Why do conservatives oppose gun control?

[LAGC]

I think it has more to do with tradition than anything else. If the right to keep and bear arms wasn't an ongoing tradition in this country for so long, there would be little principled opposition to gun control from conservative quarters. Look at Australia or the U.K. or Canada... even the conservatives there are often in favor of strict gun control, ever since it was established as the new tradition. There's no libertarian basis to their stance at all. Here, we already hear the rallying cry: "Enforce the gun laws on the books!" Well, what happens when entire classes of guns are banned? "Enforce the gun laws on the books?" They've become what they used to hate -- gun grabbers.

I think if the anti-gun forces like the Republican-controlled Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence ever get their way and codify their agenda into law, we'd see the few libertarians split from the conservative ranks. Those who opt to keep their guns and refuse to turn them in, while the rest dutifully comply. I hope we never see the day, but propaganda and emotion runs high in that crowd, and even Supreme Court precedents can and have been reversed.

[baldguy]

1. It keeps the low-information voters that are their base intellectually occupied.

Just as they oppose rational policies regarding gay rights & separation of church & state, they oppose rational policies regarding gun control.

[rl6214]

27. That's really stupid

So you are saying liberal gun owners are "low-information voters" that need to be "intellectually occupied"?

I think I could probably say the same of the gun grabbing crowd who only have one chant...ban guns, ban guns, ban guns.

[baldguy]

36. Its stupid to refuse to recognize that ignorance & fear form a large part of the RW mindset.

Conservative leaders always strive to maintain those qualities in their followers using lies & distortions almost exclusively, poisoning any attempts at rational discourse with those who have succumbed to conservative propaganda on these subjects. "God, Guns & Gays" is so ingrained in that process that it's become a rallying slogan for them.

[Matt 6_5]

52. I'm gay with several guns but no gods

maybe I'm like 3/5 of a Democrat?

[gorfle]

58. No, I think he's right.

I am extremely pro-gun, but I think he is right.

Lots of not-so-bright voters have been lured into the Republican/Conservative camp by three things: God, Guts, and Guns.

The Republican party has always done a great job of talking a good game about being the party of religious morals and family values. They have also done a great job of looking tough in the name of "Defending America's Freedom!". And of course they have largely been friendly to gun rights.

To a "low-information" voter, that is, someone who does not read a lot and pay attention to current affairs, all they see is the veneer. They hear all the good "Jesus" talk, and assume that their policitian is a good, God-fearing man like themselves. Of course they miss out on all the news of the latest Republican Congressperson who has been caught up in a sex scandal. They see their politicians waging war "To defend our freedom" from "those guys who hate us for our freedom" and they think they are tough, stand-up, fight-for-America guys, just like they are. They don't see that while their politicians talk a good game about patriotism they are busy suspending habeus corpus and instituting pervasive domestic surveillance.

Hell, lot's of voters are "single-issue voters". I used to be one! I just looked to see if they supported the right to keep and bear arms and assumed that if they did, they must be OK folks!

There are just too many rednecks out there screaming "Rah Rah Rah Amurika is NUMBER ONE and I got my GUN!" who just aren't paying attention to the political wind to see that the party they thought was on their side is actually pushing us closer to tyranny than we have ever been.

[proteus_lives]

32. Well this RKBA Democrat supports gay rights and the separation of church and state...

And the irrational gun control policies. And the rethugs use anti-zealots to help them ensure that the Dems lose control of the government.

[GunGuyinPA]

67. Re: "low information voters"

You have beliefs of Gandhi in your post and seem to be anti-gun.

Sounds like you never read much more of Gandhi.....here is another quote of his:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
-M. Gandhi

[geckosfeet]

2. The right to keep and bear arms is not a tradition. It's a right granted by the constitution.

[LAGC]

3. But how absolute is it really?

All it takes is 2/3 of the states to ratify a counter-amendment the Constitution, and *poof* -- there goes your "inalienable" right.

[X_Digger]

5. The SCOTUS has said that..

.. the right predates the constitution (US v Cruikshank 1876), and between the ninth & tenth amendments, and various state constitutions, the right would still exist, but wouldn't be protected by the federal government.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Name those 33 States that would vote to overturn the 2nd Amendment.

[Statistical]

12. Two points.

1) It is established case law that the right to keep and bear arms is PROTECTED by the 2nd not granted. If the 2nd was repealed there would be a lot of lawsuits if anyone made an attempt to ban firearms. Also many states protect it in their state constitutions. The Constitution clearly reverses any powers not enumerated to the federal govt to the states. Repealing the 2nd would be like overturning roe v. wade. It would make it a states rights issue.

2) "Just 2/3rds". There is a reason there are only 27 amendments to the Constitution. Last time I looked (and that was couple years ago) over 5000 amendments have been proposed by Congress since the founding of the country. Less than 1/2 of 1% became amendments. A mere 16 state voting block could permanently prevent the ratification of any amendment. Of course you forgot the first half of the requirement, to propose the amendment requires 2/3rd vote in both houses. Think getting 60 votes in the Senate is hard. Try getting 67. A bill to allow national CCW got 58 votes FOR it and only 40 votes against it (required 60 to pass). A repeal the 2nd amendment vote would maybe get 5 Yea today.

At least you are honest. If you want guns gone the first step is to repeal the 2nd, the next step would be to repeal the state amendments, and lastly survive any legal challenges. If you can do all that then you can ban guns.

[LAGC]

14. I'm not anti-gun, I am pro-gun rights.

I was merely saying that I could foresee a scenario where our cherished Bill of Rights was dissolved if authoritarian forces had their way, like if the economic situation got real bad and crime got really out of hand. Even in those "fly-over" states that we think would never go along with it, given the right (or wrong, if you prefer) circumstances, history has seen democratic countries voting their liberties away.

[Statistical]

16. Luckily the founders planned for that.

Amending the Constitution is extremely difficult. less than 1 in 200 Constitutional amendments proposed actually got ratified. A small minority of voters who understand the danger in "voting liberties away" could block any attempt.

[geckosfeet]

37. If crazy hicks continue to insist on open carry at presidential events,

I can see a backlash in the form of an attempt to repeal. I don't see it succeeding though.

[benEzra]

40. The same could be said of any inalienable right protected by the BoR.

I think the Declaration of Independence speaks to that scenario, BTW. The Constitution is a legal document; the Declaration is its philosophical underpinnings.

[Matt 6_5]

50. It takes THREE FOURTHS of the states.

:eyes:

[mgraveman]

77. Almost....

It takes 2/3 of the house and senate and 3/4 of the states to change the constitution.

I thought being liberal meant supporting civil rights. Why do so many people want to take away the one document that gives us the civil rights we enjoy?

[beevul]

6. No, sir.

The constitution grants no rights. It grants powers to the government, and forbids the government from exercising certain other powers.


Just sayin.

[X_Digger]

9. True, it is a common misconception..

.. that on the surface seems like semantics, but actually is pretty eye-opening when switched around. Smart guys, those framers. Rather than try to come up with an exhaustive list of rights, they recognized that in order for the document to have relevance far into the future, the better course is to limit the government to certain powers and insure that other unenumerated rights are retained by the states and the people.

[geckosfeet]

38. So my right to bear arms is retained? How is that semantically different than

being 'granted' a right.

Now that I re-read - I don't agree with my original use of the word 'granted'. But upon having 'retained' a right, am I not given that right as well? How is there a difference? I can see that 'retaining' a right implies that it was always there, while being 'given' or 'granted' a right implies that it wasn't there until the 'giving' or 'granting' took place.

[X_Digger]

41. Bingo!

And the whole mindset of 'granting' rights leads the rethugs into stupid chatter like 'show me in the constitution where it says abortion (or same sex marriage)'. It is a set of limits- limits on government power, though, not people.

[billh58]

42. Actually

all rights guaranteed under the Constitution were bought and paid for with the blood of American patriots, and fall under the blanket term of "Liberty." So, if anything, those revolutionary patriots "granted" successive generations of Americans the rights we enjoy today. I'm sure that some will disagree, and again labels may get in the way, but the concept is plain: we, as a nation, fought for the "rights" that we enjoy as Americans.

It is all semantics in any event as a right, is a right, is a right -- regardless of its pedigree. The Constitution of the United States of America, which articulates certain "rights," also provides for a legislative process under which these "rights" may be further defined, altered, or superseded (Prohibition comes to mind). As society changes, the American experiment in a unique form of democracy tends to change with it, and definitions of "rights" are updated through codified law initiated by majority opinion, and enacted by the legislative process. In other words, "rights" evolve and grow along with our nation and its people.

The argument about whether the "government" or the "people" own the rights held by American citizens overlooks the fact that our government is made up of, and controlled by, The People. Those who envision our government as the enemy may have lost sight of reasons for the establishment of the United States of America. We used the rights gained through rebellion to form a government of, for, and by The People.

[DissedByBush]

45. Big difference

A granted right can be taken away easily. It was the government's authority to grant it, it's the government's authority to take it away.

A natural right, or God-given right if you are so inclined, exists without the government. The government's job is to recognize it, not interfere with it, and protect it.

Guns are a natural right merely recognized by the Constitution.

[Statistical]

13. Please be accurate. It just provides false ammo to antis.

The Bill of Rights provides NO rights. None what so ever. The Bill of Rights PROTECTS existing rights from infringement.

It is not a can do list for citizens.
It is a can't do list for govts.

[billh58]

17. Not exactly true

because the original intent (including any limitations) of the protected rights remain in effect, and none of them are absolute. Also, as amendments, they can legally be nullified (God forbid) by another amendment.

And finally, ALL parts of the Constitution remain subject to interpretation by the ever-evolving SCOTUS.

[Statistical]

18. Well I am sorry you are simply wrong.

Please find a Constitutional scholar anywhere who is willing to state the Constitution grants rights.

Sorry to be blunt but it is a cornerstone of the meaning of the document so they is no way to mince words on the issue.

The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of rights but rather a list of restrictions on the govt that protect some rights.

[billh58]

21. You are

arguing semantics. "Protected" rights are not absolute, and remain subject to reasonable restrictions, SCOTUS interpretation, and lawful change (or nullification) by yet another Constituional amendment:

You can not yell fire in a crowded theatre.
You can not carry a weapon in a government building.
You can not refuse a police search if they have "proable cause"
Etc, etc, etc.

I am not not trying to pick a fight with you, but when you take an "absolute" position that detracts from reasonable discourse, you leave yourself open to confrontation.

Aloha from Maui...;-)

[Statistical]

25. Where did I ever use the word absolute.

Look for it. Its not there.

Here is the post I replied too and my response since you have difficultly following a thread. Sorry if I am snappy but 1) I am tired and 2) I don't like people putting words in my mouth.

The right to keep and bear arms is not a tradition. It's a right granted by the constitution. - geckosfeet

Please be accurate. It just provides false ammo to antis.
The Bill of Rights provides NO rights. None what so ever. The Bill of Rights PROTECTS existing rights from infringement.
It is not a can do list for citizens.
It is a can't do list for govts. - Statistical

Then you said:
Not exact true
because the original intent (including any limitations) of the protected rights remain in effect, and none of them are absolute. Also, as amendments, they can legally be nullified (God forbid) by another amendment.
And finally, ALL parts of the Constitution remain subject to interpretation by the ever-evolving SCOTUS.

You said "Not exactly true". What was not true about:
It is not a can do list for citizens.
It is a can't do list for govts.

Then you threw a bunch of strawmen in there but what I said was EXACTLY true.

The Bill of Rights GRANTS nothing. It PROTECTS rights. I never said anything about absolutely.

The PROTECTION can be limited but that doesn't limit the citizens.

The ability to have a pool is not in the Constitution but you can have one HOWEVER the govt could ban pools and there would be nothing to stop them. Why? Because the BofR doesn't grant rights it PROTECTS them. Without the PROTECTION of an enumerated pool right (and assumming the govt had the authority under the Constitution) your pool can be banned.


I mean you can win an argument when you make up something for the other side and knock it down. Its called a strawman.


Lets keep it simple like Heller Black and White.

The issue is which of these is correct:

a) The Bill of Rights GRANTS rights
b) The Bill of Right PROTECTS rights

Notice neither a nor b says anything about absolute.

My statement is A is incorrect and B is correct. Anything about lack of absolutes is a strawman beyond the scope of what I said.

So which is correct A or B?

If you think I am wrong find a single legal scholar who supports A, there are thousands who support B. It is the fundamental basis for understanding of the Bill of Rights.

[tortoise1956]

29. Absolutely, statement B

no matter what the politicians (of both major parties) would have you believe.

Thank God Congress can't modify the constitution by itself, otherwise we might have an amendment stating the while everyone is equal, elected officials are more equal than others!

[billh58]

30. I quit

because we are obviously talking around each other, and not communicating. I apologize if you believe that I was attempting to put words in your mouth, as that was not my intent. I was attempting to put the correct words in MY mouth, and I obviously failed with you.

Actually, I agree with almost everything you have said, but I believe that you could have presented your arguments better, and with a more reasoned (less condescending) tone.

Peace...;-)

P.S. No, I do not have any problems following a thread, and haven't since I first started participating in online discussions in 1984 on my first Mac.

[tortoise1956]

22. It hurts to say this, Statistical,

But I disagree with you. Yes, the constitution identifies rights. However, the ability of citizens to exercise those rights can be limited by amendments and judicial decisions. Remember, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of how the constitution and all following laws are interpreted. That is why I cringe every time a decision eats away at the original document.

[iverglas]

44. yeah

Please be accurate. It just provides false ammo to antis.

Advocates of firearms controls come to gun militants for their constitutional law lessons.


:rofl:

[Xenotime]

49. based on how you read it.

People can read anything into it and see what they framers were ACTUALLY thinking.

[rwheeler31]

4. Perhaps they do not want to get shot by their nutso voters.

[virginia mountainman]

7. I am a Liberal

And I Support GUN RIGHTS...

Why is that??

Easy, I support the Bill of Rights, ALL OF THEM...

[billh58]

10. The right to keep and bear

arms, is not an "absolute" right. Even the right-leaning SCOTUS has recognized that there must be reasonable restrictions on where guns can be carried in the public venue. None of the Amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights are "absolute" rights, and all of them have had reasonable restrictions placed upon them. Democratic rights come with inherent responsibilities and obligations.

The frothing-at-the-mouth NRA sheeple attempt to make it sound as if other Americans are their enemies, for wanting reasonable restrictions on civilian gun use. No one wants to "take away" their precious guns, nor to prevent them from protecting their homes and property. On the other hand, walking down a crowded sidewalk, attending a public gathering, or going into a place of business with a pistol strapped on your hip just to prove that you can, is ridiculous, obnoxious, and way beyond "reasonable" to the majority of American citizens.

Gun rights advocates do their cause no good by being obnoxious and confrontational about their supposed "rights" to carry loaded firearms in crowded public venues. And then, there is that pesky "well regulated militia" part of the sentence that has never been defined to everyone's satisfaction. Some evidently believe that the phrase refers to a self-regulated militia such as the Aryan Nation, or the KKK, or Good Ole Boys With Guns, with absolutely no government (our elected representatives) oversight. Hell, even our active standing military and all law enforcement agencies, are subject to government oversight.

The majority of Americans believe that our State National Guard units, and law enforcement agencies represent the only legitimate form of Constitutional "well-regulated militia." It should be noted here that our government-regulated National Guard members are not allowed to willy-nilly "open carry" their weapons when they are not on duty. Most Police Officers ARE allowed to carry weapons while off-duty, as they normally retain their police responsibilities and authority 24/7.

To those millions upon millions of responsible American gun owners and users who do not advocate carrying your weapon at all times, in all places, a heartfelt thank you from those of us whose only wish, is for reasonable compromise and a return to civility by the fringe, my-way-or-the-highway, "open carry" and "private militia" crowds.

[Statistical]

15. "defined to everyones satisfaction" nonsense.

We aren't a country of "rule to everyone's satisfaction". That is an impossibly high standard.

We are a country of rule of law and the body charged with protecting civil rights and interperting the law is the judiciary. The highest level of that is obviously the Supreme Court and it has ruled clearly on the "well regulated militia" portion.

And then, there is that pesky "well regulated militia" part of the sentence that has never been defined to everyone's satisfaction. Some evidently believe that the phrase refers to a self-regulated militia such as the Aryan Nation, or the KKK, or Good Ole Boys With Guns, with absolutely no government (our elected representatives) oversight. Hell, even our active standing military and all law enforcement agencies, are subject to government oversight.

WTF? Please name a single gun rights group that supports the debunked "collective rights arugment". Guns limited to militias is anti argument and a weak one at that. Every gun rights group in the country clearly support the individual right not connected to service in a militia theory as outlined by SCOTUS in DC v. Heller.

The "no oversight is a strawman and a easily knocked down one at that". Even more extreme organizations like SAF don't advocate no oversight. The no oversight meme only exists in antis minds. The NRA for example supported 1986 machinegun ban, supported the NICS instant background check, and supported adding mental health info to NICS.

The majority of Americans believe that our State National Guard units, and law enforcement agencies represent the only legitimate form of Constitutional "well-regulated militia." It should be noted here that our government-regulated National Guard members are not allowed to willy-nilly "open carry" their weapons when they are not on duty. Most Police Officers ARE allowed to carry weapons while off-duty, as they normally retain their police responsibilities and authority 24/7.

A complete fabrication. While it may be true the connection to what matter the 2nd doesn't exist.



A tiny minority of Americans believe the 2nd is limited to those in a militia so it doesn't really matter if Americans think that a militia is people in the National Guard or people on Mars. To the vast majority of Americans the 2nd has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a militia. Even the 20% in this poll didn't indicate they believe that National Guards are the only militia. I am sure some militia nuts are in that 20% and thus believe that the right is limited to militias but that includes them.

[billh58]

19. I did not argue

against ownership, or the right to "keep and bear" arms. I am NOT not against ownership, and neither are most Americans. I am arguing against the nebulous right to openly carry a loaded firearm in a crowded public place. Please read ALL of the DC vs. Heller decision, as this is the part I am refering to:

However, "like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"Sensitive places," remains open for local jurisdictions to determine, as does "imposing conditions and qualifications." As for bigots and racist rednecks forming "well-regulated" militias, common sense should prevail, and local jurisdiction (collective rights?) should ensure that they are "well-regulated" and in compliance with all applicable laws.

[Statistical]

20. Milita is a non issue.

Local govt "regulating" nazi groups has nothing to do with gun control.

The right to keep and bear arms is not connected to service in a milita so the militia existing or not has NOTHING absolutely NOTHING to do with a nazi or racist owning a firearm.

As for "sensitive places" by limiting the language to sensitive places the court provides some guidance. They could have simply said there is no right to carry, or govt can regulate ALL public places but they didn't they kept the potential scope of such regulation relatively narrow.

[billh58]

23. You and I

know that being a part of a bogus "militia" has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, but the rednecks who form these things are always screaming about their God-damned "keep and bear" rights. THEY are the ones who yell the loudest about gun rights. Ordinary, law-abiding, gun owners do not run around in cammis and fire off their semi-autos at make believe government enemies.

[Statistical]

28. They do have a right to keep and bear arms even if they are a redneck or part of a militia.

I haven't seen any of them (then again I don't really look) claiming that their right to keep and bear arms is limited to being in a militia. That would be kinda stupid. So if they leave the militia (even a wingbat neo nazi one) they lose the right to keep and bear arms? None of them had guns before they got their militia card.

I think even intolerant right wingers in a militia would support the individual rights theory.

The ONLY people I have ever seen talking about 2nd = militia are antis and they are doing that as defacto way to repeal RKBA by holding it to an impossible standard.

[beevul]

46. Actually, bill, the meaning of "well regulated" HAS been defined...

By one of the framers, no less:

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

Besides that, it has no relevance anyway.

The second amendment is a restriction on the government, spelling out something that government shall not do, prefaced by a declaratory clause declaring WHY the government shall not do that something:

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added : And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

www.billofrights.org

That game has already been played, and the anti-gunners lost.

[tortoise1956]

11. I think it's more than conservatism...

Those of us who believe in the constitution (all of it) are adamant about protecting the rights identified in that document. It goes beyond conservative or liberal. I will try to explain my feelings:

To me, America is not just a country, or a society. America is an idea, based on the most radical premise of all-people should be free to exercise those rights that exist outside of government. In other words, America is the idea that freedom should be the natural state of the world. Any attempt to curb those freedoms, even in small ways, weakens the rights of all people.

As far as those who try to mischaracterize the founding fathers as conservative, I would say that they were radicals of the most extreme sort for their times. After all, they were trying to bring a country into existence that would be governed by a set of rules that went far beyond any experiment in the past. What is truly amazing is that they were successful.

No, the constitution is not perfect. There were compromises made in order to create the United States. Some of these compromises were morally wrong, and they led to the country almost being torn apart in a bloody civil war. However, if you read the papers and correspondence of that time, you will find that those who compromised did so out a of a fear that if they didn't, the whole experiment would fall apart and ultimately we would fall prey to one or another of the European powers. They accepted teh compromise in order to preserve the idea. Their fondest hope was that one day the country would right the wrongs they created. And guess what-it did happen, over time.

I believe in America. Not the America of the Democratic party, or the Republican party, or the whoever-the-hell party. I believe in the America that is personified by the small child who dreams of being president one day; the teachers who go to work every day because they want to pass on their knowledge to others; the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who goes into harm's way so that the rest of us can live our lives in peace; the ordinary people who give up their spare time to help those who are less fortunate, not for pay, but because it's the right thing to do. That is the America I believe in. That is why I fight for ALL the rights enumerated in the constitution. Not because I love guns, or I am scared of my shadow. My fear is much greater: I am afraid that those who would take our freedoms know just how fragile the American dream really is.

I want my children to have the same chance to succeed, or fail, that I did. Is that too much to ask?

[spin]

24. Most strong conservative gun owners I know are not opposed...

to measures such as the NICS background check. Nor do they agree with gun trafficking or straw purchasers.

Or arresting criminals carrying firearms illegally and imposing long prison terms.

They do get upset at the typical bullshit "feel good" laws many very liberal politicians push. The assault weapons ban is one such example. The only thing it really accomplished was to increase to price of semi-auto rifles that looked similar to true assault rifles used by the military.

They also find the lies and misconceptions pushed by the Brady Campaign and liberal politicians as well as the media, ridiculous and laughable. While exaggerations and falsehoods work well to fire up the anti-gun supporters and liberal voters, firearm knowledgeable people find the statements ridiculous and insulting.

As a Democrat, what pisses me off is that our party loses many voters who would support ideas such as healthcare reform if they had reason to believe our leaders told the truth. Heathcare is a very complicated and complex issue. Few people are really capable of understanding the issues and the solutions. So when a liberal Democrat tries to explain that a public option or single payer system is not terrible and Obama's death panels will not be determining if Grandma should get treatment for cancer, the gun owners merely say "Those Democrats always lie through their teeth. Look at how they lie about guns."

You don't build trust by being deceitful.

edited to fix typo

[billh58]

26. And most

Liberal Democrats that I know would heartily agree with you, and the rest of the responsible gun owners in the US.

I know there are those on the Far-Left who oppose all things military, and all forms of firearms, but they are simply a very loud fringe minority, and if one cares to investigate, are in opposition to the official platform of the Democratic Party. It is a shame that some gun owners choose to identify ALL Democrats with the radical "anti-everything" crowd.

Having said that, I remain in disagreement with "open-carry" advocates who oppose ANY restrictions, and who seem to be out to prove some sort of "in your face" point. Also, I do not believe that the NRA's interference in the controversy is anything but profit motivated, and therefore not wholly unbiased.

Peace...

[spin]

33. I live in Florida...

open carry in urban areas will get you in trouble.

If nothing else, it attracts negative attention.

I don't go around pulling my pants down and mooning people either.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. I believe Bill Bennett was a strong supporter of gun control.

[SteveM]

34. So is the rightist Charles Krauthammer. AG Gonzales favored "no fly, no buy." nt

[thread-bear]

35. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have kept us free

One of the reasons there is a bear in my name here,is that when I joined D.U.,I thought that I could help D.U. most by defending the 2nd amendment. I soon found there were very capable members already doing that. I have seen members here,however,that don't realize how important it is to protect the ideas that has given us our liberties. There may be a few that wish for a disarmed,helpless populace that can be controlled,but I'm sure most of the antis are genuinely concerned about gun violence. In my opinion,they should study history in order to see how violent governments have been when people can't defend themselves. As far as Canada and Australia are concerned,although stable now,I think the fact that the U.S. would reverse any violent change of government in either,makes them a lot more safe.

[benEzra]

39. Gun control in most countries has been a conservative thing

as a way to keep people of the wrong color/class/ethnic origin/political views from being able to own guns. In the UK, the conservatives enacted gun control to disarm lefties (the whole red scare thing); in the Reconstruction/Jim Crow South (and later California), it was people of color, using the Black Panthers as the excuse; in New York, it was the Italians and other non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants who were seen as untrustworthy with guns.

The Religious Right is considerably more friendly toward gun control than the civil libertarian side of the repubs, and there is a lot of tension between those groups already over the RR's support of varying degrees of theocracy on issues such as censorship, sexual freedom, drugs/alcohol, and search-and-seizure issues.

I believe some of the gains Dems have made since 2006 have been due in part to civil libertarian backlash against the more authoritarian aspects of the repub leadership, particularly the Surveillance Nation thing, torture, secret blacklists, and whatnot.

Don't forget it was the repubs who have been trying to revoke the gun rights of people with clean records who are secretly blacklisted, though the usual cadre of DLC hangers-on did jump on the Gonzales bandwagon on that issue.

[iverglas]

43. ya see a lot of incomprehensible screeds in this forum

No, this one probably doesn't take the cake.

If I read the subject line as a rhetorical question, does it make sense?


Look at Australia or the U.K. or Canada... even the conservatives there are often in favor of strict gun control, ever since it was established as the new tradition. There's no libertarian basis to their stance at all.

Hardly surprising, since the capital-C Conservative parties in all three countries have never had any remote connection with libertarianism. In fact, they have strong "communitarian" traditions, although they have generally abandoned those roots in the last couple of decades in favour of neo-liberalism.

Right-wing loonytarians in those countries are usually called what they are: right-wing loonytarians; not "conservatives", which they aren't.

See what sense things make when you get a clue before you open your mouth?

[LAGC]

47. So are you admitting you are a capital-C Conservative?

After all, gun control IS a very "communitarian" concept...

[iverglas]

48. so you are admitting you are a person devoid of a conscience?

After all, you said what you said.



http://www.scooterbbs.com/archive/anything/5004/0.html

Let us consider a few examples of the phenomena I am talking about. This message was in response to my essay on the hate mail I've been getting:

so, let's see. If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending "hate mail"? my god, what hypocracy, what insular thinking (and frnakly, I worry about using that last word)

My problem with a passage like this, I repeat, is not exactly that it is nasty, but that it is nasty in a stereotyped and cultivated way. It is part of a technology of nastiness.

Let's consider how it works. Start with the first sentence. In the jargon, expressions like "let me see if I've got this straight" are used to preface a distorted paraphrase of an opponent's words. This is a matter of routine; it's part of what a linguist would call the "phasal lexicon" of the new jargon. In fact, "so, let's see" does two kinds of work: it prefaces a distortion of what I said, and it pretends that the distortion is what I said. It twists reason, and projects that twisting onto me. I, of course, never said that everyone who disagrees with me is sending hate mail. Never said it, never meant it, never implied it, never presupposed it, never thought it.

And this is not just any distortion. It's a type that is also very common in the new jargon: someone sends me hate mail that expresses disagreement with my views, and so rather than acknowledge the hateful elements of that mail, my correspondent here pretends that I have associated all disagreement with hate. Underneath, in other words, it's a matter of associationism. Associationism deletes all of logical connections among ideas, and instead works to create certain strategically chosen associations among concepts, and to break others. The first step, very often, is to project the very fact of engaging in associationism into one's opponent: by writing about messages of disagreement that were hateful, it is said, "they" are the ones who associated disagreement with hate.

Notice, too, the rhetorical question ("If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending 'hate mail'?"). This is also common. It's a way of making an obviously false assertion -- in this case, the assertion that I have said that everyone who disagrees with me has ispo facto sent hate mail -- without admitting to it. Then the "my god", etc, which assumes an answer to the rhetorical question, as if the rhetorical question's proffered paraphrase were something that I said. Then, of course, the flood of nasty language.

[Matt 6_5]

53. The person (dangergirl5) who actually wrote that silly babble cannot spell 'hypocrisy'

...

[iverglas]

54. wtf?

Is the printed word this much of a mystery to you?

"dangergirl5" is the name of the individual who posted this article on a website.

I had the article itself bookmarked at one time. The site where it appeared, redrock-something, has disappeared.

Right in what you read, it says:

The New Jargon Phil Agre December 2000

The article is called "The New Jargon" and it was written by Phil Agre.

Now, within that article is a passage that Phil Agre, the author, quoted from an email he had received. You can tell this by the way my post is formatted: that passage is twice-indented. It reads like this:

so, let's see. If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending "hate mail"? my god, what hypocracy, what insular thinking (and frnakly, I worry about using that last word)

You see, that wasn't written by Phil Agre, or by the person who posted his article at that website.

It was written by the dishonest piece of right-wing shit who wrote it.

And you're surprised that said dishonest piece of right-wing shit can't spell?

Not something I'd have bothered writing a post about, myself. Half the population of Democratic Underground can't spell hypocrisy, and says things like tow the line and cut and dry, and puts apostrophes in plural nouns. I just cringe inwardly and move on.

But maybe you had a point. Who knows?

[iverglas]

63. well, I hope he got a chance to see where he went wrong

It's like the Black Plague around here, isn't it?

[JonQ]

51. I don't think there are very many people

who outright oppose all forms of gun control, merely some manifestations of them.

Saying they oppose gun control because they oppose some interpretations of gun control makes about as much sense as saying you are opposed to punishing murderers if you are against the death penalty.

[iverglas]

55. oh my

Saying they oppose gun control because they oppose some interpretations of gun control makes about as much sense as saying you are opposed to punishing murderers if you are against the death penalty.

You mean ... it's kinda like saying somebody wants to ban guns when they propose banning the possession of certain semi-automatic firearms?

Yeah ... could be ... I think it is ...

[JonQ]

56. Yep, like that

in your case it's saying you hate guns because you clearly hate guns.

[iverglas]

59. sometimes I wish

that I could put together such bizarrely meaningless collections of words and post them on the internet. Just because it looks like fun.

But I realize I really don't want to be like you, and move on to more important thoughts.

[gorfle]

57. As an ex-Republican, I can tell you exactly why.

Just as I said in another thread today that explained why conservatives are against public health care.

Basically, the left and right wings of our political spectrum can be summed up thusly: The right tends towards individualism, and the left tends towards collectivism.

People on the right tend to believe that we are all first and foremost responsible for ourselves, while people on the left believe that we must collectively be responsible for each other.

Thus when it comes to self-defense, people on the right tend to see their personal safety as a personal responsibility. People on the left see personal safety as something to be put into the hands of the collective.

Likewise, people on the right see government as an instrument of the collective and dangerous to individuality, while people on the left see government as the vehicle by which the collective coordinates the efforts of the collective. This makes people on the right far more likely to be distrustful of their government, and likely to bear arms in the traditional, Constitutional sense of defending against tyranny than people on the left, who tend to be far more trusting of their government, for they see it as representing the will of the collective.

Here, we already hear the rallying cry: "Enforce the gun laws on the books!" Well, what happens when entire classes of guns are banned? "Enforce the gun laws on the books?" They've become what they used to hate -- gun grabbers.

Make no mistake. The reason why you hear this is not because we are happy with the existing restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, but solely to stop even more infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

If you pass a law tomorrow that says that all handguns are illegal, for example, you will not be suddenly hearing America's gun owners clamoring for the existing laws to be enforced.

[iverglas]

60. you probably need a little more distance

People on the right tend to believe that we are all first and foremost responsible for ourselves, while people on the left believe that we must collectively be responsible for each other.

I don't think you've quite got the necessary perspective on the right wing yet.

The right wing firmly believes that what's theirs is theirs and they don't give a crap about anybody else. Nothing to do with "responsibility", and everything to do with pig-ignorant selfishness.


Thus when it comes to self-defense, people on the right tend to see their personal safety as a personal responsibility. People on the left see personal safety as something to be put into the hands of the collective.

And here you still seem to be on the outside looking in at the left.

Do you really believe that anyone, let alone the left, is really that dullwitted?


Likewise, people on the right see government as an instrument of the collective and dangerous to individuality, while people on the left see government as the vehicle by which the collective coordinates the efforts of the collective. This makes people on the right far more likely to be distrustful of their government, and likely to bear arms in the traditional, Constitutional sense of defending against tyranny than people on the left, who tend to be far more trusting of their government, for they see it as representing the will of the collective.

You genuinely believe that, do you? Lordy.

The only "tyranny" the right wing is concerned about is the possibility of somebody getting some of their stuff. The crook on the corner grabbing it, the democratically elected representative taxing it to use for socially beneficial purposes -- all the same to them. Stuff. Mine. You take, I shoot.

Of course, far from ever standing up to any tyranny that crosses their path, they support and facilitate it.


If you pass a law tomorrow that says that all handguns are illegal, for example, you will not be suddenly hearing America's gun owners clamoring for the existing laws to be enforced.

Of course not. You'll be hearing exactly what you've always heard from the right wing:

Fuck you, Jack. I'm all right.

[gorfle]

62. You're right.

I don't think you've quite got the necessary perspective on the right wing yet.

The right wing firmly believes that what's theirs is theirs and they don't give a crap about anybody else. Nothing to do with "responsibility", and everything to do with pig-ignorant selfishness.

OK, I was trying to be charitable.


And here you still seem to be on the outside looking in at the left.

Do you really believe that anyone, let alone the left, is really that dullwitted?

Well, one name does come to mind...

You genuinely believe that, do you? Lordy.

The only "tyranny" the right wing is concerned about is the possibility of somebody getting some of their stuff. The crook on the corner grabbing it, the democratically elected representative taxing it to use for socially beneficial purposes -- all the same to them. Stuff. Mine. You take, I shoot.

Of course, far from ever standing up to any tyranny that crosses their path, they support and facilitate it.

Yup.

Of course not. You'll be hearing exactly what you've always heard from the right wing:

Fuck you, Jack. I'm all right.

You'll be hearing it from the left, too. Some of us, anyways.

[no bad days]

64. So .....................

We should be happy when criminals/politicians take what is ours? .........I am just not that progressive yet.

[iverglas]

65. So .....................

Why are you here, now?


We should be happy when criminals/politicians take what is ours? .........I am just not that progressive yet.

I'm afraid that's failing to compute.

[no bad days]

68. So there

The only "tyranny" the right wing is concerned about is the possibility of somebody getting some of their stuff. The crook on the corner grabbing it, the democratically elected representative taxing it to use for socially beneficial purposes -- all the same to them. Stuff. Mine. You take, I shoot

Your words, I guess I fail to understand how anyone (progressive or conservative) should be ecstatic about being filched.

[iverglas]

69. was that an answer to my question?

I'm thinking not.

[LAGC]

61. I think thats kind of a broad over-generalization.

I subscribe to the two-dimensional political axis, with left and right being one axis, and libertarian-authoritarian being the other.

There are right-authoritarians who believe in collectivism just as there are right-libertarians who do not. But the same can be said of the left. Those who are big on civil liberties (think: the ACLU) are more about individual rights than the collective will, and they certainly don't fall to the right of the political spectrum.

Try this political quiz and see where you lie:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

[yodoobo]

66. Because it is a core liberal value

And because they hate liberals (and America, its a knee jerk reaction to oppose anything we hold deeply.

Its really that simple.

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. No it isn't- learn your history

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x144160











http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County,_USA

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/index.html

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/1999w42/msg00022.htm

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335034

[yodoobo]

71. History is the accurate term

thankfully we have moved on and evolved.

common sense gun control has been part of the platform for sometime now - including John Kerry's platform, not to mention our current President.

That doesn't mean that we don't compromise. Your photo of Kerry with a non automatic shotgun is fine example a weapon suitable for use by civilians in a hunting application.

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. The DLC called from 1994- they said you should stop using their lines.

Their attempt to separate hunters from other gun owners failed as MOST GUN OWNERS DON"T HUNT.

Remember that historical tidbit, kids, as the last time the Democratic Party forgot it- they lost badly.


We are familiar with your particular definition of compromise.

"We'll allow you to retain non-self loading shotguns suitable for hunting, instead of banning all guns..See,
we've compromised!"

Your 'compromise' always turns out to be more restrictions, and "common sense gun control" always means "the kind *I* approve of".


And who might you be to vet what sort of is and is not "suitable for use by civilians"?

Hunting is not the metric, as it is not mentioned in the Constitution

[fedupinhouston]

76. Yes, it sure is.

Except most of us don't hunt.

Incidentally, could you tell me exactly what the anti-gun side of the argument is willing to compromise ON? Remember, compromise means both sides give a little. As the anti-gun side hasn't a leg to stand on, and ANYTHING they get is a gift, what is the compromise again?

[krispos42]

72. Historically, white men have worked to keep themselves armed...

and non-whites disarmed.

And now urbanites, with large non-white populations, want to disarm said white men.



It doesn't help that so much of the gun-control lobbying is done by people that have not been, are not now, and will never be gun owners, who don't know what they're talking about and whose support for gun control comes from some diffuse intellectual desire to "change society for the better".



And it really doesn't help that much of the desire seems to be simply vindictive "that'll show the damn rednecks!" vindictiveness.

[Xela]

73. And oldie but a goodie...

This one has been around for awhile.

Don't Blame Liberals for Gun Control, By: Richard Poe
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22064

Xela

[iverglas]

74. it's frontpagemag.com!

Another of your fine "liberal Democrat" sources, Mr. Xela?

David Horowitz. Yum yum.

Yes, that's where I'll be looking for my news and views.

[kctim]

78. Because its a right, has nothing to do with tradition