The geopolitical divide in America: gun rights

A

AlongCameJones

Moderator
As a rule, cities with larger populations tend to lean more anti-gun while rural areas and small towns tend to lean more pro-gun. Why is there this disparity in gun rights attitudes in regards to population density? This seems rather ironic to me. After all, one is much more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in a big city than way out in the boonies and hence the need for law-abiding Americans in inner cities to be armed for personal security is even stronger there.

Were America's founding fathers thinking about geopolitics, population density and demographics while drafting the Second Amendment? I doubt it highly. There's seems to be no clause in the 2nd A which differentiates the level of need to keep and bear arms in the city as opposed to the suburbs or the county or the country. Is there a widespread big-city mentality that "there are enough cops to protect you" on every street corner inside the city limits of a large important town no matter what?

Some people also have this disturbing unhealthy mindset that guns are "only for the government authorities or good ol' boys out in the sticks."

The 2nd A says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE (not the right of GOOD OL BOYS, COUNTRY BUMPKINS, THE POLICE or THE MILITARY) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. POLICE, MILITARY, BUMPKIN, COWBOY, FARMER, RANCHER, JEWELRY STORE OWNER, BANKER, RICH PERSON, ARMORED CAR DRIVER, JUDGE, SHERIFF, RETIRED PEACE OFFICER and GOVERNMENT are not words enumerated in the 2nd A.

Some folks believe in error that gun ownership and carry is for "privileged occupations" and other "privileged demographics". Make no mistake about it: gun ownership is a right for The People, not a privilege for a few.
 
Last edited:
I'm not certain what your point is here, but I'll take this,
Why is there this disparity in gun rights attitudes in regards to population density? This seems rather ironic to me. After all, one is much more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in a big city than way out in the boonies
Click to expand...
as a question.

Its a question that answers itself, provided you understand the viewpoint of the people who are in charge of big cities with dense populations.

Its absolutely true you are more likely to be the victim of a crime in the big city compared to the boonies. HOWEVER, you see this as a reason why citizens in the big cities need to be armed, so they can defend themselves.

The other side (and the side that has been in power in those cities for the best part of a century or more) sees it the opposite way. Because you are more likely to be the vicitm of a crime in the big city, that's WHY they need to take guns away, from EVERYONE.

Aiding them in this is the public perception found in the big cities, about guns only being for evil, and the primary reason the people think that is because they don't ever see anything ELSE.

Unlike "the boonies" where people grow up seeing guns used as tools, and for sport and recreation. The people in the big cities never see that. In fact, for a sometime now, they legally cannot see guns used for sport or recreation in the big cities because the cities have laws preventing that inside city limits.

Add to that the literally millions of times during their lives people are shown guns being used for evil on TV and in movies, and its not hard to recognize how this mistaken attitude can come about. When you are only allowed to see one part of the picture, that part is all you can see.

Were America's founding fathers thinking about geopolitics, population density and demographics while drafting the Second Amendment? I doubt it highly.
Click to expand...

Actually I think they certainly did think about those things, as they applied to America at the time. DO remember it was a much different time. Our new nation's biggest cities were not that large by today's standards. "Inner city" residents were generally within a day trip to the rural lands. City people regularly went to the country to shoot game and for recreation that included shooting.

Up until the early part of the 20th century there were shooting galleries and shooting ranges in every major city. The gun, in and of itself was not regarded as something evil, quite often the opposite. When people did evil with guns, that was evil, but it wasn't the gun that did it, it was a PERSON. Today, too many people have been taught otherwise.

And you are correct, there is no mention in the 2nd Amendment of who has the right to arms, beyond "the People" because that is entirely sufficient.

The 2nd Amendment grants no rights. Neither do any of the other Amendments. Nor does the body of the Constitution. Our rights derive from the fact that we exist, and are citizens of a nation that recognizes them. I call them "natural rights" and in the era of our founders (and still to this day) they were also referred to as "God given rights" Meaning they came from our creator NOT from any government or ruler.

The entire "Bill of Rights" grants citizens no rights, never was meant to. What it is, is a list of restrictions on what government could do, regarding SOME of our rights (the ones enumerated in the Amendments). And the bill of rights clearly states that it is not an all inclusive list and that we have rights not specifically enumerated in it.

There's seems to be no clause in the 2nd A which differentiates the level of need to keep and bear arms in the city as opposed to the suburbs or the county or the country
Click to expand...

No, there is no such clause, nor should there be. Again, its not needed and NOT what the Amendment is about. The 2nd A isn't about your or my right to own a gun its about why the govt is not allowed to say we can't.

Look at the other Amendments the language is consistent in its intent. "Congress shall make no law...NO person shall be deprived of...the people shall be secure in their papers and property...etc.

All of them except the last are limits on what the GOVT can do. And the last couple cover doing it fairly and evenly and explaining that everything is not listed and those things not listed are not things for the Federal govt but "are reserved to the states, or to the people, respectively"...
 
The POINT is there is much more GUN CONTROL in BIG American cities. I want to know why that is. It's not that complicated, people.

The fact is GUN CONTROL laws don't take guns away from everybody including BAD people (in the city, in the suburbs or otherwise). Bad people who hurt innocent folks (in the city and elsewhere) still have guns because they are law-breakers to begin with and GUN CONTROL laws never disarm government authorities.

Gun control gravitates toward urban centers.

The antis are now using code words for "gun control" or "more gun-grabbing" as "gun safety measures", "common-sense gun laws" and "doing something about [so-called] gun violence". I'm no so stupid as to be fooled by any of this. I'm a boomer. I was not born this morning.

https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/...ow-bolder-on-gun-control-clashing-with-states
 
Last edited:
The POINT is there is much more GUN CONTROL in BIG American cities. I want to know why that is. It's not that complicated, people.
Click to expand...

All you need to do is study the history of gun control in the US and you'll see who passed what, where and when, and why.

Start with NYC and the "Sullivan laws" and work forward in time from there. Look at which political group was in charge and got the laws passed.

Be sure to separate history from straight politics. This is the Law and Civil Rights forum and there are very strict rules here covering discussion of politics and political viewpoints. We don't allow it.

Historical facts, such as who did what, when, are a different matter than political party agendas. Crossing into pure politics here will get the thread shut down, and can even result in infractions for the individual's posting material that violates the rules of the forum.

Understand the rules and abide by them and discussion can continue. Rant about one party or the other, or the people in them and we're done here.

In very simplest terms the answer to your question about why there is more gun control in big cities is that the people running those big cities believe gun control is the solution to their problems with violence in those cities.

And that viewpoint has been pretty consistent in the government of those big cities for generations.

I disagree with that viewpoint, personally, and I note that despite ever increasing regulation and restriction, gun control has not solved their problems.
 
In as few words as possible..

I'd say those capable of and willing to take care of themselves, don't flock together.
 
I grew up in a big city, and I lived in the country. Hearing random gunfire when I grew up was relatively rare, but it always meant trouble. It took me awhile to adjust to hearing shots when I moved to the country. I think that's a big part of the divide.

Another is that everyone can tune into their own media echo chamber that portrays every city as a war zone and rural America as being populated by ignorant, gun loving bumpkins. Neither is accurate.
 
People in the big cities have developed an expectation that the government is there to take care of them. Socialist government expectations.
 
Maybe it's an economic opportunity thing.
The crooks don't want to rob people with guns.

The crooks vote.

:confused:
 
People in rural areas use firearms for a variety of purposes: hunting, recreation, etc. In urban areas regular citizens don't have access to areas for hunting and recreation and they are of no use. In the city they have one purpose, and it will result in the harm of someone, often many someones.

People in the big cities have developed an expectation that the government is there to take care of them. Socialist government expectations.
Click to expand...
Thats not far off actually. In the city everyone has a specialized function, and everyone prospers by relying on everyone else. These support structures don't exist in rural areas.
 
zincwarrior said:
Thats not far off actually. In the city everyone has a specialized function, and everyone prospers by relying on everyone else. These support structures don't exist in rural areas.
Click to expand...

I might say "different support structures exist in rural areas".
Planting, harvest or haying time you may find someone helping out when someone is unable to do the work for some reason.

"Barn raising", while maybe not so common recently, is a very interesting US rural community activity of building a needed structure.

Different activities because of different needs.
 
Thats not far off actually. In the city everyone has a specialized function, and everyone prospers by relying on everyone else. These support structures don't exist in rural areas.
Click to expand...

I caught a junkie casing my property in semi-rural Maine years ago, I let the dog scare him off and it took the police 45 minutes to respond.
 
Guns still could serve law-abiding citizens effectively even in big cities. They can stop bad people from doing bad things. It still takes a good person with a gun to stop a bad person with a gun, rented truck or a knife even in a huge city. No, there are never enough cops to protect each and every citizen on each and every square inch of a big city 24/7/365 and 1/4. Chances are many cops will be in a donut shop or a coffee shop as some man gets murdered by a mugger in the park or some woman gets raped in a downtown parking garage. If city people stopped being so stupid, put their smartphone away for a minute and took their two front teeth out of the foam of their Starbucks Frappuccino, they would soon realize that in the big city they are most vulnerable to a violent attack.

Yes, persons armed with guns may actually HARM somebody in the big city, hopefully a perpetrator and not an innocent. If persons armed with guns, fired or unfired, are thwarting bad guys in the city, guns certainly have a good purpose there.
 
Last edited:
ballardw said:
I might say "different support structures exist in rural areas".
Planting, harvest or haying time you may find someone helping out when someone is unable to do the work for some reason.

"Barn raising", while maybe not so common recently, is a very interesting US rural community activity of building a needed structure.

Different activities because of different needs.
Click to expand...
Fair point indeed.

If persons armed with guns, fired or unfired, are thwarting bad guys in the city,
Click to expand...
Thats a very big if. Meanwhile there are areas where people definitely have firearms, and they aren't helping. (the wards of Houston, portions of Chicago and the LA Basin, etc.)
 
i live in a very large city and I am neither stupid nor incapable or unwilling to take care of myself. the stereotypes of people who live in a city in this thread are hilarious in their ignorance.
 
Copied from #2 post--44 AMP and s a VERY big distinction and we all need t remember that and remind those that think differently about the matter!!!!

""No, there is no such clause, nor should there be. Again, its not needed and NOT what the Amendment is about. The 2nd A isn't about your or my right to own a gun its about why the govt is not allowed to say we can't""

We need to INFORM our Dem friends in congress of this fact. I was going to say REMIND. We have two GUN GRABBING D's in the US Senate from MIchigan.
 
Thats a very big if. Meanwhile there are areas where people definitely have firearms, and they aren't helping. (the wards of Houston, portions of Chicago and the LA Basin, etc.)

You mean law-abiding citizens with guns are not effectively thwarting crime to any degree in any of those cities? Chicago and LA basin have harsh gun control laws anyway. It could be that a lot of those "people with firearms" are outlaws harming innocents. You have to also distinguish the GUILTY from the INNOCENT: not merely the ARMED from the UNARMED.

I don't know about the wards of Houston, but I do know more than one mass shooter have been thwarted in Texas churches over recent years. Armed citizens must be helping do something right somewhere. I routinely carry a concealed handgun around Lawton, Oklahoma and I live in Ward 3 in this town. OK is one of those happy states now enumerated in the Constitutional Carry Club.

That said, if I had to go into any of those cities for any reason, I'd rather go there with a gun rather than no gun, all else the same. To boot, I'd like a big trained German shepherd dog or two by my side. Those things would at least HELP ease my mind some. It's still better (less humbling) to die armed than unarmed.
 
Last edited:
I look at it the other way. Dying armed means you failed, and that is, to me worse. :rolleyes:

And, regarding armed citizens thwarting crimes, keep in mind that a lot of the time, if a crime is thwarted, it doesn't go into any database as a crime, because the crime didn't happen.

So, there's no way the crime statistics can accurately reflect reality in this matter. The data simply isn't there.

Anyone who claims otherwise, is selling something.
 
AlongCameJones said:
....As a rule, cities with larger populations tend to lean more anti-gun while rural areas and small towns tend to lean more pro-gun. Why is there this disparity in gun rights attitudes in regards to population density?...
Click to expand...

We're in a culture war.

Younger urbanites just don't see guns as relevant to their lives. They're afraid of guns and people with guns and, since guns aren't important to them personally, they're inclined to vote for folks who claim to be able to remove guns from society.

Much of today's anti-gun sentiment is a byproduct of the continuing urbanization of America. California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc., are strongly anti-gun in part because the bulk of the political power in those States is in a few major cities. The rural parts of those States are much more pro-gun or neutral. And in States like Washington and Oregon which generally have decent gun laws, the urban centers area still hot beds of anti-gun sentiment.

As we become a more urban society gun owners are increasingly looked down upon as hicks or knuckle dragging Neanderthals. People tend to look for support and validation from others who share their tastes and values; and they distinguish themselves, often in a denigrating manner, from those who do not. The city dweller likes to fancy himself sophisticated, socially liberal, well educated, urbane, fashionable, etc.; and he wants to associate with, and have his self image validated by, people he perceives are like him. And they set themselves apart from those they find different -- such as the type of person they believe usually owns guns.

The there's the question of how to make a dent in urban anti-gun sentiments. Can we challenge those anti-gun sentiments by demonstrating that sophisticated, urbane perspectives on other things aren't inexorably intertwined with hating guns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top