Liberal Gun Rights Advocates?

With the exception of gun rights, do you align yourself more closely with:

  • Liberal

    Votes: 16 19.8%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 20 24.7%

  • Libertarian

    Votes: 45 55.6%
  • Total voters
    81
F

finity

New member
I am relatively new to gun ownership. I only started my collection a little less than two years ago (I've definitely made up for lost time). I never was against guns; I was in the Navy for over 10 years. I always wanted one but had just never commited to getting one.

I also consider myself a liberal. A moderate liberal (socially liberal, economically conservative) leaning towards libertarian.

I have been on several gun boards for the last year or so & I always see the the term "liberal' spewed forth & equated with every ill that plagues our country. Especially so when talking of gun rights/control. I have always thought that somehow that stereotype didn't seem right to me.

There are definitely liberal anti-gun people, but there are definitely conservative anti-gun people also. When President Bush sends his Solicitor General to argue for DC in the DC-Heller case, McCain joins Lieberman in the McCain-Lieberman Gun Show Act of 2000, Guiliani & NYC handgun laws, Romney & Mass. gun laws, etc. it shows me that liberals don't have the market cornered as anti-gunners. Heck, even Sarah Brady's husband worked for the Reagan administration, for pete's sake.

I have always wondered what kind of representation liberals actually had on these kind of boards. Am I really that unique in agreeing with most liberal values with the exception of gun control. After reading through the following thread

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295958

I thought a poll would be interesting.

I don't think it's as cut & dried as most on here would believe it is.

I never thought I would ever be a one-issue voter but I am really struggling with the 2008 election. Gun rights really are that important to me.
 
socially liberal, economically conservative
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous title to apply to one's political alignment, an impossibility. The very nature of a social liberal is to spend, spend, and then spend a little more (of public money-taxes). You would be better to just state that you are greatly confused.

As for guns and political persuasions, I'm sure you'll find a heavy libertarian bent here on the FL, although I don't fall into that camp either.
 
Last edited:
This statement just shows how faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions
Click to expand...
Agreed. One can be socially "liberal" (in the sense of the government butting out of people's affairs) without advocating big spending.
 
This is a ridiculous title to apply to one's political alignment, an impossibility. The very nature of a social liberal is to spend, spend, and then spend a little more.
Click to expand...

No offense, but you are the one who is confused. By socially liberal, I think he means he is pro-gay, pro-abortion. Neither of these subjects has anything to do with spending.
 
pro-gay, pro-abortion
Click to expand...

And then there are those who do not advocate but also believe in self-determination(re. liberty). But of course that is always subjective in opinion. You can still be fiscally and morally conservative for YOURSELF and yours.

elkman06
 
I have always thought that somehow that stereotype didn't seem right to me.
Click to expand...

It's not stereotyping to say that the vast majority of self-described Liberals are in favor of more gun control laws. They fact is, they are.

The Liberals-Progressives have nobody to blame but themselves for their bad reputation. They've worked hard to earn it over the years.

To complain now about how other perceive liberals is ridiculous.

Can you point out even a single self-described Liberal, elected to Congress or the Governorship of any State, who is strongly pro-Second Amendment?

....Didn't think so.

There are definitely liberal anti-gun people, but there are definitely conservative anti-gun people also
Click to expand...

No, there are RINO's like Bush, and his later Justice Department appointees, who call themselves conservatives but who in fact are Liberal Republicans.
 
Can you point out even a single self-described Liberal, elected to Congress or the Governorship of any State, who is strongly pro-Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

You do realize that it takes a certain personal leaning to run for office? And that quality make these people not necessarily representative of those that vote them in? i.e. politicians aren't normal people.

Though in this particular case you are probably right, the majority of liberals would not place the 2nd amendment as their highest priority, I think you need to rethink your question and how it is posed. Of course, these guys might not agree with that opinion.
 
Agreed. One can be socially "liberal" (in the sense of the government butting out of people's affairs) without advocating big spending.
Click to expand...


No offense, but you are the one who is confused. By socially liberal, I think he means he is pro-gay, pro-abortion. Neither of these subjects has anything to do with spending.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I am socially liberal in the sense that the government has no business intruding on my personal life, as long as my personal life does not infringe on the rights of others. What do I care, or why should anyone else, what goes on in someone elses bedroom, if they drink beer on Sunday instead of going to church or smoke a joint in the privacy of their own homes.


Can you point out even a single self-described Liberal, elected to Congress or the Governorship of any State, who is strongly pro-Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it can be considered "strongly' pro 2A or not, but there were 55 senators and 250 congressmen who joined VP Cheney in signing on to an Amicus brief in the DC v. Heller SCOTUS gun case. That is the majority of both houses of congress. Last I checked the Dems had the majority in both houses so I would say that there are at least several Democratic senators (9) & congressmen (67) who felt strongly enough about the case to join their fellow Republicans in support of gun rights.

You can read it here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_congress.pdf

Also, the Attorneys General of 31 States filed an Amicus brief on the side of Heller in the same case. Again, that is the majority of States & I'm pretty sure that the Democrats have the majority (28) of Gubernatorial seats in the US right now.

You can read it here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_texas.pdf

So yeah, I think I can point that out. Unless of course you are saying that those Democrats aren't "really" liberals. If that's true then that would be the first time that I've seen anyone on these types of boards not automatically associate "Democrat" with "liberal".

If you'd like to read all the Amicus briefs (& I have) you can go here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/amicus-briefs-for-heller-available-in-guns-case/

I think some of the pro 2A organizations will surprise you.
 
The very nature of a social liberal is to spend, spend, and then spend a little more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Bush is a real liberal:

"President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.

Stephen Slivinski is director of budget studies at the Cato Institute.

Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.

The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.

The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. Even if Congress passes Bush’s new budget exactly as proposed, not a single cabinet-level agency will be smaller than when Bush assumed office.

Republicans could reform the budget rules that stack the deck in favor of more spending. Unfortunately, senior House Republicans are fighting the changes. The GOP establishment in Washington today has become a defender of big government."

www.cato.org

Kowboy
 
I'm a card carrying, registered Libertarian. I don't tow the part line but support LE and like secured borders. I agree with most of the military stuff of the Party though.
 
finity: It would only take about a two minute search on the internet to show that the Democratic leadership for the last 40+ years has been rabidly anti-gun.

The same search would show that the Republican leadership for the last 40+ years has not been rabidly anti-gun.

So I align myself with the conservative side. (I'm a one issue voter.)
 
If you're aligned libertarian gun rights aren't an exception; Libertarians are consistently more pro-gun than the NRA. (Not that that's remarkably difficult.)

The problem with describing yourself as "socially liberal", is that the term "liberal" has two meanings. Once meaning relates to the root word "liberty", and in that sense "socially liberal" simply means falling on the pro liberty side of social issues.

The other meaning is "leftist, but doesn't like admitting it", and those who are socially "liberal" in this sense simply mean they're toeing the Democratic party line on social issues, which can mean being socially illiberal on some issues such as 2nd amendment rights, or freedom of political speech.

Of course, the term "conservative" suffers from similar confusions.
 
And I guess that is the point of this thread.

In regards to gun rights, to speak of someone as a "liberal" (spat out like it leaves a disgusting taste in your mouth) as someone who would sell those rights down the river as easily as flushing the toilet by the "conservatives" on these boards is, IMHO, intellectually unfair.

It may be a small sample size ( & I wish there would be more votes) but I am not surprised by the results so far - liberals & conservatives running neck and neck. It shows that as a culture, everyday Americans may not be as far apart on this issue as the conservatives here would like us to believe. It's going to take every gun owner - liberal, conservative, libertarian, moderate, socialist, fascist, whatever - to work together & stop using derogatory language towards the other to ensure that the powers-that-be know that they can't take our guns if they still want their jobs.

We may be at opposite ends of the debate on alot of issues, but on this we have to stand together.
 
In regards to gun rights, to speak of someone as a "liberal" (spat out like it leaves a disgusting taste in your mouth).....
Click to expand...

With respect to our 2nd Amendment rights, that pretty much sums up how I feel about "liberals" in the United States Congress. For the most part, "liberals" would sell those rights down the river as easily as flushing the toilet. That is empirically true, and not the least bit intellectually unfair.
 
Sasquatch :

And the "conservatives" in congress & the administration haven't been trying to keep chipping away at our 1A, 4A, 5A ... rights? :barf:

Well, I guess your right. We just need to to keep on going down the same road we have been. No need to try to find a middle ground and try to make things right. It seems to be working so well for us. :mad:

Whatever...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top