One thing I don't get about liberals and gun control.

[Sean Reynolds]

Why is it liberal to be in support of gun control? Doesn't liberalism have its roots in personal freedom? If anything it'd be liberal to OPPOSE gun control.

[SteppingRazor]

1. modern liberalism is not classical liberalism...

But as far as the latter goes, you're right. It's pretty close to libertarianism, and should not be pro-gun control.

As for modern liberals being anti-gun, me and my four handguns disagree with you. ;)

[stevans_41902]

3. i think liberals are not as anti-gun as the NRA & Repubs paint them

out to be. Whenever a liberal wants background checks, child locks, and wants to ban machine guns the rightwing starts a smear campaign and making people believe that if you elect this dem that they will make all guns illegal. Giving guns to criminals is taking away the personal freedoms of those who die becuase some RW idiot believes that to give them a background check would be to take away their "personal freedom" to own a gun.

[formerrepuke]

7. I have an ultra-liberal co-worker who voted for * because he truly

believes the liberals/Democrats will take away his guns -and he's got lots of 'em. I've made it known that nobody cares about his guns- not even the Democrats.

[SteppingRazor]

11. Exactly.

Liberals get smeared as anti-gun simple because they want sensible gun ownership. No one is taking away my right to own a machine that makes loud noises and puts holes in stuff.

[Vinca]

13. You're exactly right.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership . . . in fact, I still have my .357 S&W from when I was in law enforcement . . . but there's no need for anyone to possess a weapon that can bring down a jet or bullets that go through Kevlar. There's nothing wrong with background checks, child locks, etc., and anyone with an iota of common sense would agree.

[MadHound]

2. It isn't a liberal or conservative thing, it is a common sense thing

The majority of Americans, including NRA members, support sensible gun control, background checks, waiting periods, etc.

Why should this country cave in to the tyranny of the minority?

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Or the tyranny of the nutty. Or the tyranny of the tyrannical!

[AllieB]

10. My husband owns guns and he would be in complete agreement

there needs to be sensible gun control, including background checks. I have issues though with the availability of assault weapons, and other weapons that can take a plane out of the sky or take down a building. While owning a handgun for self-defense, or rifles for hunting should ALWAYS be legal, why should weapons that the military uses, which could also be used by terrorists, be legal for everyone?

Allie

[formerrepuke]

4. A bumper sticker in my neighborhood: "You can't be pro-abortion and

support gun control at the same time". I don't get that one. As for your hypothetical question: I think it boils down to the NRA's symbiotic relationship with the Republican party, and their idiotic opposition to even small measures, such as assault weapons (not necessary for self-protection, unless you're being menaced by an army of the un-dead) or gun locks. By the same measure, hypothetically, why is it that "pro-life" conservatives are almost always pro-death penalty?

[stevans_41902]

9. I had an repub explain that one to me - in their eyes, its unfair to kill

an innocent life, but the people who get the death penalty did something to deserve it like killing someone else, and they deserve to die. Of course they dont consider the circumstances that led them to kill in the first place...

[billbuckhead]

6. One is not personally free when surrounded by guns*

Every progressive nation in the world has strong gun regulations and enforcement. Gun regulation almost defines civilization at this point. if guns made people free, then Afghanistan would be the freest place in the world and Japan, Ireland, Spain, New Zealand, Australia, etc would be a gulags.


* Switzerland has strict gun laws and all those assault rifles are part an actual well regualted miltia. I would happily accept the Swiss gun regulation system.

Also, at this point, "gun rights"=reactionary views on race, sexuality and other issues. The gun rights crowd has laid down with far to many flea laden dogs.

[Q]

14. The Right also spreads propaganda...

...saying that those who believe in a separation of church and state want to take away your bibles. Does anyone really believe this stuff?

In the same sense...gun control/regulation doesn't have anything to do with banning guns. It's propaganda spread by those who don't want ANY regulation of guns. They use the same kind of hyperbole and fear tactics as the 'religious' Right to avoid any meaningful debate.

[welshTerrier2]

8. liberals and libertarians

it's an important distinction ...

i see libertarians as taking the position you are taking on this issue ... the less government "interference" we have with individual liberties the better ...

this is not necessarily the case with "liberals" however ... liberals have no objection to using government for what they perceive to be societal benefit ... you might think of it as a "greatest good for the greatest number" perspective ...

and on the gun issue, many liberals would strongly disagree with your statement about "personal freedom" ... viewing the issue through that lens explains why you "don't get" the liberal view ... liberals would see the damage that guns do to "the society" as trumping your individual right to own a gun ... and they would see the loss of "personal freedoms" by those who have been killed, wounded or threatened by gun violence, or those who live in fear of it on a daily basis, as a more important "personal freedom" to protect than your "personal freedom" to own a gun ...

at least that is what i think some of the distinctions would be ...

and one more point just to raise the issue of the limits of "personal freedom" ... first, should there be any limits on personal freedom at all? for example, if you drive your car at any speed you choose, say 150mph, do you create a risk to other drivers? is this OK or should the society impose its will on your personal freedoms by setting speed limits? the answer to your question lies in how each of us balances personal freedoms with the best interests of society ... not everyone sees these issues in the same way ...

[etherealtruth]

15. Yeah, what Welshterrier2 said ...

... you expressed most of what I was thinking. Thank you, your post was very clear and the points were made concisely.

[eallen]

16. That kind of liberalism worries me a bit.

What if government sees a societal benefit in mandating exercise? In outlawing adultery? In banning pornography?

I hope most liberals give strong consideration to the notion that there is a realm of the personal, where liberty should trump social good, or at least, where the practice of social good has a high barrier to cross before it impinges on personal freedom. That is part of the argument the Supreme Court made in cases such as Griswold.

Being a civil libertarian, as I am, does not make me a whole-hog libertarian. I don't have quite the faith they do in free market fundamentalism. And the further we get from personal freedom, the more willing I am to see the hand of the state directing matters.

At the same time, I am a civil libertarian, first and foremost in my political thinking. When a liberalism in some modern sense goes against that, or even gives it second seat, it makes me an unhappy camper.

:hippie:

[vicman]

12. I don't mind people owning guns

and my politics have been described as "slightly to the left of Mao." :7

And I don't own any myself, nor do I wish to.

I told a real gun-nut friend some time ago:

"It's not the Democrats or the liberals that are going to take your guns away. It's assholes who own guns who are going to do that. One day, a threshold will be crossed when ordinary folks get fed up with one too many gun deaths among family members, one too many children and babies getting blown away by siblings who found daddy's or mommy's gun (or SWAT teams blowing baby's brains out in order to save it?), or one too many friends dying over a drunken argument, or one too many drivers gunned down in cold blood over stupidity on a minor scale. I don't know personally what that threshold will be. A hundred babies? A thousand babies in one year? A million? Don't know, but do know it's coming. Gun deaths are on the rise. And the "bad guys" seldom get shot by decent citizens."


Own guns. Don't use guns to settle your argumemnts.

If you do own guns you have a greater burden to behave responsibly than people who don't own them and therefore will not use them to settle their arguments. Start acting like it.

[thiscrowlives]

17. You're right ....

"If you do own guns you have a greater burden to behave responsibly than people who don't own them" .... absolutely right. Well said.

Unfortunately ..... as far as I've seen ....... there is no real logical answer to the dilemma posed by criminals obtaining and using guns. It's usual phrasing goes something like "When you make it criminal to own a gun, then only the criminals will own guns", or something like that.

To me, at least, there seems to be some irrefutable kernel of truth in that proposition. Even in countries with the most strict gun control laws, what are the rates of violent crimes committed with guns compared against the rates in countries with looser gun control? Are there any real statistically significant differences? Said another way, do gun control laws really work to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals ..... those who the laws are intended to apply most to?

[vicman]

18. A friend's father said to me years ago

(and he worked for the state Highway Patrol), "locks only keep honest people out of your house."

The meaning was pretty clear. People who seriously intend on doing you harm will always find a way.

Statistics seem to indicate that countries with restrictive gun ownership laws have lower rates of gun related deaths in general. Often quite dramtaically so (regardless of what you think of him, reference Michael Moore's use of statistics in "Bowling For Columbine.") In Canada, almost everyone owns guns. Just ask them. But they are tracked closely, and a stolen hun can be traced back to its last legitimate owner pretty easily. People look after their guns in Canada. In the U.S.A. even the gun manufacturers don't keep track of the guns that leave their factories, much less the people who buy them.

Just thoughts to carry the discussion forward....

[thiscrowlives]

23. I think you make a good point .....

... when you stated "Statistics seem to indicate that countries with restrictive gun ownership laws have lower rates of gun related deaths in general." It would seem to make sense that gun-related deaths may be reduced .... as in accidental deaths by kids playing with guns, etc. ..... but does anyone know of any reliable information on the rates of actual gun-related violent crimes? Does Moore's stuff have that data in it? If so, then I guess I might be willing to suffer through his whiny screed ....... LOL.

[zalinda]

19. I don't care if people have guns

but, they should be licensed just as a drivers license. How many people buy guns and don't know how to use them, or clean them? How many people get killed because of mishandling? Oh, I just meant to scare him, not kill him........it just went off.

And, I'm sorry, but I don't think people should have military weapons, you know the kind, the ones that can go through body armour or bring down planes. I know that automatic weapons can be fun, but maybe if we only allowed them at rifle ranges, just like only race cars on race tracks.

Just a thought.

zalinda

[Doo_Revolution]

20. I've got three beebee guns.....

...And carrying firearms in most states is a legal right. I like the Paul Hackett type of democrat!!! He is my kind of guy. Nothing against those who oppose guns though.

[OneTwentyoNine]

21. Hell,there's "controls" for driving an car,shouldn't be any on guns??

No one is denying ANYONE of their precious bang-bangs. Of course thats the beautiful wedge chestnut that Repukes LOVE to drag out along with abortion EVERY fucking election cycle.

You want a damn gun,fine but there will be SOME rules and regulations to go along with it.

[iconoclastNYC]

22. What is gun control?

Why is that your drill or chainsaw has more safety measures than a gun? It's because the GOP passed a law that prevents the consumer product saftey commision from mandating safety features in fire arms.

If the commision did make sure that a gun indicate if there was a bullet int he barrel (many don't), or clearly label if a safety is on or off (some don't)...would that be government taking away your guns (The NRA says it's the "first step"), or is it responsible regulation of a dangerous product?

It all comes back to framing. The GOP has known and abused the power of language forever and we're just getting around to learning about it.

Not gun control. Gun regulation. The right to control a gun is protected by the constitution. It does not say that the governemtn does not have the responsibility to ensure that guns are safe products.

[wli]

24. I'm not very concerned with gun control.

I'm a lot more concerned about prison fiascoes, justice system corruption (plea bargains, selective enforcement), psychiatric incarceration, and so on. Basically the bits where the state whisks people away and locks them up in cages.

Bushler has got me concerned about a vast array of things I don't usually concern myself with.

[applegrove]

25. 50% of illegal guns in Canada come from the USA. They can

buy a gun in a parking lot or at a gun show for $200 & then sell it in Toronto for $2000. They kill people.

Why not just look at everyone's ID? Have reasonable controls over how they are sold & stored?

Any crack addict can break into a house and steal a gun.

Why pretend this is not going on.

Why can't gun people look to the future?