launcher?

 

[gossamer]

This type of crap is exactly why there is such a divide.

Um, with respect, no.

The reason there is such a divide is because of over-emotionalizing and name calling and posturing on BOTH sides. In as much as the "question" of "who needs a hi-cap?" is actually a passive-aggressive statement of rejection, your post is just as passive aggressive if not overtly so.

You demonstrate the source of the divide and venom as much as anyone when you malign someone for their position and impugn that they're dishonest. Not everyone's trying to get one over on you.

Maybe a great tactic to start with is torealize that we are NOT going to convince anyone of firearms' viability in defense and protection when we use the very issue of firearms to attack and divide.

 

[rbernie]

Hmm. This is NOT sounding like Activism Planning.

You guys wanna take one more shot at this? Feel free. On the other hand, if you keep up the poly sci chatter I will lock down the thread.

If you wanna talk about the poly sci topics, feel free to mosey on over to APS (the link is on the top right of every page) and chatter away.

 

[hso]

I doubt this thread will stay open very long unless everyone stays focused on what the requirements are for Activism. We're supposed to be working on developing a plan of action, not just yacking.

General discussions about why you have firearms or why you support RKBA really belong in General.

How self styled liberals (whatever in the world "liberal" means to you) can make a contribution to RKBA, the general means are much the same regardless of political/social views. Letter (yes, pen on paper) writing, visits to the politician as a constituent, participating in boards and committees that influence politicians, working in political campaigns to assure RKBA support, grassroots organizing, working with local media to normalize the community view of firearms owners, working with groups to increase the number of responsible recreational shooters, and taking individuals who have no real idea what we do out to the range and introducing them to shooting in a fun responsible manner. These are the same regardless of political/social view.

I would think that the unique advantage a liberal might have is the ability to start the conversation at all these levels with people that may not be as supportive and to demonstrate to politicians that their support comes from people who might work against them in the primaries to put politicians from their own party in their seat who do support RKBA.

 

[VegasGeorge]

I'm willing to bet that most so called "liberals" who love firearms would score as "conservative" on an objective issues test. I know from experience that lots of Democrats will give you conservative answers to simple straightforward questions. But they seem to go all stupid when it comes to casting their votes. It's some kind of logic disconnect that prevents them from seeing that they are supporting candidates and political platforms that run contrary to what they actually think. Their politics seems to be emotionally based, rather than reason based. In their personal lives, a lot of them are responsible, conservative people. It's no wonder they love firearms.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

seriously, who really needs full auto high cap anyway?

Don't fall for the anti gunner's lies! Full autos have been illegal to manufacture for civilian sale since the 1980's.

Semi-auto high capacity guns, which some people want to ban, can be good for elderly or weak people. The AR-15 in particular, and other guns in the .223 cartridge, have very little recoil, good stopping power, are often lightweight, and have high capacity, making them ideal for people who are too weak to handle, say, an 870.

I doubt this thread will stay open very long unless everyone stays focused on what the requirements are for Activism. We're supposed to be working on developing a plan of action, not just yacking

Here's my plan: Don't vote for them unless they change their stance on guns. For instance, I won't vote for anti-gun RINOs.

The Second Amendment isn't a partisan line,

I believe one party officially supports gun control, and one doesn't

 

[Bellevance]

It's a matter of culture, not politics

There's no inherent contradiction between political and social liberalism and belief in the fundamental rights of gun owners.

In my experience, the divide is more broadly cultural than it is political or philosophical. That is, a person's attitude toward firearms and gun ownership largely depends on the immediately surrounding culture and on where he or she was reared. It's only natural that if a person grows up in a home where there are guns and in a community where guns are used for hunting, protection, and target work, he or she will naturally understand that guns as tools of a special sort, deserving of respect and care and affection.

People tend to fear what they do not know. A person who is familiar with guns from childhood won't fear guns and won't seek to curtail gun owners' rights. The more liberal areas of this country tend to be the more urban areas as well. In urban areas, most of the people do not own guns; indeed, many people who live in the cities or the nearby suburbs have probably never even handled a gun.

I live in Vermont, perhaps the most liberal (and least religious) of the 50 states. Vermont is also this country's most rural state--and that is probably the most pertinent characteristic in determining what attitudes a person forms with respect to firearms. Gun laws in Vermont are among the most liberal in the country. Vermont and Alaska are the only states that have no laws governing the concealed carry of firearms. Not all of my neighbors are gun owners, but most are. Our two US Senators, Leahy and Sanders, are among the most politically liberal--and yet, as Vermonters, they both firmly support the rights of gun owners. Leahy, in particular, is a proud gun owner and Second Amendment supporter.

To modify the attitudes of people who reflexively dislike guns and who would further limit gun owners' rights, we must find friendly, inviting ways to educate the considerable portion of the country's population who, because of where they live and where they grew up, simply know nothing whatsoever about guns. Those who are curious and interested need to be given easy, safe opportunities to handle and shoot guns. A person who can come to know guns will lose his fear of them.

It's really not so much a matter of liberal versus conservative. It's truly more a matter of culture--and, unfortunately, in the cities nowadays the prevailing gun culture is the gang culture.

 

[gossamer]

But they seem to go all stupid when it comes to casting their votes. It's some kind of logic disconnect that prevents them from seeing that they are supporting candidates and political platforms that run contrary to what they actually think.

Do you think I'm going to side with you when you say I am stupid for my vote? When you say that my vote makes me illogical. When you say Liberals aren't REALLY liberal, they just vote that way. What am I, a unicorn?

Here are a few tactics:
How about giving liberals who are pro-RKBA the credit they deserve for actually knowing what their own political ideology is. How about giving them credit that their ideology and candidate choices are grounded in the same things yours is grounded in: life experiences, world view, preferences, upbringing, and thoughtful consideration by intelligent minds.

This casting liberals as intellectually dishonest, illogical, or "stupid" because they vote for someone you don't vote for doesn't help advance the RKBA. It makes you look one sided, petty and uninformed -- JUST LIKE ANTI-GUN PEOPLE LOOK.

To continue to imply or overtly state that Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are having the wool pulled over their eyes on the basis that YOU know better the true intentions of Democratic candidates that Democrats do just smacks of elitism. And as Democrats learned from 1994 - 2008, elitism doesn't bring anyone around to seeing your issue with any clarity.

So, if we want to continue to have a plurality of Americans respect and uphold the 2nd amendment, it starts with growing up ourselves and realizing that one politcal ideology doesn't corner the market on protecting 2A rights and having the candidates to do that.

I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy from the "right" I'm reading on this issue is overwhelming and growing tedious and if it's any sign of the tactics this group is interested in employing to protecting RKBA . . . well . . . good luck with that.

 

[CPerdue]

I get the point that this is not activism - a newbie started it in the wrong place and I didn't check before responding. Mods, move the discussion?

 

[IndianaBoy]

Hypocrisy?


Look Gossamer, if you share the ideals of Pelosi, Feinstein and Obama on every single issue except for firearms law... that is well and good.

You are entitled to your opinions and your vote. And I would venture to say that there is no reason to doubt that you are as well informed as any voter can be.

Now there are plenty of exceptions in the House and Senate of 'liberal' politicians who have a healthy respect for firearms rights.

But there is no doubt that taken as a whole, a vote for a liberal (modern definition - borderline socialist, not classical liberal - freedom) is a vote against gun rights.

If your value system is such that you can throw 2A rights under the bus because you value other 'liberal' policies more, that is fine.

But don't expect me to believe that you give a fig for 2A rights if you voted for Obama. The original poster edited his post without comment when called out on the 'full auto hi cap' nonsense.

If you sensed venom in my post, good for you. It was there. 'Liberal' groups like AHSA have been trying to undermine and divide gun owners for quite a while now. You are getting easy to spot.

 

[gossamer]

If you sensed venom in my post, good for you. It was there.

If that is one of your tactics to try to get more people to support the cause of RKBA then it's really no wonder Democrats are winning elections and efforts to erode gun rights have been successful. Because efforts like yours to protect them include spewing venom an alienating people who feel the same way as you on this issue.

If those are your tactics, do me a favor and keep them to yourself. As has been proven over and over, there's very little ground gained with petty, venomous, and disrespectful tactics intended to increase support for rights.

 

[BHP FAN]

Well,I'm a single issue voter.The 2A is important enough to me that I use it as a litmus test for my vote.If I agree with a candidate on every single issue but thier stance on gun control,I won't vote for them.And I think if more 'pro-gun' folk really were PRO-gun and VOTED that way,we wouldn' have a anti-gun 'community organizer' in charge now.

 

[Ben86]

From my observation the only liberals who like firearms have:

1, Actually shot a gun and discovered how fun it really is.

2, Realize the advantage a firearm gives to the security of himself and family.

3, Realize that gun control only works on those concerned about the law, and it is more about control than about guns.

It's nice to see liberal with common sense about the 2A.

Here's a question: How can liberal Hollywood actors take anti-gun positions yet profit off of glorifying gun violence?