Why is gun control an issue for socially liberal people ?

[deftron]

For the most part i see my self as socially liberal

Having an open mind and recognizing that what works for one person might
not work for another, and thus every American needs to be free to make
choices about their personal behavior.


People should be allowed to be gay, straight, transvestites, bigots, racists, players, haters, whatever.
People should be allowed to make their own reproductive decisions
People should be able to express their own religions, speech, beliefs, etc..
People should be able to use substances they want to (drugs, cigarettes, junk food, etc)

Basically, unless it directly physically harms someone or overtly disrupts their personal space, property, etc.. you should be able to do it

People shouldn't be able to randomly beat up or kill people
People shouldn't be able to invade your private area without your permission
You can't molest a kid, or burn a cross on someone's front lawn, or steal someone's shit without repercussion.


I never understood why gun control is rallied around by progressive democrats.



I am by no means pro-gun, personally.. I don't own one
But I realize some people are.. and that's cool with me.
As long as you don't kill somebody with it .. it's your thing and not really my business.
And if you do, unjustly, shoot somebody .. then that's all on you, not the gun

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

I agree. You would think pro-gun people would be on the left, not the right.

It's because liberal no longer means liberal, just as conservative no longer means right.

It's the same with Political Correctness. That shit should really be coming from the right, because they like to control what people do.

The left should be the ones saying, "No, PC is bullshit. You're free to say what you want etc."

 

[deftron]

Considering it's one of the major issues that divide right / left

and that it really doesn't relate to any of their other issues..

I really don't see why the left doesn't just drop it.


If anything I would think the right with their "tough on crime" or "anti terrorist" perception would be more likely to be anti gun.. I know one the originators of the gun ban movement was James Brady, part of the Reagan administration.



The war on guns is like the war on drugs, neither works.
You make either illegal, and only criminals have them.

 

[sandorski]

Guns have no part in a Modern Society.

 

[Double Trouble]

The reality is that "progressive democrats" are just liberals out to control your life just like the right-wingers are out to control your life, they just each want to control different aspects. Your views sound more like a libertarian to me -- ie, keep the damn government out of my life as much as possible.

 

[Craig234]

What we have are liberals who like gun control for the same reason they like seat belts and drunk driving laws, because they are opposed to tragedies.

They see the easy availability of guns make it easy for criminals, drug addicts who need to rob for fix money, gang bangers, young people, to get handguns - and use them.

It's perfectly consistent with their ideology; the 'fringe' who argue the 'freedom' angle for not wearing seat belts is right-wing, not left-wing.

Why is that when liberals are a lot about personal freedom? Because there's a rational view that weighs the pros and cons and say some 'freedoms' are more harm than good.

I think part of the issue is the huge difference between the environments of typical liberals - big cities - and the environment of a lot of Republicans - small towns and rural.

Guns mean very different things between the two, and many people in one environment have little concern about the other.

This is not addressing the gun supporters' argument about how everyone carrying a gun makes things safer, that's a separate topic.

You end up with a rural citizen who is deep in safe gun culture boggling at gun control, while the city dweller sees another drive-by kill people for no good reason.

 

[frostedflakes]

Because they believe that stricter gun laws have a significant effect on violent crimes. Unfortunately, all stricter gun laws do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms -- criminals have no problem obtaining them illegally. The only thing that would stop criminals from getting guns is a total ban on guns, i.e. the further sale of all firearms to all civilians being stopped, and all current firearms confiscated, but this won't (and shouldn't, IMO) happen. And even then, it'd probably just be like over in the UK, people would stab each other instead of shooting.

We need to go after the root cause of the problem instead of banning the tools. Reduce poverty and increase affluence in poor neighborhoods and gang-related violence would drop.

 

[Red Dawn]

I want to be able to own a gun to protect myself from all the morons owning guns.

 

[Excelsior]

I am socially liberal and it isn't an issue for me.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I am socially liberal and it isn't an issue for me.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Personally I think it's too late to change the gun laws in the states. There are just too many guns out there, so if make them illegal the only people who will have guns are the criminals.

But this isn't true everywhere.

In Australia guns are pretty much illegal, but the criminals don't have guns.

Sure, there area few crims with guns, but gun crimes are extreemly rare.

Gun ownership was never big here, except on farms, so there were never many handguns. So now that they are illegal it's very hard to get hold of a handgun.

It's too hard to smuggle them into the country. (Surrounded by water. yay)

Plus, if you're going to bother smuggling shit you're better of bringing in drugs. Less risk and bigger profit.

Just a thinking point for all you "If you outlaw them only the criminals would have them" people.

EDIT - I've never seen a real gun, except attached to a cop, let aloan held one. Probably seems strange to yanks.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What we have are liberals who like gun control for the same reason they like seat belts and drunk driving laws, because they are opposed to tragedies.

Like the tragedy of people being personally responsible and not being utterly dependent on the government to supply every need.

Originally posted by: Craig234
They see the easy availability of guns make it easy for criminals, drug addicts who need to rob for fix money, gang bangers, young people, to get handguns - and use them.

Yup, it's so easy for criminals to just walk into stores and get guns that 93% of criminals obtain their guns illegally rather than "easily" walking into a store and buying them.

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's perfectly consistent with their ideology; the 'fringe' who argue the 'freedom' angle for not wearing seat belts is right-wing, not left-wing.

Yup, perfectly consistent with the ideology that prefers to restrict the rights of non-criminals while doing absolutely nothing to address the core issue.

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why is that when liberals are a lot about personal freedom? Because there's a rational view that weighs the pros and cons and say some 'freedoms' are more harm than good.

Translation: "We know what's best for you, so just shut up and do what Big Brother tells you."

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think part of the issue is the huge difference between the environments of typical liberals - big cities - and the environment of a lot of Republicans - small towns and rural.

Guns mean very different things between the two, and many people in one environment have little concern about the other.

Guns are perceived very differently between the two. That may have something to do with the fact that rural folks tend to have actually used firearms and know how to handle them while city folk have not and are therefore irrationally frightened of firearms.

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is not addressing the gun supporters' argument about how everyone carrying a gun makes things safer, that's a separate topic.

There's certainly no statistical evidence to claim that it makes things more dangerous, so the point is moot even if one attempts to argue that the drops in crime are coincidental.

Originally posted by: Craig234
You end up with a rural citizen who is deep in safe gun culture boggling at gun control, while the city dweller sees another drive-by kill people for no good reason.

So, the gun causes people to commit drive-bys, but only if those people are in the city?

ZV

 

[GTKeeper]

I would consider myself socially liberal.

I actually support the 2nd amendment but I think the main struggle/issue right now with guns is that people like myself would like more thorough background checks on law abiding citizens to make sure they are mentally stable before giving them the right to own a gun.

I think the far right sees any step toward eliminating loonies from getting guns as a step toward total confiscation, which I am totally against. People should be able to own guns, but the key word here is people, not loonies. I think the laws in that regard are too lax / non-existent.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns have no part in a Modern Society.

Effing hilarious.

 

[lupi]

There a faction of the leftist loons that want to dramatically change what america is; individual gun ownership is a very defining a unique part of americana. If they can get that changed, what else could possibly get in there way.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Because they believe that stricter gun laws have a significant effect on violent crimes. Unfortunately, all stricter gun laws do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms -- criminals have no problem obtaining them illegally. The only thing that would stop criminals from getting guns is a total ban on guns, i.e. the further sale of all firearms to all civilians being stopped, and all current firearms confiscated, but this won't (and shouldn't, IMO) happen. And even then, it'd probably just be like over in the UK, people would stab each other instead of shooting.

We need to go after the root cause of the problem instead of banning the tools. Reduce poverty and increase affluence in poor neighborhoods and gang-related violence would drop.

Even then a total ban would do nothing. Rotting former Soviet republics, despot regimes in African and Asia, and SA all have excess arms to sell on the black market. When a street gang member has a fully auto AK-47. I highly doubt that was purchased anywhere within the United States legally. Instead it came in on a cargo container from some 3rd world dump.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I would consider myself socially liberal.

I actually support the 2nd amendment but I think the main struggle/issue right now with guns is that people like myself would like more thorough background checks on law abiding citizens to make sure they are mentally stable before giving them the right to own a gun.

I think the far right sees any step toward eliminating loonies from getting guns as a step toward total confiscation, which I am totally against. People should be able to own guns, but the key word here is people, not loonies. I think the laws in that regard are too lax / non-existent.

Current laws already require this. Note bolding below.

The federally prohibitive criteria outlining the reasons an individual may be precluded from the transfer/possession of a firearm or firearm-related permit, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C., §§ 922 (g) and (n), are as follows:

? A person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, whether or not sentence is imposed. This includes misdemeanor offenses with a potential term of imprisonment in excess of two years, whether or not sentence was imposed.

? Persons who are fugitives of justice; for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.

? An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year, or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year, or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.

? A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges pertaining to found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

? An alien illegally/unlawfully in the United States or a non-immigrant who does not qualify for the exceptions under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(y); for example, not have possession of a valid hunting license.

? A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.

? A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.

? The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.

? A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.

? A person under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

All of these are covered by the federally-required NICS check that occurs with every single firearms purchase. States are required to turn over mental health information to the NICS system, but are not always in compliance. It is important to note that when they are not in compliance, they are violating existing law. There is no need to add additional laws on top of this since current regulations cover it.

ZV

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I would consider myself socially liberal.

I actually support the 2nd amendment but I think the main struggle/issue right now with guns is that people like myself would like more thorough background checks on law abiding citizens to make sure they are mentally stable before giving them the right to own a gun.

I think the far right sees any step toward eliminating loonies from getting guns as a step toward total confiscation, which I am totally against. People should be able to own guns, but the key word here is people, not loonies. I think the laws in that regard are too lax / non-existent.

Current laws already require this. Note bolding below.

The federally prohibitive criteria outlining the reasons an individual may be precluded from the transfer/possession of a firearm or firearm-related permit, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C., §§ 922 (g) and (n), are as follows:

? A person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, whether or not sentence is imposed. This includes misdemeanor offenses with a potential term of imprisonment in excess of two years, whether or not sentence was imposed.

? Persons who are fugitives of justice; for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.

? An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year, or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year, or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.

? A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges pertaining to found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

? An alien illegally/unlawfully in the United States or a non-immigrant who does not qualify for the exceptions under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(y); for example, not have possession of a valid hunting license.

? A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.

? A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.

? The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.

? A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.

? A person under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

All of these are covered by the federally-required NICS check that occurs with every single firearms purchase. States are required to turn over mental health information to the NICS system, but are not always in compliance. It is important to note that when they are not in compliance, they are violating existing law. There is no need to add additional laws on top of this since current regulations cover it.

ZV

I think its too narrow of a definition. The VA Tech shooter who was mentally ill got a gun, no problem because he was never declared mentally insane. I think the definition of mental capacity needs to be broadened.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think its too narrow of a definition. The VA Tech shooter who was mentally ill got a gun, no problem because he was never declared mentally insane. I think the definition of mental capacity needs to be broadened.

Incorrect. Per the law, the VA Tech shooter was prohibited from buying a firearm. The problem was that VA did not submit their court records to the NICS database in a timely manner which resulted in a false approval from that database.

The fault there lies not in the current law (which did forbid Cho from buying a firearm), but rather with lax recordkeeping by VA and a failure to submit the records to the proper authorities.

ZV

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think its too narrow of a definition. The VA Tech shooter who was mentally ill got a gun, no problem because he was never declared mentally insane. I think the definition of mental capacity needs to be broadened.

Incorrect. Per the law, the VA Tech shooter was prohibited from buying a firearm. The problem was that VA did not submit their court records to the NICS database in a timely manner which resulted in a false approval from that database.

The fault there lies not in the current law (which did forbid Cho from buying a firearm), but rather with lax recordkeeping by VA and a failure to submit the records to the proper authorities.

ZV

Excellent point! I was hoping you would bring this up. Tell me then why the NRA vehemently opposed laws that would allow VA to have a better record keeping/submission process.

Any step toward less gun sales they see as a threat.

 

[DarrelSPowers]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and that's the problem. stupid people.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: deftron

For the most part i see my self as socially liberal

Having an open mind and recognizing that what works for one person might
not work for another, and thus every American needs to be free to make
choices about their personal behavior.


People should be allowed to be gay, straight, transvestites, bigots, racists, players, haters, whatever.
People should be allowed to make their own reproductive decisions
People should be able to express their own religions, speech, beliefs, etc..
People should be able to use substances they want to (drugs, cigarettes, junk food, etc)

Basically, unless it directly physically harms someone or overtly disrupts their personal space, property, etc.. you should be able to do it

People shouldn't be able to randomly beat up or kill people
People shouldn't be able to invade your private area without your permission
You can't molest a kid, or burn a cross on someone's front lawn, or steal someone's shit without repercussion.


I never understood why gun control is rallied around by progressive democrats.



I am by no means pro-gun, personally.. I don't own one
But I realize some people are.. and that's cool with me.
As long as you don't kill somebody with it .. it's your thing and not really my business.
And if you do, unjustly, shoot somebody .. then that's all on you, not the gun

An entirely reasonable point of view.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I would consider myself socially liberal.

I actually support the 2nd amendment but I think the main struggle/issue right now with guns is that people like myself would like more thorough background checks on law abiding citizens to make sure they are mentally stable before giving them the right to own a gun.

I think the far right sees any step toward eliminating loonies from getting guns as a step toward total confiscation, which I am totally against. People should be able to own guns, but the key word here is people, not loonies. I think the laws in that regard are too lax / non-existent.

Current laws already require this. Note bolding below.

The federally prohibitive criteria outlining the reasons an individual may be precluded from the transfer/possession of a firearm or firearm-related permit, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C., §§ 922 (g) and (n), are as follows:

? A person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, whether or not sentence is imposed. This includes misdemeanor offenses with a potential term of imprisonment in excess of two years, whether or not sentence was imposed.

? Persons who are fugitives of justice; for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.

? An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year, or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year, or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.

? A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges pertaining to found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

? An alien illegally/unlawfully in the United States or a non-immigrant who does not qualify for the exceptions under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(y); for example, not have possession of a valid hunting license.

? A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.

? A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.

? The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.

? A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.

? A person under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

All of these are covered by the federally-required NICS check that occurs with every single firearms purchase. States are required to turn over mental health information to the NICS system, but are not always in compliance. It is important to note that when they are not in compliance, they are violating existing law. There is no need to add additional laws on top of this since current regulations cover it.

ZV

I think its too narrow of a definition. The VA Tech shooter who was mentally ill got a gun, no problem because he was never declared mentally insane. I think the definition of mental capacity needs to be broadened.

The background check just screw the law abiding people. It doesn't control the people that are actaully going to use the gun to do unjust harm. The majority of the public doesn't seem to understand that part. Nearly all the robberies and killings come from unregistered and stolen guns, gun control will fix none of this except make law abiding citzens more at risk.

Originally posted by: deftron


As long as you don't kill somebody with it .. it's your thing and not really my business.
And if you do, unjustly, shoot somebody .. then that's all on you, not the gun

That statement makes you sound like you work for the gov. "You can't kill anyone but if you do unjustly...."

So if I shot someone because I was holding them up, and it's just a simple through and through wound, but the medics let hime bleed out on the bus, who's fault for letting him die then?

It just can't be that clear cut. Not to mention now, even if you have a gun it seems most of the public is out to get you even if you want to just help them. And if you don't beleive me, try open carrying one day.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think its too narrow of a definition. The VA Tech shooter who was mentally ill got a gun, no problem because he was never declared mentally insane. I think the definition of mental capacity needs to be broadened.

Incorrect. Per the law, the VA Tech shooter was prohibited from buying a firearm. The problem was that VA did not submit their court records to the NICS database in a timely manner which resulted in a false approval from that database.

The fault there lies not in the current law (which did forbid Cho from buying a firearm), but rather with lax recordkeeping by VA and a failure to submit the records to the proper authorities.

ZV

Excellent point! I was hoping you would bring this up. Tell me then why the NRA vehemently opposed laws that would allow VA to have a better record keeping/submission process.

Any step toward less gun sales they see as a threat.

Not being an NRA member, I don't feel any need to defend their actions.

That said, the issue with VA does not appear to be with the laws. They're already in violation of existing laws. Maybe the solution lies in complying with current law rather than creating a bunch of new laws? Now, if they need more funding to certain agencies to accomplish compliance, that's fine, I'm all for that; I'd support stronger penalties to out-of-compliance organizations as well (note that this would not be a "new" law, but rather a change in penalties for violating an existing law). But when the current law would be working if they only obeyed it, why is there a need for a new law on top of it?

ZV

 

[RightIsWrong]

I would say it's because we are all contradictory in our beliefs. It is just a fact of human nature that if you dig deep enough, you will see your views are diametrically opposed on certain topics.