Are gun rights copasetic with liberalism?

[Liberty Landing]

Case #1: The most intelligent liberal I know is opposed to gun control (although he'll vote for Kerry, his anti-gun Senators from New York, et al.). He says no serious liberal takes gun control seriously as a crime preventative measure and thinks that people should be as free as possible.

Case #2: The stupidest liberal I know is also opposed to gun control. He's a University-brainwashed moron from Minnesota; he's socialist in every respect -- except that he opposes gun control, for the same reasons #1 above does.

Case #3: Armed Liberal, a semi-well-known blogger, offers several philosophical explanations for why gun rights is an integral part of liberal philosophy, and why only fake liberals are anti-gun.

So, my question is this: can gun rights be reconciled with liberal philosophy? Are these three people the exceptions, or are they the rule?

[m5lange1]

Liberal is just a label. Like conservative. Sadly there are a few (I hope it is at least a relative few) that think only according to whether they are libral or conservative.

Most people believe in rights, like gun ownership, according to their morals and their intellect. I believe most will find that either liberalism or conservatism are more in tune with their own beliefs but hopefully still think freely enough to hold independant beliefs.

So.... Can a self proclaimed conservative actually be pro choice? Or maybe gay?

Can a self proclaimed liberal be pro gun ownership or anti gay marraige?

Sure

He's a University-brainwashed moron from Minnesota;

Hey now, I graduated from the U of MN...

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Liberty Landing, Case #2: The stupidest liberal I know is also opposed to gun control. He's a University-brainwashed moron from Minnesota; he's socialist in every respect -- except that he opposes gun control, for the same reasons #1 above does.

"The stupidist liberal I know....he's socialist in every respect"

So which is he?

On the actual point you raised, I'd say you are looking for too simple an explanation. Liberal's are concerned with personal freedom. Thats what links them all together. They diverge on how this is achieved. Classical Liberals, from Locke up to JS Mill (to an extent), are concerned with negative freedom. That is, freedom from. Freedom from govt. interference is the focus. Modern liberals developed during the late 19th century, objecting to the misery suffered by millions. They advocated freedom to, primarily, the freedom to develop to the best we can, unfettered by the limitations of the circumstances of our birth.

The problem is that the parties supposedly representing these ideologies simply don't, or at least with any consistancy. The parties simply latch onto whatever single issue will be most popular with their audience, or whatever the opposition doesn't support, or whatever will scoop up the swing votes. It's got very, very little to do with ideology anymore. They may bring liberalism or conservatism up as a justification after choosing what they support, but those ideologies were not the impetus for supporting such a policy.

I personally would argue that to be a liberal, to be concerned with personal freedom, one must ensure that a government cannot become tyrannical, which would mean that the people (by which I mean everyone not of the state, as opposed to the wishy-washy rhetoric employed by some....like me :) can overthrow it.

Not only that, but socialists must also argue that weapons be legal for the populace to own. If, as socialist thought argues, the state is the institute by and for the bourgouisie, and that the state acts only in their interests, surely socialists must support the people having the ability to overthrow government when the government becomes oppressive.

In fact, the only ideology legitimately argue for heavy gun control or outlawing of weapons would be conservatism. As conservatism distrusts the majority, is heavy on law and order, strong state (not neccesarily a large one) and the "elite know better because they are elite" attitude it supports, gun control would be a mechanism conservatives wouldn't oppose if they felt that an uprising may be on the way. (Read the classic conservative text Thomas Hobbes "Leviathan" if your about to jump on me for disturbing your ideas of conservatism)

This just goes to show how little the "liberal" and "conservative" parties have to do with liberal or conservatism.

And as a side note, I am an anarcho-communist and am in full support of the legalisation of firearms and weapons (I live in GB, so I'm screwed for firearms). The same applies to all other anarchists and communists I know.

[bugsbunny04]

I dont think you can label someone as liberal or conservative unless they walk strong on a particular line and are consistent on a long string of issues. I believe in legalizing pot and think Uncle Sam should stay the fuck out of marriage altogether. I also am a gun owner (Mossberg 12. Ga) who plans on buying an AK the next time the gunshow comes to town (August, Mobile, fair grounds, see ya their guys, I'll be in the black shorts and Alabama hat with Oakleys perched on it, and a shirt that obviously came from HOT TOPIC). I also care about the enviornment (its hard to hunt and fish if everything is f'n dead). I also happen to beleive in a stepped tax system, where people who make more than seven digits a year (nearest dollar) could be taxed as much as 60% total fed/state income taxes, and people who make more than eight digits a year (to the dollar) could be taxed up to 80% total fed/state. I also dont believe anybody who makes less than 40K/year should pay taxes, and I think the credit for dependants should be 1000$ off the amount payed to uncle sam, but only for people who pay taxes, and make less than 100K/year. I do beleive in WIC. I am quite pro life. Fuck fucking Cen fucking sor fucking ship. That last sentece means I am very much against things such as the f'n campaign finance reform bill, and federal anti porn laws, and I don like the f'n F f'n C f'n C either. I continue to support what we have done in afganistan. I continue to say that our efforts in Iraq are the biggest cluster fuck in our military's history since "the wa in viet fuck'n nam" (see forest gump, the guy at the hippie rally with the flag shirt)

Anybody think they can put a label on me? Remember, "try" is a euphamism for "failure". I'm tefloned up.

[voyager]

This thred starts off with a mistake it is the conseritives (right wingers) that are pro gun and liberals who are the anti-gun lobby. Besides the Constitution provises for redress of greivences.
A well regulated milita, being necessary to secure a free state... if this statement were true the freeist nations would be Sudan, Republic of Congo, Iraq, and Afganistan.

[bugsbunny04]

What he is saying is that he knows guys that are otherwise "liberal" who agree with the "conservatives" on the gun issue.

By the way: Sudan, Republic of Congo...your not talking apples and oranges. Those are not really militias, in the sense that the colonial militias were, they are more like street gangs from South Central L.A. It is not a general populace having weapons, it is the gangsters working for the government that have weapons to use on unarmed civilians. The civilians are the ones that constitute a militia if armed, and since unarmed, there is no militia in the colonial sense.

Iraq and Afganistan...more apples and oranges, terrorist cells are not anything like the colonial militia. If you knew WTF you are talking about, you would know that the general populace is supposedly disarmed in those countries (by our military). because the law abiding citizens do not have weapons, there is no militia.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by bugsbunny04, I dont think you can label someone as liberal or conservative unless they walk strong on a particular line and are consistent on a long string of issues. I believe in legalizing pot and think Uncle Sam should stay the fuck out of marriage altogether. I also am a gun owner (Mossberg 12. Ga) who plans on buying an AK the next time the gunshow comes to town (August, Mobile, fair grounds, see ya their guys, I'll be in the black shorts and Alabama hat with Oakleys perched on it, and a shirt that obviously came from HOT TOPIC). I also care about the enviornment (its hard to hunt and fish if everything is f'n dead). I also happen to beleive in a stepped tax system, where people who make more than seven digits a year (nearest dollar) could be taxed as much as 60% total fed/state income taxes, and people who make more than eight digits a year (to the dollar) could be taxed up to 80% total fed/state. I also dont believe anybody who makes less than 40K/year should pay taxes, and I think the credit for dependants should be 1000$ off the amount payed to uncle sam, but only for people who pay taxes, and make less than 100K/year. I do beleive in WIC. I am quite pro life. Fuck fucking Cen fucking sor fucking ship. That last sentece means I am very much against things such as the f'n campaign finance reform bill, and federal anti porn laws, and I don like the f'n F f'n C f'n C either. I continue to support what we have done in afganistan. I continue to say that our efforts in Iraq are the biggest cluster fuck in our military's history since "the wa in viet fuck'n nam" (see forest gump, the guy at the hippie rally with the flag shirt) Anybody think they can put a label on me? Remember, "try" is a euphamism for "failure". I'm tefloned up.

Angry and compulsively foul mouthed. :)

[m5lange1]

I gotta throw in with Bugs on this one. Most liberals I know think I am conservative while most conservatives I know think I am liberal.
Idealogues don't pay a lot of attention to what you agree with them about... but they sure hear what you DON"T agree with them about.

"You are either with us or against us" is bullcrap statement I heard from Bush and have heard from liberals and conservatives since then ad-nausium.

If I have to think exactly like person X or be against them I can tell you right off I am against them before I even hear their viewpoint.

[voyager]

Bugs,
Would you call Irgune and IRA street gangs?

[bugsbunny04]

Voyager: No, they are more like the terrorist cells in the middle east than the thugs in Africa.

G Adams: Not angry at all, reall kind of cold and un emotional, or put another way, matter-of-factly. Very calm. As for the vulgar vocabulary, sorry bout' the way I went about denouncing censorship, I should have done it more intellegently. Also, can you describe the Iraq war any other way? No? Exactly, and as for the last use of the f word, I was quoting the first PG-13 movie to include repeted f word usage, a movie often ref'd as a family film, and is much cleaner than the book it was based on.

[voyager]

Gee bugs I thought irgune were the freedom fighters in Israel and IRA in Ireland. But then I really get confused between freedom fighters and terroists. I guess it depends what side your bread is buttered on.

[bugsbunny04]

What I mean is: They resemble the mid east terrorists more than the African thugs. I dont really have a definition specific to them. I'm kind of at a loss as far as what to say about the IRA, being 25% irish myself. I dont like their methods, they remind me to much of the perverters of islam. As for the irgune, I dont know enough about them to really define them as being closer to freedom fighters or closer to terrorists, but I wouldnt consider them to be like the African thugs. If you know more than I do, thats great, educate me.

[G. Adams]

Bugs - I really don't care about the swearing, it was justifiable. But I could label you, as you argued couldn't be. Okay, I was bored and being pedantic....

Voyager - The IRA are an army, simply soldiers without a government. They are not terrorists. What must be remembered is that there are multiple Irish nationalist groups. When someone speaks of the IRA it should be the Provo's they are talking about, who are an underground army fighting for Catholic rights and Irish freedom. Other groups, particularly the Real IRA, can more easily called terrorists, because they have tended to aim for areas particularly designed to inspire terror, rather than military or police targets, which have been the Provo's traditional targets.

[voyager]

Bugs et.al.
The Irgun was a Zionist organization formed after the First World War to fight for a Jewish homeland in what then was called Palistine. One of it's most notable exploits was the bombing of the King David Hotel hedquarters of the British Army. The attach was leak by the future priminister Menachem Begin.

As for the IRA, they really were the government of Ireland seeking to oust the British invader. As for the Real IRA only history will tell if they are freedom fighters or terrorists.

As far as the firearms issue goes nearher IRA or Irgun needed a second ammendent right to find and use all the weapons they needed.

[bugsbunny04]

You sure they didnt just steal them from the cops and then the police like Castro did a lot? (Yes, he had other means, but that seems to me to have been his best source)

[voyager]

Actually the best source for weapons is the American Government.
There are three countries that supply friearns and training, France Great Britin Russia and the US. The US "sells" more weapons than the orher three combined.
As far as that goed the "wae on crime" is nothing more than a jobs project for the middle class.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by voyager, Actually the best source for weapons is the American Government. There are three countries that supply friearns and training, France Great Britin Russia and the US. The US "sells" more weapons than the orher three combined. As far as that goed the "wae on crime" is nothing more than a jobs project for the middle class.

I apologise if your learning English and got the numbers mixed up, but that would be four countries, not three. Agree with the point though. GB's prime export is weapons, and it aint hard to have them shipped off to somewhere dangerous. There was a documentary where this guy organised to buy guns from a British company, to go to Norway. In Norway, they would be stripped into parts. Then the parts would be exported to Zimbabwe, where they would be rebuilt and sold to the militias. And GB is not supposed to export arms to Zimbabwe.

Even better than that, when the world wasn't far away from a nuclear war recently between India and Pakistan, Britain was conducting peace negotiations, while similtaneously selling arms to BOTH sides.

[voyager]

G.Adams,
You are correct, there are four gunrunning countries. I often dash of replyes is sort of a stream of conscienceness and don't get things quite right. A bad habit I am trying to cure.
The brits must have learned that from the U.S., during the Egyptian/ Israeli war (the 1963war?) the US sold arms to both sides.

[bugsbunny04]

No, you are both wrong. Pakistan (AKs), China (everything), North Korea (Everything), Israel (yes, ever heard of this neat little ditty called an Uzi, or a Galil, Desert Eagle?), Belgium (yes, another producer of the Uzi, also producers of the Browning high power, and the new P-90 PDW, originators of the FAL), Germany (The MP-5 submachine gun, G-3 rifle, G-36 rifle, and other extremely high quality small arms, from H&K and SIG SAUER). Does ammo and plastic explosives count? Czech ammo and semtex plastic explosives is all but ubiquitous. For a while there, Finnland was marketing this ugly assault rifle patterned after Kalashnikov's masteer peice, called it the Valmet (Val-may). Egypt marketed a rather interesting copy of the AK. Romanian AK rifles are currently being imported into the US by the f'n boatload, literally. Bulgarian AKs have been imported, but are drying up. Austria still has an ugly bull pup rifle called the "Styer" (Steer), and sold machine equipment to a US company in California that produces the highest quality FAL rifles yet, and lets not forget Glocks. Malasian and South African ammunition is easy to find at large gun shows, or in SHOTGUN NEWS. Some of the South African stuff is current production, and can be obtained from Dillon Precision.

On the other end of things, you have the Swiss, which produce some fine weapons, and does not export the first one (totally polar to US policy, huh :) ), but you can get from SIG SAUER a german produced version of their service pistol, the P210.

Hell, I'm probably forgeting somebody, too.