Question about guns

[GhostWriter16]

OK, so I know generally the "Left" in America is against guns, or at least, is not in favor of the more "Hands-off" policies of the right and instead prefers a policy of gun control. Now, I'm not saying "All of the left" or "Gun-grabbers" but as a general trend, the left would prefer to leave higher-caliber or automatic weapons out of public hands while the "Right" does not.

So, for those on the left:

1. What is your personal view on what guns should or should not be allowed? (I get this is problably nuanced based on location, NYC isn't the same as Texas.)

2. Do you feel that your stance is currently constitutional, or do you disagree with what the constitution currently says?

3. How do you justify gun control with things like "Innocent until proven guilty" and the general right to self-defense? Or do you disagree with those things? If you don't believe on enforcing personal morality on others, how does disarming civilians fit with "Live and let live" principles? Alcohol can sometimes cause societal harm yet (most of) you don't want to ban it?

This could be another "Gun rights" thread but the main focus is to get liberals to explain why they hold the opinions on guns that they do. I would tend to think "Small government" liberalism, even if supporting economic regulations and whatnot, would actually get along well with the 2nd amendment, but this isn't the case in US politics...

And note, I'm not saying all left-wingers agree with gun control, they don't. Some Democrats are gun owners. But it is usually the American left that wants more gun regulation than the right.

Fire away (Pun totally intended)

 

[Ironsided]

I like blue flowers...

 

[Borachio]

I like gun-shaped flowers.

 

[Leonel]

I like flowers that taste like chai tea,

 

[JollyRoger]

I am a liberal and cannot for the life of me understand why conservatives are bigger gun grabbers than I am.

 

[Ironsided]

Pink, I like pink petals. Softly, gently, dropping.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I think we should leave counties to decide gun control. It would actually prevent a lot of murders in cities by giving people time to reconsider, while letting those for gun control (read: Republicans in rural areas) have what they want for hunting.

Or outlaw guns and legalize tasers. They're non-lethal and affective against home invaders.

Also, I like trains.

 

[Masada]

I love guns.

Death to the white masters!

 

[JollyRoger]

Conservative gun control theory would keep much of the inner city not able to be legally armed as you would not be able to possess a gun if you have someone that has been convicted of a crime living with you or visiting you.

 

[Ironsided]

White as snow, snuff em, twice...

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

1.) Handguns and hunting rifles/shotguns.

2.) A constitution should keep up with the times.

3.) Why do you automatically assume gun control means banning guns as opposed to regulating them?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Conservative gun control theory would keep much of the inner city not able to be legally armed as you would not be able to possess a gun if you have someone that has been convicted of a crime living with you or visiting you.

I disagree with that aspect. If you've committed a crime yourself you can lose rights the same way you can get locked up.

1.) Handguns and hunting rifles/shotguns.

2.) A constitution should keep up with the times.

3.) Why do you automatically assume gun control means banning guns as opposed to regulating them?

I don't. But it certainly means banning certain guns, as you've shown. Most Republicans support access to assault weapons. You don't, and you're on the left (I'm not attacking you here, I'm pointing out the trend.)

Personally, the assault weapon bans make no sense to me. All of the recent shootings do not show a necessity for it, those were done with pistols, and could have been prevented if the victims were also armed. So the lliberal argument of "Shootings, it means we need more gun control" (My brother tried to argue this one with me last night) I find to be ridiculous. Then again, I'm just a very fierce defender of my freedom, and I don't see how banning a hunk of metal can fit with a free-philosophy. Guns don't kill anyone. People kill people.

Then again, I do sort of get the pragmatic argument, I just draw the line in a more libetarian manner than you do. We all agree on not letting private citizens own tanks, nuclear missiles, or drones. But those don't really fall under "Arms" at all. Even if they didn't exist "Back when", Assault Rifles would fall under the general definition of "Arms."

 

[JollyRoger]

I disagree with that aspect. If you've committed a crime yourself you can lose rights the same way you can get locked up.

As I was saying. That policy means that the released criminal's household wil have to share this stripping of a rightprivilege or the criminal will be in violation of the law.

And it seems that the right to bears arms is specially single dout by conservative policy. No conservative I know would suggest that a released criminal have his 3rd Amendment rights violated.

What I want an explanation of is why should the privilege be stripped post-release? You can't really answer that without spouting off the gun grabbing logic that most conservatives claim to abhor.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Personally, the assault weapon bans make no sense to me. All of the recent shootings do not show a necessity for it, those were done with pistols,

You know, I have to wonder about your worldview in that assault rifles are needed for self-defence.

and could have been prevented if the victims were also armed.

And I wager that you think criminals think about their crimes in a logical, rational manner. And possibly that the average person can deliver a pinpoint-accurate double-tap to any assailant within 10m even with other people in the way. Or even better, shoot their weapons out of their hands.

 

[JollyRoger]

In the Colorado shooting, the victims had the legal right to be armed. I'm also shocked that GW has such a narrow definition of arms. Statist by definition.

 

[GhostWriter16]

As I was saying. That policy means that the released criminal's household wil have to share this stripping of a rightprivilege or the criminal will be in violation of the law.

And it seems that the right to bears arms is specially single dout by conservative policy. No conservative I know would suggest that a released criminal have his 3rd Amendment rights violated.

What I want an explanation of is why should the privilege be stripped post-release? You can't really answer that without spouting off the gun grabbing logic that most conservatives claim to abhor.

Well, we deprive criminals of the right to liberty all the time. There's no good reason to apply that to the 3rd.

I'd be willing to entertain a discussion regarding ex-felons and firearms but liberals are much more restictive than conservatives on this issue, overall.

You know, I have to wonder about your worldview in that assault rifles are needed for self-defence.

Wonder all you like. I reject the idea of using force to disarm innocent people. A government that can do that can do anything it wants against a docile populace.

And I wager that you think criminals think about their crimes in a logical, rational manner. And possibly that the average person can deliver a pinpoint-accurate double-tap to any assailant within 10m even with other people in the way. Or even better, shoot their weapons out of their hands.

If everyone were armed, most wannabe killers wouldn't even clog up the court system. There would be a lot fewer victims, and when there were murderers, nine times out of ten they'd be dead before the courts could even pronounce a death sentence on them.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Wonder all you like. I reject the idea of using force to disarm innocent people. A government that can do that can do anything it wants against a docile populace.

Great! When can I get my own M1A2 Abrams?

If everyone were armed, most wannabe killers wouldn't even clog up the court system. There would be a lot fewer victims, and when there were murderers, nine times out of ten they'd be dead before the courts could even pronounce a death sentence on them.

You really didn't address my concerns there. You're just telling me again what you think the world is like.

 

[sophie]

If everyone were armed, most wannabe killers wouldn't even clog up the court system. There would be a lot fewer victims, and when there were murderers, nine times out of ten they'd be dead before the courts could even pronounce a death sentence on them.

Are you arguing for the public to have the right to shoot criminals on sight and thereby the possible harming/killing of innocent bystanders and blatant obstruction of justice?

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, we deprive criminals of the right to liberty all the time. There's no good reason to apply that to the 3rd.

There's no good reason to apply it to the 2nd either.

 

[Masada]

There's no good reason to apply it to the 2nd either.

It's all about the white man's rights.