Liberalism, Conservatism, and the Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
While debating this issue is fun, fair warning that it can lead to your demise on this forum. :D

So let's watch for rants and the points above that liberal and conservative are ill-defined and behavior is multicausal is well taken.

One point that isn't mention is that opposition to firearms by some 'liberals' is that some 'conservative' supporters of guns have social beliefs antithetical to liberals. The cheap and extreme example is the Nazi at the gun show. Haven't seen that many lately though.

If you don't know anything about guns and see folks brandishing weapons and exposing really awful beliefs and/or threats, naturally you think owning weapons is a bad thing. Folks make most decisions based on emotion rather than a rational analysis of cost/benefit. One outrageous gun portray negates a discussion of how many lives are saved, cars are more dangerous, etc. People just don't think that way. Economists learned that the rational decision models just aren't the way it happens in real life.

However, some gun folk shy away from this negative and how it impacts gun attitudes. I know some folks in the NRA who cringed when Heston sometimes wandered into antigay rhetoric or the like.

Anyway, in the last thread I referenced by piece that I wrote by invitation for the NTI guys and was told I was tooting my own horn :D and some folks ranted and got the electronic COM. Just watch out.
 
I dont lump em like that, I see it as anti people as in anti gun. There are antis on each side, folks that firmly belive weapons should all be banned. Some are fanatical about it like any of the protestor types out there. I belive education is key to winning some of these folks over to the pro weapon side of the line. I treat anti gun folks as nice as I can, try to slip pro talk into the conversation if possible.
 
MTT TL: said:
... There are more cars on the road and less vehicle deaths over than 25 years ago
Click to expand...
I concede that car accident rates weren't a good choice to make my point with, because cars have undergone a lot of safety improvements in the last 25 years- seat belts, crash standards, air bags, etc. and it shows in the accident rates and numbers.

But it makes logical sense to me that an increase in the number of people with CC permits means an increase in the number of people who are carrying concealed weapons; there aren't many reasons to be confident that they all are competent, knowledgeable and self-disciplined enough to never make any mistakes or have any accidents with their guns; the only conclusion logically available is that the risks of inadvertent or illegal injury with guns is increased. For it not to be, it must be shown that every new CC permit is given to someone who will never make a mistake or lose their head in a situation and involve the gun in a bad way. Just reading what some people post on this forum is enough to discourage any confidence in that possibility.
 
Uncle Billy: You say liberalism and conservatism "have" to be reconcilable. Then you go on to make a distinction between ideology and policy.

You might not have noticed that I made the same distinction. Gun control, abortion, taxes etc are not treated as policy issues which can be resolved through the give and take of the legislative process. They are instead treated as inviolable ideological tenets which can brook no negotiation.
While I see this as true of conservatism, obviously so, it is not completely untrue of liberals.

Try this- If you've grown up around horses all your life, why is it so hard for you to realize that someone who hasn't might be afraid of horses?
Click to expand...

No.
1. It assumes that all liberals are unfamiliar with guns, which given national demographics is simply untrue.
2. It assumes that the reasons liberals advocate gun control is because they have a naive fear of guns.
3. It ignores the possibility that liberals might have derived their position from reasons other than fear.

Unfamiliarity can breed fear in some people. In others it breeds a desire to learn more. Don't ascribe the former motivation to all people.
btw George W. Bush has a fear of horses.
 
But it makes logical sense to me that an increase in the number of people with CC permits means an increase in the number of people who are carrying concealed weapons;
Click to expand...

This does seem to follow.

there aren't many reasons to be confident that they all are competent, knowledgeable and self-disciplined enough to never make any mistakes or have any accidents with their guns;
Click to expand...

I agree. They all will not be, just as all 17 year old kids don't make good drivers. That is why we have to help people.
the only conclusion logically available is that the risks of inadvertent or illegal injury with guns is increased.
Click to expand...

This is not a logical conclusion or borne out by the data. There has been a more than thousandfold increase in the number of CC permits (legalization in states) since 1993 and gun deaths have dropped steadily.

800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png


Rtc.gif


For it not to be, it must be shown that every new CC permit is given to someone who will never make a mistake or lose their head in a situation and involve the gun in a bad way.
Click to expand...

Well in that case the we only ever need to issue two Licenses, one to Jesus Christ and one to Buddha. I think everyone else is prone to making a mistake sooner or later :D
 
Last edited:
The presence of a firearm certainly has the potential to make a bad situation worse, and this is the central fear that drives liberal anti-gun sentiment
Click to expand...

Then why do liberals scream that only police and military should have guns?

Think about it. What are you really doing when you call the police? Your calling for a man/woman WITH A GUN to show up. If guns can escalate a situation, why would you call for a person with a gun? Your arguement does not make sense.

Sorry, I'm being proactive on rhetorical generalization that don't get us anywhere. Glenn
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I concede that car accident rates weren't a good choice to make my point with, because cars have undergone a lot of safety improvements in the last 25 years- seat belts, crash standards, air bags, etc. and it shows in the accident rates and numbers.

But it makes logical sense to me that an increase in the number of people with CC permits means an increase in the number of people who are carrying concealed weapons; there aren't many reasons to be confident that they all are competent, knowledgeable and self-disciplined enough to never make any mistakes or have any accidents with their guns; the only conclusion logically available is that the risks of inadvertent or illegal injury with guns is increased. For it not to be, it must be shown that every new CC permit is given to someone who will never make a mistake or lose their head in a situation and involve the gun in a bad way. Just reading what some people post on this forum is enough to discourage any confidence in that possibility.
Click to expand...

At it's root, the argument still says, if there weren't any guns, there wouldn't be any shootings. But there is no doubt there would still be violent crime like murder, rape, or robbery... probably more of it in fact. It's like saying, if we never discovered how make and use fire, fewer people would have burned to death. It's true at face value, but people would have had a harder time surviving without it and so more would have died without fire than with it.

Mind you, I tend to be a left-leaning fellow, but the more I look at the logic behind gun control, the less it makes sense. It seems like most of the anti-gun cities in America are also ones I would NEVER want to live in, not necessarily because they don't have gun rights, but because they're so dangerous. California is the most restrictive state in the USA when it comes to guns, they limit the kinds of guns you can own, they are "may issue," and so on. Yet in a recent ranking of the 15 most dangerous cities in the USA, 3 Californian cities (Oakland, Richmond, and Compton) made the list. The top spot was taken by Camden, NJ, and NJ is also a very anti-gun state. If you can find counter-examples, I am all ears, but I haven't yet heard of any city that actually became a much safer place because guns were disallowed.
 
very few people have made any good points whatsoever, and all this thread does is perpetuate bipartisan politics no matter how you break it. A lot of you make blanket statements and I saw "socialism" thrown around a couple of times... here's how liberal and conservative generally breaks down, ready?

Liberal(Democrat): wants to give people aid
Conservative(Republican): doesn't want to give out hand outs
(technically, this division is actually an issue of state rights vs. federal power)

that's it. That's how it works. Conservative politicians generally try to give people the tools with which to help themselves without having to redistribute the status quo. Liberals tend to redistribute values and status to help people. That's the difference.

Gun rights has nothing to do with it. Neither do abortions or any other single issue.

We're mixing up stereotypes and "ideologies" with bipartisan politics. I'm a "liberal," but I hate EPA laws and gun laws. I know several others like me. As well, I know "conservatives" who drive priuses and are pro choice and anti gun.

Alot of ya'll are just making it a black and white issue, pigeon holing and prejudicing.
 
In a way I hate to fall back on one of those old expressions, " If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." It is true. Passing laws to outlaw guns is a futile gesture. There is no way you could collect all the guns. The argument that, "No guns = no gun crime" seems to be an axiom. However there is no way to get to no guns.
 
This debate is getting tiresome. My position is that I'm a firm supporter of the 2a and the individual right to guns. In most other issues I would be considered a "liberal", but not on that one. Call me whatever you feel is proper, I don't care how you classify me, I'm not anti-gun; whatever you think I am, that one is wrong.

Here's what I believe to be true. Take it or leave it:
Not all "liberals" are against guns, it's not inconsistent with liberal philosophy to be in favor of individual gun rights- individual freedoms, unencumbered by the wishes or bigotry of others, is a primary tenet of political and social liberalism. Take a look at other divisive social and political issues, like civil rights, or gay rights, or abortion rights, or gender rights, and see where the liberal perspective is. While most of those are odious to others, their "take" on gun rights is congruent with those philosophies and that ought to be recognized. And others ought to realize that "liberal" isn't as monolithic as "conservative" is; there are liberals who would disagree with their fellows on this; liberals are unique in this way.

I believe that gun control legislation, that has the intent of making guns harder or impossible to obtain, only inhibits the activities (and rights) of those that follow the law, and they aren't the source of gun violence. It's the actions of people, not the tools they use, that create the difficulties.

I believe it is invalid to blame the ills in a society on its artifacts.

Many people who don't like guns, or are afraid of them, have those attitudes because they only know of guns from the news, the media, the movies and TV because they haven't had any first-hand experience with the positive aspects of guns, especially those who live in high crime urban areas where their most immediate experience with guns may have been shoot-'em-ups in their neighborhoods with illegal guns. That's just the way it is, there's no condemnation due them, they aren't to blame for their attitudes because they came to them legitimately.

With an increase in the number of CCers, there is a greater possibility of accidents and mistakes with guns than with fewer CC permit holders. That ISN'T an argument against individual 2A rights, it's an argument in favor of CC permit holders learning all they can about how to CC legally and how to use their weapon (or not) in the most legal, disciplined and appropriate manner, when a circumstance occurs to them wherein the gun comes into consideration. Such discipline and competence doesn't seem to be universal, given what some have posted here.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'm curious about the actual intent of the OP.

We have from this party exactly ONE post on this board. Poster has a university email address. We are invited to "discuss".

Are we writing a paper for the OP? Or could this be a wandering Troll? Or am I just cynical, looking for a hidden agenda?

Discuss.
 
I think we need to remember there is more than a binary liberal/conservative choice.

Social and economic ideology is often split. One's authoritarian/libertarian stance is very important. "Gun control" is rather inherently authoritarian. It basically says, "the government doesn't trust you with this power, so you must give it up." I think we need to examine WHY we desire to give the government certain authorities to limit our rights, and where we draw the line.

The only way I seem to be able to understand a "liberal" (meaning libertarian on social policy here) supporting gun control would be to invert the perspective. If one views gun control as affecting the other party, it becomes more attractive. If person A doesn't own a gun, keeping BG Y from having one would increase person A's ability to make free decisions. Sadly, this leads people to support restrictive policies inconsistent with their stated philosophy.
...unless one assumes "liberals" are authoritarian in nature. Given current economic policy, this may be true, but it does not match with "classic liberalism" nor the DNC's social goals...
It's an odd paradox to me.
 
bob.a: I wouldn't be surprised if what you wrote was true- liberals supporting gun rights seems to be part of a change that's come to our people, revealed when they elected a government profoundly different than the previous one. What is this new American body politic? Is it permanent or just a short-term response, a serious rejection of past ills? What are its values, what principles and perspectives does/did it hold and what of those does/did it reject? How will it change as time passes? I'd bet there are grad students and social and political researchers all over the place who are studying just those things; here's one (maybe) studying gun issues. Gun rights are a hot issue for everyone; here's some further evidence of a new alliance; what's up with that? -could be the basis for a paper or a research project.
 
Then why do liberals scream that only police and military should have guns?

Think about it. What are you really doing when you call the police? Your calling for a man/woman WITH A GUN to show up.
Click to expand...

A cop is more than a person with a gun. When I call 911 some hilljack in overalls doesn't show up with a shotgun, sorry, I don't label cops as "just a man/woman with a gun."
 
LD -

Duno about #18indycolts, but for most police and military represent agents of the State. Police have been endowed (domestically) with the authority to act within the laws to apprehend and submit to the courts any person they feel to be violating the law - using any amount of force up to and including deadly force to effect that apprehension. Police act with the entire authority of the State, and as agents of the State they represent far more than "just a woman or man with a gun".

And with respect to Dust Monkey's question:

Dust Monkey said:
"Then why do liberals scream that only police and military should have guns?"
Click to expand...
...the answer is similar. Liberals believe that the responsibility for the protection of society and it's citizens belongs to the State, not to the citizens themselves (whom they occasionally accuse of 'vigilante-ism'.) They perceive firearms in the hands of citizens to ultimately create more crime and accompanying risk than more 'freedom'. From a liberal perspective, society must give up some 'freedom' to be more secure from risks that result from firearms.

While it may be true that in the absence of firearms, there would be a substantial reduction in firearms-related crime (or accidental death), complete social disarmament remains a utopian ideal. England and Australia provide eloquent examples of what happens when State authority is used to disarm the citizens. Risk is by no means reduced, for reasons that go well beyond this thread.

FWIW,

Doc
 
I'm afraid we will wander into pure lib vs. conservative politics and cliches. We are subject to selective info processing, look at this statement:

From a liberal perspective, society must give up some 'freedom' to be more secure from risks that result from firearms.
Click to expand...

Social conservatives are terrible controlling of liberties in many domains that fit their world view. Personal behavior, criminal justice (rights at trial), control of the press, etc. If we start to name them, we get into terrible fights and we'd have to shut this down.

Since the OP has only one post and no further comments, I wonder if this is worth continuing.

Unless the OP chimes in - we might be all done. No need for baiting a fight, IMHO.
 
Also concur, Glenn.


Given that the OP's question was "Why is it that opinion about right to carry issues splits so starkly down political lines?", however, I suspect that any answer may have come close to "pure lib vs. conservative politics and cliches"!

;)

Your observation re: the OP is quite correct...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top