shouldn't liberals be for guns?

[MaC]

Something simple I've been pondering.  On the basic political spectrum, conservatives are for economic liberty, but want government involved in social matters.  Liberals want social liberty, but want the government involved in economic matter. 

Now owning firearms is right endowed by the Constitution.  It is also, what I would consider a social (or personal) liberty, since it is not an economic one.  So how come liberals pride themselves on government intrusion of this personal liberty, yet conservatives pride themselves on the protection of gun rights?

By the way, who wants to go drinking with me upon celebrating my 100th post?  I know, it would be funny if we got Antifa BRTD drunk and he admitted his true love for the suburbs, and we got opebo drunk and the next day he woke up in a church. 

[A18]

Go tell the tobacco companies what big supporters of personal freedom liberals are.

[Gabu]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm all for gun rights.

[A18]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm all for gun rights.

So you oppose the assault weapons ban?

[Vincent]

By the way, who wants to go drinking with me upon celebrating my 100th post?  I know, it would be funny if we got Antifa BRTD drunk and he admitted his true love for the suburbs, and we got opebo drunk and the next day he woke up in a church. 

Sounds like fun.

[Gabu]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm all for gun rights.

So you oppose the assault weapons ban?

I can't say I really know enough about the issue to say one way or another.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Howard Dean had an A from the NRA

[Bandit3 the Worker]

So how come liberals pride themselves on government intrusion of this personal liberty, yet conservatives pride themselves on the protection of gun rights?

They don't.

Bush has been more opposed to the rights of law-abiding gun owners than any President in history.

Singapore, which throws gun owners in jail, is always being praised by conservatives.

[David S]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm all for gun rights.

Its nice to hear that. I get strange readings from Canadians on gun rights. One guy told me how much he favored gun control laws and then started telling me about some of his guns. Turns out that peckerwood has more guns than I do!

[Moooooo]

Overall, I support gun rights, but I think its little ridiculous for an average citizen to have a stock pile of AK's and AR-15's.

"I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have plenty of them." - General Wesley Clark.

[MaC]

Populist3, How do you say George W Bush is the biggest gun control president we've had.  He is for gun control, but he got endoresed by the NRA.  Tell me about any gun control legislation he's passed.   I mean, I thought Clinton was the worst enemy of gun owners, being that hhe passed in 1993 both the Assault Weapons ban and the Brady Bill.  Again, not that I'm praising Bush or anything, but what exactly did he do to increase gun control?

[Bono]

Overall, I support gun rights, but I think its little ridiculous for an average citizen to have a stock pile of AK's and AR-15's.

"I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have plenty of them." - General Wesley Clark.

That's pure demagoguery. In the united states, you can't get a real assault weapon that hasn't been registered before 1986, and you need tons of bureocracy to get a pre-1986 one. The semi.-autos, that are called assault weapons by gun grabers to make them sound scary, are actually not assault weapons at all. An assault weapon per definition is capable of firing more than one bullet per triger pull. There is no army in the world that uses semi-autos as their assault weapons.

[A18]

They're called assault weapons because they're the semi-auto version of them.

[Bono]

They're called assault weapons because they're the semi-auto version of them.

In order to scare people. Most people believe the semi-auto ban banned machine guns.

[nclib]

Something simple I've been pondering.  On the basic political spectrum, conservatives are for economic liberty, but want government involved in social matters.  Liberals want social liberty, but want the government involved in economic matter. 

The saying that liberals want more social liberty and less economic liberty on every issue (and the reverse for conservatives) is oversimplistic.

It is true in general, but there are many exceptions. Guns and tobacco are the exceptions in the social realm, and in the economic realm, conservatives tend to favor more government in the areas of military spending, spending on NASA, and gambling and prostitution.

[Cashcow]

I'm all for gun rights.

[John Dibble]

Something simple I've been pondering.  On the basic political spectrum, conservatives are for economic liberty, but want government involved in social matters.  Liberals want social liberty, but want the government involved in economic matter. 

The saying that liberals want more social liberty and less economic liberty on every issue (and the reverse for conservatives) is oversimplistic.

It is true in general, but there are many exceptions. Guns and tobacco are the exceptions in the social realm, and in the economic realm, conservatives tend to favor more government in the areas of military spending, spending on NASA, and gambling and prostitution.

I agree with the sentiment of this statement, but:

1.military spending isn't exactly economic or social, I'd put it in a class of it's own.
2. Gambling and prostitution are opposed by conservatives for social reasons, in general, not economic, so it fits the stereotype. Liberals often oppose lotteries because they think it hurts the poor economically. There can be multiple reasons to oppose or favor something, not just social or economic.

[Nym90]

I strongly support gun rights, but if a gun has no legitimate hunting, sporting, or self-defense purpose, it shouldn't be legal in my opinion. Obviously what is considered legitimate is up for debate in many cases, and I don't know enough about most models to say for sure whether those in the grey areas should be legal or not; I'd tend to err on the side of making them legal rather than illegal.

I see no problem, however, with reasonable waiting periods and background checks; these will only act as a deterrent against criminals and those who are buying a gun on an impulse, which obviously is a bad situation.

I also don't see why guns can't be registered; cars are, and that doesn't seem to cause a huge problem for most people. Of course, the use of new technologies should make such registration for cars and guns alike as easy and painless as possible so as to not terribly inconvenience anyone.

[nclib]

Something simple I've been pondering.  On the basic political spectrum, conservatives are for economic liberty, but want government involved in social matters.  Liberals want social liberty, but want the government involved in economic matter. 

The saying that liberals want more social liberty and less economic liberty on every issue (and the reverse for conservatives) is oversimplistic.

It is true in general, but there are many exceptions. Guns and tobacco are the exceptions in the social realm, and in the economic realm, conservatives tend to favor more government in the areas of military spending, spending on NASA, and gambling and prostitution.

I agree with the sentiment of this statement, but:

1.military spending isn't exactly economic or social, I'd put it in a class of it's own.
2. Gambling and prostitution are opposed by conservatives for social reasons, in general, not economic, so it fits the stereotype. Liberals often oppose lotteries because they think it hurts the poor economically. There can be multiple reasons to oppose or favor something, not just social or economic.

I would agree with your analysis, and would also add that guns and tobacco are opposed by liberals for public health reasons--which is consistent with liberals' belief in increased economic involvement in public health.

[Nym90]

Something simple I've been pondering.  On the basic political spectrum, conservatives are for economic liberty, but want government involved in social matters.  Liberals want social liberty, but want the government involved in economic matter. 

The saying that liberals want more social liberty and less economic liberty on every issue (and the reverse for conservatives) is oversimplistic.

It is true in general, but there are many exceptions. Guns and tobacco are the exceptions in the social realm, and in the economic realm, conservatives tend to favor more government in the areas of military spending, spending on NASA, and gambling and prostitution.

I agree with the sentiment of this statement, but:

1.military spending isn't exactly economic or social, I'd put it in a class of it's own.
2. Gambling and prostitution are opposed by conservatives for social reasons, in general, not economic, so it fits the stereotype. Liberals often oppose lotteries because they think it hurts the poor economically. There can be multiple reasons to oppose or favor something, not just social or economic.

I would agree with your analysis, and would also add that guns and tobacco are opposed by liberals for public health reasons--which is consistent with liberals' belief in increased economic involvement in public health.

Likewise, Republican support of guns and tobacco is largely due to the fact that corporations have a vested interest in selling as many and as much of these as possible.

[A18]

And corporations have a vested interest, then, in performing as many abortions as possible.

Republican support for guns and tobacco stems from the fact that we don't want some liberal, elitist assholes trying to live our lives for us.

[John Dibble]

Something simple I've been pondering.  On the basic political spectrum, conservatives are for economic liberty, but want government involved in social matters.  Liberals want social liberty, but want the government involved in economic matter. 

The saying that liberals want more social liberty and less economic liberty on every issue (and the reverse for conservatives) is oversimplistic.

It is true in general, but there are many exceptions. Guns and tobacco are the exceptions in the social realm, and in the economic realm, conservatives tend to favor more government in the areas of military spending, spending on NASA, and gambling and prostitution.

I agree with the sentiment of this statement, but:

1.military spending isn't exactly economic or social, I'd put it in a class of it's own.
2. Gambling and prostitution are opposed by conservatives for social reasons, in general, not economic, so it fits the stereotype. Liberals often oppose lotteries because they think it hurts the poor economically. There can be multiple reasons to oppose or favor something, not just social or economic.

I would agree with your analysis, and would also add that guns and tobacco are opposed by liberals for public health reasons--which is consistent with liberals' belief in increased economic involvement in public health.

Likewise, Republican support of guns and tobacco is largely due to the fact that corporations have a vested interest in selling as many and as much of these as possible.

Are you talking Republicans in general, or just the politicians? Because if you're talking all of them, you're dead wrong.

[Nym90]

I was referring to the Party leaders; certainly not all Republicans. I should have made that more clear.

[dazzleman]

I strongly support gun rights, but if a gun has no legitimate hunting, sporting, or self-defense purpose, it shouldn't be legal in my opinion. Obviously what is considered legitimate is up for debate in many cases, and I don't know enough about most models to say for sure whether those in the grey areas should be legal or not; I'd tend to err on the side of making them legal rather than illegal.

I see no problem, however, with reasonable waiting periods and background checks; these will only act as a deterrent against criminals and those who are buying a gun on an impulse, which obviously is a bad situation.

I also don't see why guns can't be registered; cars are, and that doesn't seem to cause a huge problem for most people. Of course, the use of new technologies should make such registration for cars and guns alike as easy and painless as possible so as to not terribly inconvenience anyone.

I agree.

[dazzleman]

[
Likewise, Republican support of guns and tobacco is largely due to the fact that corporations have a vested interest in selling as many and as much of these as possible.

There is a difference between recognizing the rights of people to make their own choices regarding tobacco, and supporting tobacco, as you call it.

I am a non-smoker who hates smoking.  I don't allow it in my house or car.  I support laws that make it illegal to smoke in bars and restaurants, and other public places.

But we have breached a serious line in my opinion in going after tobacco companies.  Tobacco companies are selling a product that is legal, that people buy of their own free will.  I realize it's addictive, but so is caffeine and liquor, for some people.  Addictions can be broken if you want to break them.  This idea that tobacco companies "duped" people into smoking, thinking it was good for them, is something that hasn't taken place for 50 years.

Anybody who, in the last 40-50 years, continued to smoke because they thought it was good for them, or didn't think it caused them any harm, is a complete retard.  Everybody knows smoking is bad.  If you choose to smoke, it's your own fault, not that of the tobacco companies.

It's funny that there's been no similar assault on the liquor industry.  Maybe it's coming.  Or maybe it is a less attractive political target because a majority of people drink, while only a minority smoke.

I think that as long as tobacco is a legal business, it should be treated as such.  We can't have tobacco as a legal product, and then treat those who produce it as quasi-criminals.  In any case, I strongly disagree with the premise, which has also been tried with guns, that the manufacturers of a product are responsible for what those who buy the product do with it.  We need personal responsibility, not to make companies responsible for all our actions, just as some are trying to make McDonald's responsible for the fact that they're fat-azz messes.