Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Excessive Gun Control is Inconsistent with Liberal Values[/B]
Excessive gun control is inconsistent with liberal values. I realize that I'm making a lot of people's eyes bulge out with that statement. Allow me to explain.
Modern liberal values are based on the notion that society has a moral responsibility to it's most vulnerable elements and that government is an appropriate means by which society can meet those moral responsibilities. I suggest that this is the fundamental concept that makes liberalism what it is. Positions, laws and policies which are truly liberal in nature are those which spring forth from this idea.
What makes the invention of firearms so truly unique in mankind's history of weapons use is how very useful they can be to almost anyone. Historically, most other weapons you could think of depend on physical strength and agility. A broad sword is a very effective means by which a fit, healthy young man may kill a lot of people. History is sadly riddled with accounts of this happening. But how useful is that same broad sword in the hands of an 80 year old grandmother in a wheelchair? What good is a mace or a knife to a 98 pound woman when confronted by several able-bodied men away from the eyes of law enforcement?
Before modern firearms were invented, the strong always devoured the weak. In a confrontation, strong younger males had the inherant power to to as they wished to others. Guns changed that. There is a reason why the Colt pistol was called 'the great equalizer.' The 80 year old grandmother in a wheelchair can aim and fire a pistol just as effectively as Rambo. Firearms allow the most vulnerable people in our society to defend themselves in a way that was never possible before. Women can prevent themselves from being raped. Elderly people can defend themselves against intruders. Low income people (usually minorities) who are forced to live in dangerous neighborhoods can have some measure of protection against gangs or desperate junkies.
It is very easy for a white, middle-class person living in a safe neighborhood to say that guns are bad and that nobody should have them. Odds are that he or she does not have to worry about gangs of armed thugs wandering around their home at all hours. Even if you could take away the guns from the gangs
Dont Blame Liberals for Gun Control
by Richard Poe
NEWSMAX.COM - Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.
In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.
Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nations strictest gun controls," ...
Reproduced with the permission of NewsMax.com. All rights reserved.
I dont know any liberals who want to take your gun away. Thats an invented boogey man.
And I, as a blue collar liberal, think that there should be training classes that all would have to pass before being allowed to own a gun. However, after the last eight years, I think that a citizen that has the training should be able to own whatever he please up to twin 50s. Even though I would never own such weopons myself, I would not interfere with the right of other citizens to own them.
I don't really have a strong opinion on the training requirements to buy and own a gun. I think I would leave that up to those authorities and agencies that issue the permits. If one buys a rifle at a Walmart should one have to show proof of training? One can buy a car without having to show having passed a driving course. Proof of having passed gun safety courses is a good requirement I guess, but is it necessary for ownership? I haven't really thought deeply about this.
I beg to differ here. A gun can have another purpose and that is to target shoot. Many people both responsible and irresponsible have owned guns and never killed anybody. A gun can be used to wound/stop people in differnt scenarios good and bad.Yes, one can buy a car without proof of having training, or even a drivers license. And the carnage on our highways is proof of that. A gun is a tool with only one purpose, that is to kill. Handled carelessly, it does just that.
You want to really limit gun ownership problems?
Easy as pie.
Get the insurance companies involved.
What are you talking about, editec?!
Statistically speaking, (I suspect) those who have guns in their homes are more likely to die by the gun that those who do not.
I suspect that insurance actuaries could easily devise rationalizations for why any person who owns a gun would be forced to pay more in homeowners' insurance, medical insurance and life insurance, too.
I'm actually surprised, now that I've just thought of this, that this hasn't already happened, to be honest.
I don't mean that I'm ADVOCATING that this be done, merely that I'm surprised it hasn't ALREADY been done.
maybe insuring a weapon is a bit much, but your post has me laughing and questioning a few things.
thanks
I wasn't talking merely about insuring the weapon.
Im fairly certain you can find (or just make up!) enough statistical evidence to support the claim that the mere possession of a gun increases the statistical probability of somebody getting hurt in your home.
I could easily see the government using that excuse and granting insurance companies the right to rape gun owners in health care insurance premiums, home owner insurance premiums and life insurance premiums, too.
I could EASILY see they going wildly overbaord (as they are now with secon hand smoke) to FOCE guns owners to buy outragely inappropriate GUN OWNERS insurance.
Got kids in the house? Pay even more outrageous rates.
Oh yeah, justify something using insurance and you can change the behaviors of your society a LOT easier than attempting to change the behaviors of that society by passing laws about it.
You could probably force most law abiding citizens to give up their guns just by making the insurance for owning them so high that few people could afford it.
In fact, that is probably how a repressive government will do it when (or if) the government decides they want to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Sure you've got your second amendment rights, but do you have the thousands of dollars A YEAR that the insurance companies will demand for you to own one legally?
See my point?
The wealthy enough will still own guns, but they'd get the guns out of the poorer people who are law abiding.
People have a way of distorting values and issues. Let's clear teh air here. there are many a liberal who is opposed to the progressive arguments and reasoning for many gun control laws.
During the first presidential debate I was hanging out with some political junkies and having a good ole party of it. At least 20 people, guys and gals, doing the byob thing and getting nice and hammered during the debates. Afterward, we found ourselves at the downstairs bar, thoroughly drunk and in a debating mood. We ALL identified as liberals and ALL were gun owners and ALL were of the like mind in support of gun rights. The NRA would have a lot of bipartisan support if only they were not such a GOP puppet. True Story.
You want to really limit gun ownership problems?
Easy as pie.
Get the insurance companies involved.
What are you talking about, editec?!
Statistically speaking, (I suspect) those who have guns in their homes are more likely to die by the gun that those who do not.
I suspect that insurance actuaries could easily devise rationalizations for why any person who owns a gun would be forced to pay more in homeowners' insurance, medical insurance and life insurance, too.
I'm actually surprised, now that I've just thought of this, that this hasn't already happened, to be honest.
I don't mean that I'm ADVOCATING that this be done, merely that I'm surprised it hasn't ALREADY been done.
No doubt. I guess this is one topic where the general term "liberal" doesn't really apply. Problem is, the anti-gun lobby and/or its followers all firmly entrench themselves on the left and support Democrats.
From what I understand, Biden is a real gun control weenie.
I think the NRA does the same as the anti-gunners. The majority of their support comes from the right, and Republican politicians so that is who it supports.
What I find REALLY interesting, is IMO, ideologically, liberalism would support gun rights and conservatism would support gun control. Wonder how THAT happened?
