Liberals Anti-Gun Why?

I wouldn't be hasty in applying the anti-gun label to everyone with liberal views. By Utah standards I would be considered a liberal, even though anywhere else in the U.S. I would be considered right of center (I am an NRA Life Member and possess a CFP - not to mention a mini-arsenal of firearms and ammunition). Even in liberal California, when the opportunity surfaced to ban handguns, a statewide measure to prohibit them failed by a nearly two-to-one margin (Proposition 15). I have several friends and acquaintances that live in California, and would be considered liberal even by California standards, that are adamantly pro-gun and RKBA.

I think when push comes to shove, as demonstrated in California, some liberals are no more interested in being disarmed than the most rabid right-wingers would be. Politics breeds strange bedfellows. Those who have problems with the current administration are not all anti-gun rights. Just as those who agree with the current administration are not all pro-gun rights. I would rather we did not offend liberals who are supporters of the Second Amendment just because we disagree with some of their views.

For the record. I voted for Bush in the previous two elections as I perceived him as being the lesser of two evils. I didn't and still don't agree with all of his policies, but still prefer him to the Democratic alternative. I would that we had a true viable alternative to either party, and I mean one that has a reasonable chance of gaining the presidency (I would not want a repeat of the Ross Perot fiasco that gave us the Clintons) - A party that was truly interested in preserving individual rights, not beholden to special interests, and interested in lessening the burden of government in our lives.

Most folks view politics on a linear scale either left or right. If you look at the end results of both the wacked out right and totally red left end up at the same place. In stead of a left/right line I see the political world as a scale from pure freedom at the top end and totalitarian rule at the bottm. Both far right and deep left seek to reach the slave state, but by different routes which they define themselves. In fact the path is the same but they say it is totally different than the "other side". If you look at the Nazis and Communist, they had a lot of the same goals and ideas to make their society better. One was branded right wing and the other left wing. Remember that those wings belong to the same bird. Nazis had the added condemnation of hating Jews. By the way the Nazis kill 20 million citizens while the USSR killed 60 million. Both are fascist and seek total control of their citizens and are evil in my book.
Oh... that was a little heavy, sorry, I hope I didn't offend anyone.
Scallywag

I think some of this can be chalked up to attitudes about self-reliance. One side is well-known for efforts to expand social programs to provide <whatever> for the citizens, while the other side is well-known for (in theory, at least) advocating for less government in our lives.

If you get used to the idea that someone else is obligated to provide for you, then it isn't much of a stretch to have that include obligations to keep you safe as well. On the other side, if you have a streak in you that makes you want to be self-reliant as far as possible, then being responsible for your front-line safety seems natural.

A couple of examples:

If the garbage men go on strike in NYC, you have an emergency affecting millions within days. If the garbage men go on strike in Utah, people get miffed and then take their junk to the dump.

If the power goes out in NYC, millions are stranded and will quickly exhaust food resources, create health and sanitation issues (no pumps to get water up the high-rise buildings), and looting will start. If the power goes out in Utah, people will get miffed and cook with gas.

People in NYC must depend on government provided resources for a wider variety of day-to-day needs than people in Utah. Now, go look at a map of the red counties versus the blue counties and note how population dense areas tend to vote.

Problem is, when wide-scale emergencies are happening, government resources pull-in and protect things important to the government (see examples such as Katrina aftermath, LA riots, Seattle World Trade riots). If you are way down on that list, don't expect your 9-1-1 call to get a response any time soon. The self-reliant folks will fare better in those situations.

Interesting points Dr. Dave.

I was going to say that I'm socially progressive libertarian who happens to be a gun enthusiast.

I view most things in practical terms. Like welfare for instance, I have to look at it as an investment in keeping my family & property safe. If we were to suddenly eliminate it, don't you think the crime rate would skyrocket? I don't like it, but it's a fact of life that there are always going to be bottom feeders who can't or won't fend for themselves. So I say the State should take care of the problem. Even if it means just throwing money at it. It's an "insurance" policy of sorts against anarchy.

Government services are great for most and there will always be folks who think and expect to do things better for themselves. But c'mon, who is going to build a better interstate freeway? Self-sufficient citizens, or the Government? - again, it's just a matter of practicality.

And practicality tells me, that my best defense against violence, is my firearm.

Those big-city dwellers have very little common-sense practicality. Now, I have no idea how gun-grabbing specimens like Hilary Clinton get produced. I'm more in line with good RKBA democrats like Jim Webb, or Jon Tester.

My "Reader's Digest" version of the self-reliance vs helplessness is "somebody else will save me."

If you don't take any action 'cause you figure its somebody elses job to rescue you, then the somebody else has some form of power over you. It's a matter of degree as to how much of your own self-determination you hand over to someone else (or some goverment agency) -- just turns out that a lot of those who think we "gun nuts" are overly paranoid are also the ones who figure that some person, usually a government employee, will rescue them should the need arise.

I hope I didn't imply that a self-reliant attitude implies becoming a hermit or being anti-social. There are plenty of things that take a collection of people to pull off, like national defense fer' instance. The people I worry about are the ones who have become helpless due to conditioning -- like the ones who sat on their front porch and starved after Katrina because nobody came along to save them. Sometimes you just have to stand up and figure it out for yourself.

Clear as mud? :raisedbrow: