The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 25, 2009, 06:39 PM   #26
Dust Monkey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2007
Posts: 723
Quote:
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
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
__________________
Civilian Date: 14 Century
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law.
If you are not subject to the UCMJ, you are a Civilian. I don't care one bit what updated dictionaries say.

Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; November 25, 2009 at 06:49 PM. Reason: Avoiding conflicts with generalizations
Dust Monkey is offline  
Old November 25, 2009, 06:49 PM   #27
fawcettlee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 11, 2005
Posts: 114
@ MTT TL

I know this is off topic but how did you drop in that animated map??? VERY COOL.
fawcettlee is offline  
Old November 25, 2009, 07:37 PM   #28
raftman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,889
Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
"My momma, she done told me, there's heart and then there's hate
If one of 'em's inside of you, the other one, it aint."
raftman is offline  
Old November 25, 2009, 08:27 PM   #29
SigP6Carry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2009
Posts: 1,086
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.
__________________
-liberal gun nut = exception to the rule-
-1.24274238 miles, because Russians don't need scopes-
-Gun control was the Klan's favorite law, how can you advocate a set of laws designed to allow the denigration of a people?-
SigP6Carry is offline  
Old November 25, 2009, 11:16 PM   #30
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,360
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.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old November 25, 2009, 11:49 PM   #31
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
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 by Uncle Billy; November 26, 2009 at 12:00 AM.
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 12:36 AM   #32
bob.a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 298
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.
bob.a is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 02:23 AM   #33
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,317
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.
raimius is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 08:43 AM   #34
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
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.
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 10:00 AM   #35
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
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.
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."
#18indycolts is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 10:31 AM   #36
Latex Ducky
Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2009
Posts: 74
#18indycolts, what do you label them?
Latex Ducky is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 11:41 AM   #37
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 831
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust Monkey
"Then why do liberals scream that only police and military should have guns?"
...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
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 11:55 AM   #38
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
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:

Quote:
From a liberal perspective, society must give up some 'freedom' to be more secure from risks that result from firearms.
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 11:59 AM   #39
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,360
I Concur!


Quote:
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.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 12:01 PM   #40
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 831
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...
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 01:27 PM   #41
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,000
Wow. There is some "coming out of the closet" in this thread.

One of the things that stands out, as I read through this discussion is the stereotyping, the "Judge me on my stand on the Second Amendment," while painting your ideological opponents with that "broad brush".

Coming here at this point in the discussion is a real education about the "hardened" attitudes we bring with us.

And poor analogies.
Quote:
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?
I am puzzled by this for the simple reason that it isn't difficult at all to realize that someone that hasn't grown up around horses might be afraid of them.

Thinking one level deep ... to the next conclusion, without some logic processing to the end of your argument may do your argument little good.

Here's another befuddlement:
Quote:
Liberalism and Conservatism have to be reconcilable if this nation's manner of governance is to succeed. It's the compromise between differing ideologies that results in policy, that's the way it's supposed to work- the policies are the end-product of our political process, not the beginning of the definition of right or wrong.
One thing this does show is how difficult it is to allow discussions of the Second without an occasional suare` into general politics, of which I am guilty here too. But my befuddlement with this assertion is that I believe that Liberalism and Conservatism do not have to be reconciled. I take that to mean some interbreeding of philosophy to reach a common political point of view. Partisanship is okay. Really. That's why we have elections. Life is a struggle. And we see policy made day-to-day, right now, with little, if any, reconciliation and compromise. Maybe that's isn't how it is supposed to be, but take a look at how it's working.

The "Yeah, I agree with you on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but your kind is just wrong on everything else," is simply not helping any reconciliation on any level. It elicits an antagonistic response and off we go ... start all over: reluctant compromise with some anticipation of getting even next time. It is right here in this thread. In general terms (not political jargon), reconciliation is an attitude change that might also result in some behavior change, compromise is a practical agreement on outcome (Yes, these are my definitions but I looked up both words in Merriam-Webster Online).

"I'm too right to be wrong" is not a philosophy. It is a style. In any endeavor of political alliance, including serving the preservation of the Second, if one side has to stand for a stereotyping rant from the other side that wanders outside the subject of the Second, then there may be no alliance at all. On the other hand, I have no motive to change the way you think, if we support each other in action.

Some things can't be taught, they have to be learned. Think about it. Finger-pointing and sloganology is habitual. And if you can't join in this fight without bringing your political baggage with you, then you are baggage for the rest of us.

One last thing: If a discussion of the Second is merely an opportunity for a political food fight, then it will serve no purpose, so we need to choose our statements and positions carefully from here on. Me included.

[Edit: I see Glenn is pondering the value of this discussion. I think maybe he has a point.]
__________________
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995
Bud Helms is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 03:14 PM   #42
Phoebe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 192
Quote:
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.
In the first paragraph, I totally agree.

You're losing me in the 2nd paragraph.

As you yourself point out, there is an authoritarian/libertarian access for both the right and the left. Those on the authoritarian left, will almost certainly be anti-gun. They are, in general, looking to the state to make good choices for people rather than permitting individual autonomy. Its the so called "nanny state" liberalism.

On the other side, authoritarian conservatives want to legislate morality, generally in accordance with god. In the US, there is also a tendency for conservatives to believe that people need to stand on their own two feet...and that notion would go along with being in favor of 2A.

I can actually build anti and pro gun arguments for both liberals and conservatives.

The DNC and GOP present a more polarized picture. Most of us folks are more nuanced.
Phoebe is offline  
Old November 26, 2009, 11:56 PM   #43
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Phoebe: +1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bud:
I am puzzled by this for the simple reason that it isn't difficult at all to realize that someone that hasn't grown up around horses might be afraid of them.

Thinking one level deep ... to the next conclusion, without some logic processing to the end of your argument may do your argument little good.
I didn't think it necessary to complete the analogy by explaining it: People who are afraid of horses because they have no first-hand experience with them, and people who are afraid of guns because they have no first-hand experience with them, seem to me to similar enough situations to enable the comparison. I thought that would have been clear from the context in which I wrote the analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bud:
..Liberalism and Conservatism do not have to be reconciled. I take that to mean some interbreeding of philosophy to reach a common political point of view. Partisanship is okay. Really. That's why we have elections. Life is a struggle. And we see policy made day-to-day, right now, with little, if any, reconciliation and compromise. Maybe that's isn't how it is supposed to be, but take a look at how it's working.
I meant "reconciled" in the sense that they must find a common ground, a position both can live with on an issue before them so that legislation can be passed. That's how it works under normal circumstances- that is, when one side or the other doesn't have enough votes to pass legislation without some from the other side voting with them, thereby demanding that a compromise be found that enough from both sides will vote for to get it passed. This is the situation the Founders had in mind when they established the rules under which legislation gets enacted. That's not exactly the situation now- the Dems have a majority in both houses of Congress and hold the White House, but that's not permanent by any means, and recent history shows that there isn't consensus among all the Dems in the Senate anyway.

"Interbreeding", to me, infers the creation of a new perspective that's an offspring of the 2 originals, and that's NOT required by our system of government, only that they must agree on a compromise before anything gets passed, under normal circumstances, but they don't have to change their fundamental tenets.

Last edited by Uncle Billy; November 27, 2009 at 08:32 AM. Reason: Clarity:
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old November 27, 2009, 01:50 PM   #44
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,317
Phoebe,

I think too often politics is separated into "right v. left." This is a terrible way to label, given the authoritarian/libertarian split amongst conservatives and liberals.

I can easily understand an authoritarian liberal instituting more gun control. It would fit with their general view of the state's role.

I cannot easily understand a libertarian liberal supporting the same policy...unless one frames the debate in a very strange way.

I think the gun control question is more authoritarian/libertarian than liberal/conservative in nature. Oddly, the DNC took the authoritarian side, and the GOP took the libertarian side. I think this is odd, given the stances on other civil/human rights discussions.
raimius is offline  
Old November 27, 2009, 06:29 PM   #45
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
Well, we have a nice set of reasonable and nuanced discussions to conclude. We are tending to go over the same ground and I think we have answered the OP, who came and went.

Thus, I'll shut us down to end on the high note. Thanks all for the contributions.

Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15396 seconds with 7 queries