Why is protecting gun rights a right wing philosophy?

Great Debates
41

I have never met a single individual who owned a gun simply because they believed that the 2nd Amendment said they could. I highly doubt more than a few handful such individuals exist. The only reason the 2nd Amendment seems to come up is out of fear of losing that right.

If the Amendment didn’t exist, but there were no laws outlawing gun ownership, the same people would own guns. In fact, if there were laws outlawing gun ownership, most of the people I know would still own guns, with the exception of the few who were afraid of possible repercussions of procuring them in the first place.

The 2nd Amendment, which has a less than ideally stated intent, is a smokescreen for people who simply want to own a gun. I have no problem with these people at all in that respect, but I don’t look at them as champions of freedom, especially since a large number of them have no problems whatsoever with keeping others from enjoying the same freedoms they have, such as marrying the person of their choice, having an abortion, etc.

Keep your guns, but stop hiding behind a document (and its supposed ideals) that many of you don’t really cherish all that much in the first place.

42

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
But that’s because they live in a failed society where the rule of law is not maintained. Sure, if you want to live in a state of multi-front civil war not far from anarchy, individual weapon ownership is very important in helping determine one’s relationship to the government. In a stable society, however, it’s not.
[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but we were NOT discussing “one’s relationship to the government” but rather whether or not “individual weapon ownership actually could have some impact on government control” and whether or not “individual gun ownership [does] jack to protect individuals from the government.”
You said that it did not have an impact. I provided to concrete examples as well as an abstract explanation of how it does have an impact.
Now it seems you’re attempting to rearrange the goal posts.

While I would grant you that if the entire US military might were brought to bear against its citizenry that the firearms would not be a match for the nuclear weapons. However, most situations are resolved in stages far short of even calling out the Natl Guard. And in these situations, the presence of firearms makes the govt’s job more hazardous and more expensive. Can you buy that argument?

If you can, then it’s not even a full step to the understanding that this increased allocation of resources means that other govt means of obtaining cooperation from the populace become more efficient relatively than they otherwise would be.

Also, it should be considered that not all govt is natl, nor is all govt uncorrupted and innocuous. Not even in the US.

Sometimes the local sheriff is the kind of guy who would cut your nuts off and display them on his desk.

43

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Fine by me. But since you yourself say that the right of self-defense in general is not the same as a right to gun ownership in particular, why derail the topic (and insinuate that I don’t care about the rights of crime victims) by introducing this into a discussion of the Second Amendment?
[/QUOTE]

Because a right to self defense with a right to access to the means of self defense is utterly meaningless. I don’t see it as derailing, but instead an indication that the basis of my belief in the right to individual gun ownership is a belief in a fundamental right to self defense.

And there was a reason I separated the two paragraphs. The intent was to show I wasn’t claiming you were necessarily one who held that view. I apologize that it wasn’t clearer, and looking back I should have put in a disclaimer that I wasn’t trying to suggest that.

44

[QUOTE=PatriotX]
Here you are mistaken. Private ownership fo firearms in fact does have an impact on govt control.

Consider the costs differential of the Waco siege if there had been no firearms in the compound.

It’s quite clear that firearms increase the costs of Govt action against members of the populace. This makes other means of obtaining cooperation from the populace more efficient relatively than they otherwise would be.

This is a good thing.

I also encourage you to read up on some what been going on in Iraq the past few years. Apparently, the armed populace has been able to have a non-neglible impact on govt control with their firearms.
[/QUOTE]

Though I suspect we agree on individual gun ownership rights, or at least the interpretation of the 2nd amendment I’ve got to say that this is a silly argument.

Waco’s cost was entirely because of the federal government’s desire NOT to use force and, if force was necessary, to use the minimum necessary. Whether this is due to general policy or the existence of innocents in the compound isn’t even relevant. The high cost in lives and time that Waco gave us came directly from the federal governments, and by extension, American society’s sense of order and due process.

If Waco had been considered a truly insurrectionist event and the government less willing to be patient the entire thing would have been resolved in less than two hours with ordinance delivered from 5000 feet and not one damn thing larger than one cubic inch would have been left of anyone in the compound. Even dental records wouldn’t have ID’d them.

You argument about cost is founded on a belief that the federal government is constrained in its behavior due to the presence of guns in the compound. But it was more the desire for a peaceful resolution than anything other. Without the guns Koresh could just as easily have said “I’ve wired this place to blow and all the kids have gasoline filled PJs! Come at us and they burn!” and the LEOs still would have waited.

To sum up…in any situation where the federal government crosses the line into true tyranny and oppression all the guns in the world won’t save anyone against the United States Air Force and several well-equipped regiments of pissed off Marines.

45

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
You can hardly criticize others (especially Kimstu) for unreasonable discourse when you’ve dropped gems like this. What do you mean by “the literature?” I can’t think of a single reasonable definition that doesn’t make this statement demonstrably false. If “the literature” is legal scholarship or Supreme Court opinions, it’s mixed–if anything, it leans on the side of making it a collective right. If the literature is primary historical documents, it’s also mixed. So what did you mean by this?
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. Cite.

I’m sure that my link will come under attack, being as it came from Guncite.com, but I would point out that it is nothing more than a compilation of quotes from the Founding Fathers and, while by no means comprehensive, indicates that individual rights were what was intended.

If you would care to examine the evolution of the 2nd Amendment from draft to ratification, look here. Again, it’s from Guncite.com, but the article is from Valparaiso Univ. Law Review, 1994 and it’s well cited.

When the word “fetishists” appear in a statement that contains an absolute declaration of fact, there is no way that you can qualify it in any way that lessens the insult. I think the 2nd Amendment serves a purpose in today’s world, am I a fetishist? If you say yes, we have nothing further to talk about. If you say no, you’re being inconsistent and so what’s the point?

I can count on Der Trihs to spout nonsense. I didn’t expect something like that from you.

46

Conservatives say “life isn’t fair”. And liberals respond “then we’ll MAKE it fair!” Guns are essential in an unfair world, and harmful in a fair world.

47

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Fair enough. Cite.

I’m sure that my link will come under attack, being as it came from Guncite.com, but I would point out that it is nothing more than a compilation of quotes from the Founding Fathers and, while by no means comprehensive, indicates that individual rights were what was intended.

If you would care to examine the evolution of the 2nd Amendment from draft to ratification, look here. Again, it’s from Guncite.com, but the article is from Valparaiso Univ. Law Review, 1994 and it’s well cited.
[/quote]

I didn’t say that there is no evidence at all that the 2nd amendment was intended to secure an individual right. What I stated was that the record is mixed–that is, there is also evidence which indicates it was intended to be a collective right. Do you really dispute that?

(Just in case you do believe that, you should read this law review article: Brent J. McIntosh, The Revolutionary Second Amendment, 51 Ala. L. Rev. 673 (2000). It states what is the majority view in legal academia, that the second amendment provided for a collective right of the people to prevent tyranny by the threat of armed rebellion. That view is changing, in my estimation, as some prominent scholars have come around to a more individualist view in recent years. But it doesn’t change the point that, as a bare minimum, “the literature” is mixed. No honest debater on this topic can argue that all the evidence points in one direction.)

48

[QUOTE=PatriotX]
Here you are mistaken. Private ownership fo firearms in fact does have an impact on govt control.

Consider the costs differential of the Waco siege if there had been no firearms in the compound.

It’s quite clear that firearms increase the costs of Govt action against members of the populace.
[/quote]
No, the mercy of the government made a difference. They could have killed everyone in that compound with ease at any time, guns or no guns.

[QUOTE=PatriotX]
I also encourage you to read up on some what been going on in Iraq the past few years. Apparently, the armed populace has been able to have a non-neglible impact on govt control with their firearms.
[/QUOTE]
With bombs and other serious military style weapons. Not guns. And that’s against an occupying, intensely hated foreign occupier; not a homegrown tyranny. Saddam had no problems with dominating his armed population, you’ll note.

[QUOTE=villa]
The right I respect as a lefty isn’t the right to own a gun, it’s the right to defend oneself and one’s family. And that is a fundamental right I am willing to fetishize.

I cringe when I see the view all too prevalent on some parts of the left that we should (rightly) work hard to defend the rights of accused criminals from the police and judicial system, yet at the same time ignore the rights of the potential victims of crime to defend themselves.
[/QUOTE]
You simply put yourself at risk. Not only is a criminal almost certain to shoot first, being a criminal, but you endanger yourself and others by having such a dangeous weapon. And if you keep it unloaded in a gun safe because of that, then it’s hardly going to help you against a criminal.

49

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
You simply put yourself at risk. Not only is a criminal almost certain to shoot first, being a criminal, but you endanger yourself and others by having such a dangeous weapon. And if you keep it unloaded in a gun safe because of that, then it’s hardly going to help you against a criminal.
[/QUOTE]

Oddly enough, I consider myself a better judge of what is good for me than you, despite your wide knowledge of my personal circumstances and abilities.

Might it not be possible I have made a personal decision not to own a firearm, but support that right for others?

50

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
I didn’t say that there is no evidence at all that the 2nd amendment was intended to secure an individual right. What I stated was that the record is mixed–that is, there is also evidence which indicates it was intended to be a collective right. Do you really dispute that?
[/QUOTE]

No. But that doesn’t address my assertion, to wit:

I have yet to find anything to contradict that statement. You are free to point me in that direction if you like.

Note that later interpretations and court decisions do not have any bearing on my assertion.

51

[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
Though I suspect we agree on individual gun ownership rights, or at least the interpretation of the 2nd amendment I’ve got to say that this is a silly argument.

Waco’s cost was entirely because of the federal government’s desire NOT to use force and, if force was necessary, to use the minimum necessary. Whether this is due to general policy or the existence of innocents in the compound isn’t even relevant. The high cost in lives and time that Waco gave us came directly from the federal governments, and by extension, American society’s sense of order and due process.

If Waco had been considered a truly insurrectionist event and the government less willing to be patient the entire thing would have been resolved in less than two hours with ordinance delivered from 5000 feet and not one damn thing larger than one cubic inch would have been left of anyone in the compound. Even dental records wouldn’t have ID’d them.

You argument about cost is founded on a belief that the federal government is constrained in its behavior due to the presence of guns in the compound. But it was more the desire for a peaceful resolution than anything other. Without the guns Koresh could just as easily have said “I’ve wired this place to blow and all the kids have gasoline filled PJs! Come at us and they burn!” and the LEOs still would have waited.
[/quote]

I think you have overlooked a subtle yet fundamental aspect of my argument - the costs of things w/ firearms v the cost of things w/o firearms.

Would armored personnel carriers been used @ Waco if there were not firearms inside?
Would there have been as many agents?
As many bullet proof vests?
As many weapons and the associated training that goes with them?
Would the operation have been cheaper resource-wise if these things were not allocated to it?

Second, What do you suppose the costs of the “ordinance delivered from 5000 feet [that would have left] not one damn thing larger than one cubic inch would have been”?

What about the aircraft that delivered it? How much do you suppose that cost?

Shirley, you don’t mean to say that it’s just as cheap to conduct police operations when there’s no need to take into account armed individuals as it is when firearms are a part of the equation.
Do you?

[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
To sum up…in any situation where the federal government crosses the line into true tyranny and oppression all the guns in the world won’t save anyone against the United States Air Force and several well-equipped regiments of pissed off Marines.
[/QUOTE]

This is a given and entirely an aside from my point.

52

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, the mercy of the government made a difference. They could have killed everyone in that compound with ease at any time, guns or no guns.
[/quote]

And which way would have been cheaper? With guns on the inside or no guns on the inside?

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Saddam had no problems with dominating his armed population, you’ll note.
[/quote]

I see that you are using the phrase “no problems” in one of the highly unusual ways. Hussein had an army to watch the populace. then he had another army to watch the first army. Then he had another to watch those watchers. Then he had yet another to watch those watchmen.
He had body doubles to help obscure his whereabouts.
In short he took many extraordinary measures to safeguard his security.

Hussein had to resort to terrible brutality to instill fear in a resistant populace.

Further there were several armed insurrections against his rule.

IMHO, these seem like something somewhat different than “no problems.”
YMMV

53

[QUOTE=Balthisar]
Minor correction: Not “right wing” philosophy. Conservative philosophy. And probably not even so much “Republican” philosophy the way things are heading. It’s of vast importance that you understand the difference between what you ask and what you probably thought you were asking, because it will have a huge bearing on the quality and appropriateness of the answers that you’ll get.
[/QUOTE]

I meant right wing. Conservatism is within the right wing side of the political spectrum. Both of them incorporate gun rights into their philosophy while curtailing other rights.

[QUOTE=Balthisar]

The left doesn’t care about individual rights; it’s social rights, and in their view, it’s a bigger social problem to allow guns than to prohibit them. That’s a very, very general answer with all kinds of exceptions, counter answers, and missing details. I pray that someone with common sense and restraint can fill in all the missing details.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what you mean by social rights, but to me it has always meant individual rights to equality. It is a left wing principle, and one that obviously honors individual rights.

The left-wing view also allows for the legalization of drugs, no matter what the social consequences of that may be. Other individual rights in the left-wing side of the spectrum are rights to privacy and sexuality, but not to own guns. It just seems inconsistent to me. Some of the arguments made by the left to justify ownership of porn or violent media can be applied to gun ownership. The fact that owning such materials does not make people deviants, that it’s the people themselves that are the criminals, so we shouldn’t ban the materials.

How does one draw the line in the political spectrum between owning violent movies/porn/drugs and guns?

[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
And thus we’re throw into the abyss.

Leaving the pointless rant above to the side allow me to make a sane point.

Electorally gun rights are a rural issue. Republicans, therefore self-identified conservatives, have large majorities in rural areas, therefore republican candidates will have a greater incentive to protect gun rights through promotion of the second amendment.

Conversely, democratic voting power is concentrated in cities where both gun ownership is low and gun violence tends to be high. Therefore democratic candidate tend towards restraint of gun rights.

Interestingly, from a campaign and election perspective, the success of conservative democrats, including retired military officers, in the 2006 Congressional elections is partially founded on 2nd amendment protections and a more pro-military and force foundation. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that such strong gains were made with that sort of platform.

It’s also indicative that it’s not just a small minority of the electorate that interprets the 2nd amendment as protecting private ownership of guns. There is a strong enough sentiment among both self-indentified republicans and democrats that candidates from both sides can be elected while espousing gun ownership rights.
[/QUOTE]

Good point. A rare one in this topic that actually addresses the OP.

Politics would explain why protecting gun rights is a Republican philosophy. Though Republican and right-wing aren’t always the same thing. When the party started it would have been considered left leaning with all that abolitionism it supported.

Republicans pick their philosophy, the right wing doesn’t . If someone from the right wing decides he is now for banning guns, the right wing philosophy doesn’t change, he is now part of the left wing.

So what I’m asking is why did gun rights fall on the right side? Was it a completely arbitrary decision around the time when the political spectrum concept got its start? Were there two groups of people opposing each other and labels were given out no matter how inconsistent the views?

Or does the spectrum somehow account for the contradiction? Like maybe there is some ideal that someone can believe in that would allow him to resist gun rights but embrace all the others.

54

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]

I have yet to find anything to contradict that statement. You are free to point me in that direction if you like.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I already have pointed you in that direction with the article I cited. But to be honest, I have a very difficult time believing you’ve not discovered the vast debate over the historical record on your own. Even ardent advocates of an individual rights conception (Eugene Volohk, for example) concede that the historical record is mixed.

I can only conclude that you have a very idiosyncratic definition of “literature [that] supports the notion that the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to be anything but an individual right.” So I’ll just skip the step where I present evidence and you tell me how it doesn’t fit your definition.

If you’re actually interested in having a solid intellectual basis in this issue, you really must read some of the intelligent scholarly literature out there. Much of it supports your view and I think you’ll find yourself enriched by it. But you can’t come in here and tell us that there simply isn’t any evidence at all that the founders intended a collective right. It makes you sound like a loon.

ETA: my apologies to the OP for continuing the hijack. I hate when people do that to my threads, so I really shouldn’t be doing it to yours.

55

[QUOTE=Lakai]
So what I’m asking is why did gun rights fall on the right side?
[/QUOTE]
Because of the way we interpret the Constitution. “The people” means “not the government, private citizens”. Thus “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” does not mean “only governmental meetings are allowed”. Likewise “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” does not mean “only governmental organizations are allowed to own firearms”.

It is an over-simplification, but useful nonetheless - [ul][li]the left wing thinks it is more important to be safe, and the right thinks it is more important to be free, []the left thinks about group rights and the right about individual rights []the left prefers centralized authority, and the right prefers localized[/ul][/li]

You can hardly criticize others (especially Kimstu) for unreasonable discourse when you’ve dropped gems like this. What do you mean by “the literature?” I can’t think of a single reasonable definition that doesn’t make this statement demonstrably false.
[/quote]
I believe the definiton being debated here is 'the literature = what the Founding Fathers wrote about the Second Amendment". Which seems like a reasonable one to me.

So all that is necessary is enough quotes from the writings of the Founding Fathers to demonstrate that they thought of the Second Amendment as applying to the federal government, and not to individual citizens.

Which strikes me, frankly, as an act of intellectual cowardice. If you don’t have the evidence to back up what you claim, then either recant, or drop out of the thread.

Regards,
Shodan

56

In rural areas, guns are for shooting deer, birds, fox, etc. In urban areas, there is nothing to shoot but each other.

When I was a kid on the farm, I assumed that gun control was meant to protect the things that guns were made to shoot at (a.k.a. deer, birds, and other game).

57

[QUOTE=Shodan]

It is an over-simplification, but useful nonetheless - [ul][li]the left wing thinks it is more important to be safe, and the right thinks it is more important to be free, []the left thinks about group rights and the right about individual rights []the left prefers centralized authority, and the right prefers localized[/ul][/li]
[/QUOTE]

Yes. The response to 9/11 certainly demonstrated the truth and accuracy of this list. :rolleyes:

Maybe what is more the case is that there are authoritarians on both the right and left, as well as libertarians.

58

[QUOTE=PatriotX]
I think you have overlooked a subtle yet fundamental aspect of my argument - the costs of things w/ firearms v the cost of things w/o firearms.

Would armored personnel carriers been used @ Waco if there were not firearms inside?
Would there have been as many agents?
As many bullet proof vests?
As many weapons and the associated training that goes with them?
Would the operation have been cheaper resource-wise if these things were not allocated to it?

Second, What do you suppose the costs of the “ordinance delivered from 5000 feet [that would have left] not one damn thing larger than one cubic inch would have been”?

What about the aircraft that delivered it? How much do you suppose that cost?

Shirley, you don’t mean to say that it’s just as cheap to conduct police operations when there’s no need to take into account armed individuals as it is when firearms are a part of the equation.
Do you?
[/QUOTE]

You’re assuming facts not in evidence. The federal government wouldn’t give a damn about the cost of destroying the Branch Davidian compound and everyone in it. When it comes to the use of force it’s all largely budgeted for. An unexpected use inside the US (disregarding posse comitatus issues) would simply mean either off-the-books expenses of a shortened training regimen later in the fiscal year.

I suppose what I’m trying to convince of is this: Regardless of your beliefs, your ownership of any form of firearm at this stage of American history is utterly inconsequential to the behavior of government at any except the most picayune, local levels. And when it happens at that level the persons managing government there can call in help from higher up pretty much ‘at will’.

Own your guns. I interpret the 2nd amendment largely as you do. But don’t deceive yourself that it makes some form of difference.

And stop calling me ‘Shirley’

59

[QUOTE=Shodan]
It is an over-simplification, but useful nonetheless - [ul][li]the left wing thinks it is more important to be safe, and the right thinks it is more important to be free, []the left thinks about group rights and the right about individual rights []the left prefers centralized authority, and the right prefers localized[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

This was BS when **Balthisar ** said it, and it’s BS when you say it. First point: In the ‘war on terror,’ it is precisely the conservatives who are advocating the curtailment of civil liberties in order to increase our safety, and liberals who oppose it. (And don’t go all ‘true Scotsman’ on me).
Addressing your first and second points, there are a wealth of liberal organizations (e.g., the ACLU) whose *raison d’etre * is the advocation of individual rights, sometimes to the detriment of group welfare. And conservatives are at the forefront of restricting people’s individual liberties in order to promote a particular conception of religious morality–they are the ones advocating anti-sodomy laws, pushing for laws that would prevent any state from recognizing a gay marriage performed by any other state, etc.
As for your last point, it contains elements of truth and falsity. As for the false, as I noted above conservatives are often very gung ho about embodying religious values in the form of federal statutes. That is a pretty obvious example of centralizing authority and sacrificing individual and local liberties.

60

[QUOTE=Lakai]
Politics would explain why protecting gun rights is a Republican philosophy. Though Republican and right-wing aren’t always the same thing. When the party started it would have been considered left leaning with all that abolitionism it supported.

Republicans pick their philosophy, the right wing doesn’t . If someone from the right wing decides he is now for banning guns, the right wing philosophy doesn’t change, he is now part of the left wing.

So what I’m asking is why did gun rights fall on the right side? Was it a completely arbitrary decision around the time when the political spectrum concept got its start? Were there two groups of people opposing each other and labels were given out no matter how inconsistent the views?

Or does the spectrum somehow account for the contradiction? Like maybe there is some ideal that someone can believe in that would allow him to resist gun rights but embrace all the others.
[/QUOTE]

To a certain extent is WAS an arbitrary event that made it happen.

Here’s a timeline of Federal Gun Control efforts.

Note that the first major federal attempt at controlling guns comes in 1934 under FDR, a democrat. But it was a ‘law and order’ issue following the crime-culture of the prohibition era.

The second one came in 1938, also under FDR. This one required the tracking and recording of gun purchasers. A $1 fee was required to become a licensed firearms dealer and those dealers had to record what was purchased and to whom it was sold.

And that, my friend, is when this became a ‘democratic’ issue. By having the first few federal attempts at gun control come out of the most towering democratic administration of all time it put republicans in the position of opposing them as a means of vote garnering. Thus our sides are defined, electorally.

However, even though they’re defined that way…

It should be noted that the most prominent gun control legislation of the last fifty years was initiated by a Republican in the form of the Brady Act. While passed under Clinton it was the brainchild of republicans for quite some time prior to passage.

In addition, gun control regulation came up during the Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and GHWB.

So to declare gun control is a democratic issue is valid, but not exclusively historically accurate.