A Liberal Democrat speaks out against gun control.

[Mojotronica]

Here's an article by Robert J Cottrol on the issue of gun freedom.
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taeso99b.htm

My take: I believe that liberal-minded people should abandon the gun control cause. This is because it alienates potential allies in the Libertarian party, and is oppositional to other, traditionally liberal stances on drug law reform and civil liberties. Liberals spend energy trying to strike at the root causes of violence (poverty and inequality) and then also spend energy trying to control to symptom of poverty and inequality -- violence. Better to consolidate energy on one of the two, and the obvious choice is to abandon the case for striking at the symptom than the cause...

By embracing gun rights, liberals and Democrats would take that issue away from Conservatives, and align their constituency like a laser on the problem of poverty and inequality. The gun control issue is a red herring that divides the cause against itself.

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Mojotronica
By embracing gun rights, liberals and Democrats would take that issue away from Conservatives, and align their constituency like a laser on the problem of poverty and inequality. The gun control issue is a red herring that divides the cause against itself.

You're damn right they would. GWB is pulling a similar coup right now with the prescription drug plan, which will work wonders in 2004 if the economy is turning around. Nothing stings your opponents more than stealing their issue and then passing their legislation. Or in the case of gun control for the Dems, stealing your opponent's issue and not passing legislation.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

The article does not say why it should be impossible for the individual states to secure their citizens from tyranny by having armed and responsible militias defending state soveriegnty.

This paragraph I find a bit populist.

"Nor should our discussion of freedom and the right to arms be limited to foreign or historical examples. The lives and freedoms of decent, law-abiding citizens throughout our nation, especially in our dangerous inner cities, are constantly threatened by criminal predators. This has devastated minority communities. And yet the effort to limit the right to armed self-defense has been most intense in such communities. Bans on firearms ownership in public housing, the constant effort to ban pistols poor people can afford—scornfully labeled "Saturday Night Specials" and more recently "junk guns"—are denying the means of self-defense to entire communities in a failed attempt to disarm criminal predators. In too many communities, particularly under-protected minority communities, citizens have simply been disarmed and left to the mercy of well-armed criminals."

Calling criminals 'predators' will not make crime go away. Also one reason these 'predators' use firearms might be because the lawabiding citizens are well-armed. Naturally people will want to protect their property, but is some sort of socialized home insurance not a better way of securing one's accumulated material possessions? And where is the police?

 

[gr8ful wes]

I am a dem, and my idea if gun control is hitting what you aim at.

 

[onejayhawk]

I am a card carrying "I dont give a, uh, cent" on this issue. My wife is hardcore gun control, as is my mother. All three of my sons are military. Suffice to say that its a discusion that is best avoided if decorum is to be maintained.

None of whiah really matters, except for one point. More than any issue I am aware of, this one breaks down along sexual lines. If all the women in the US would vote today, most likely guns would be illegal tomorrow, even if it took a 2/3 majority, or 3/4 of the states to do it. Democrats cannot coopt this issue for the simple reason that many of their core woman's rights people would be 100% against it.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
Calling criminals 'predators' will not make crime go away. Also one reason these 'predators' use firearms might be because the lawabiding citizens are well-armed. Naturally people will want to protect their property, but is some sort of socialized home insurance not a better way of securing one's accumulated material possessions? And where is the police?

Do you think criminals will not carry guns if they think that law abiding citizens are unarmed? I think they will still carry guns and become even more predatory.

Socialized home insurance? What chance has that of being enacted in a government that is becoming more medieval in protecting the wealthy class at the expense of the working class? The Democrats zeal to disarm the peasants works nicely with the Republicans dream of eliminating wealth-based taxes (dividends, capital gains, estate taxes) in favor of an exclusively work-based tax system (wages hit with both income & payroll tax, post-tax income hit with consumption taxes). Why would socialized home insurance have a prayer in this environment?

The police? Protecting the manor house while occasionally patrolling the fields.

 

[Greadius]

And here I thought humanity was the root cause of violence.

Your recommendations are all nice & good, but I'd say just keep your mouth shut on the issue. Its too devisive to be politically useful, except in districts with a strong will one way or the other, and then only in primaries.

 

[John-LP]

I`ve said something like this in a similar thread:

The people have the right to own firearms to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. I guess now that the Democrats are`nt that tyrannical government, they realize the importance of possessing firearms.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
More than any issue I am aware of, this one breaks down along sexual lines. If all the women in the US would vote today, most likely guns would be illegal tomorrow, even if it took a 2/3 majority, or 3/4 of the states to do it. Democrats cannot coopt this issue for the simple reason that many of their core woman's rights people would be 100% against it.

The key is, what would these people do? Vote Republican. Of course not! So they would still be solid votes for the Dems.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by John-LP
I guess now that the Democrats are`nt that tyrannical government, they realize the importance of possessing firearms.

When did that do a "tyrannical" government to start with

 

[thestonesfan]

We've seen entire voter bases switch party allegiances in a relatively short amount of time before. This, coupled with general spending issues, could be a big lynchpin.

Now if the dems start advocating cutting taxes, they'd have my vote real quick.

 

[Supernaut]

If a gun owning people are able to resist tyranny, then why did Iraq suffer under Saddam for so long - they had a higher proportion of private gun ownership than the US. As our forces are now finding out as they try to disarm the people, in the name of freedom and democracy!

I think the article linked to is a load of tosh - he mentions the oppression of blacks under Jim Crow, but doesn't explain how that happened when they had the Second Amendment to help them. He also doesn't explain how Bush has got away with so much undermining of civil liberties since 11 Sept 2001 without gun control. There is much more to being an active citizen than simply bearing arms.

 

[Adebisi]

I've always thought that the words "liberal" and "gun control" dont go well together. Liberalism should be about freedom for the individual.

I know it has been twisted to mean something entirely different in America, but still...

 

[Archer 007]

Im a very liberal Democrat, but im against gun control. Because if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Chaos will rein.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Adebisi
I've always thought that the words "liberal" and "gun control" dont go well together. Liberalism should be about freedom for the individual.

I know it has been twisted to mean something entirely different in America, but still...

Not true, what you are talking about is Libertarianism.

The term Liberal is more used to describe people who question traditional values.

 

[Adebisi]

Originally posted by sysyphus
Not true, what you are talking about is Libertarianism.

The term Liberal is more used to describe people who question traditional values.

No, that is, as far as I know, and American misconception. The meaning of the word liberal changed in America sometime in the beginning of the 20th century. Now I have to leave so I can't write more.

 

[Fez_Monk]

Originally posted by Supernaut
I think the article linked to is a load of tosh - he mentions the oppression of blacks under Jim Crow, but doesn't explain how that happened when they had the Second Amendment to help them.

Do you believe the blacks under Jim Crow laws had the same 2nd amendment rights that whites had?

 

[YNCS]

Originally posted by John-LP
The people have the right to own firearms to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. I guess now that the Democrats are`nt that tyrannical government, they realize the importance of possessing firearms.

Please explain how you and your trusty Glock are going to stop an M1A2 tank.

If you're going to tell me about the Minute Men standing up to the British at Lexington, then I point out two facts to you:
1. The British and the Minute Men were armed with similar weapons. The British were going to Lexington to confiscate cannon, which would give the Revolutionaries a definite edge.
2. The British backed down because their commander had definite orders not to provoke a confrontation or, if he met resistance, to leave.

Folks armed with small arms (rifles, pistols, shotguns) are not going to stand up for long against a modern, well equipped, trained army. Consider the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. Several thousand Jews, armed with rifles, pistols and a few (very few) machine guns were able to hold off half as many German Waffen-SS troops equipped with tanks and artillery for three months. Historians writing about the episode are amazed that the Jews were able to hold out for so long. Harold Deutsch believes that the Germans were trying to keep the material damage to Warsaw to a minimum, so they weren't as aggressive as they otherwise might have been.

BTW, before anyone starts flaming me, I will mention that I own several guns (pistols and shotguns) and, when I was in the military, I was a small arms instructor. I have nothing against people being armed. I do, however, think the "we gotta have guns to keep the gummint in line" idea is wishful thinking.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Adebisi
No, that is, as far as I know, and American misconception. The meaning of the word liberal changed in America sometime in the beginning of the nineties. Now I have to leave so I can't write more.

Long before the early 90s in Canada we have had a party called the Liberal Party and a party called the Libertarian Party. The policies of those two parties both fit the descriptions I used above so,

1) These definitions and usages go back long before the early 90s
2) They are not limited to the USA

I would like to hear from people in other English speaking nations on this one.

 

[Neomega]

Originally posted by YNCS

BTW, before anyone starts flaming me, I will mention that I own several guns (pistols and shotguns) and, when I was in the military, I was a small arms instructor. I have nothing against people being armed. I do, however, think the "we gotta have guns to keep the gummint in line" idea is wishful thinking.

The foot soldier is the deadliest weapon of all. An idealist with a gun can be hard to stop, especially on his/her home turf. In fact, a populace armed with small arms can keep a resistance in action much longer than any government would care to fight it.

Also, well trained soldiers still have families, and still have to get out of their vehicles, if not to use the bathroom. If they cannot protect their families, they are impotent. That is why revolution is so much more dangerous to any government than foreign invasion.

If People rose up against the U.S. government, the threat of nuclear annihilation would not sit over the heads of the rebellion, because too many innocents would be lost in the fray. Even air power would be a non-option for urban battles. In the end it would have to be mano et mano.