Why is protecting gun rights a right wing philosophy?

Great Debates
81

I think the line is pretty clear-cut: Viewing violent movies and pornography and using drugs only directly affect the person using them. A gun, with the exception of suicide, can directly affect people other than the user.

I think there are a lot of reasons gun ownership has become associated with conservatism. Land owners, who have something to defend, are more likely to be conservative in their political beliefs. Conservatives are very pro-capitalist, and thus are more concerned with stopping the government from stealing things (and, of course, money). Well, one way to stop someone from physically stealing something from you is to shoot them, or at least possess something that will make them think twice about doing it.

I think liberals, on the other hand, are more concerned with more ethereal things that a gun isn’t very useful in letting you keep (your right to an abortion, for example). Liberals are concentrated into cities, making them less likely to own property and feel the need to “defend” it. I’m not making any moral judgments here. Just looking at the priorities of both sides.

Now, I’m pretty liberal myself, and after 6 years of Bush, I can see the point of an individual right to gun ownership – the government kind of scares me these days, at least when I’m not laughing at it.

But no right in the constitution is absolute. The First Amendment has limits, as should the Second. I think most people on this board would agree with that. The problem is that the cause for Second Amendment rights has been appropriated by, as former President Bush called them, “jack-booted thugs” who oppose seemingly reasonable restrictions on gun ownership (why? because those restrictions, while fine from a philosophical perspective, hurt the bottom lines of gun makers – or at least that’s my theory). Does a trigger-lock requirement get in the way of your rights? No – you’re not required to use the lock that’s included with the gun. Does it hurt the gun maker’s bottom line? Yes, of course it does.

I think the role of money in this argument, whether it’s going to trial lawyers or manufacturers, doesn’t get the attention it should.

82

Tell me how a $5 lock on a $600 pistol is hurting anyone’s bottom line?

83

As mentioned, there is no government-recognized, individual right to sodomy or gay marriage (in the conservative view) until such has been established by “the states, or the people”. Thus, again in the conservative view, there is no conflict between opposing gay marriage and valuing legitimately established individual rights.

It seems more to the point for the purposes of this debate to assert that liberals do not support individual rights, because they do not support a rather clear Constitutional amendment that says that gun ownership is an individual right. Conservatives do, because they do. If you see what I mean.

Regards,
Shodan

84

You seem to be saying that when there’s lots of private gun ownership, the government becomes more reluctant to use force against its citizens, because the possibility of armed resistance makes the use of government force more expensive.

But this doesn’t tally with experience in the real world. By your logic, we would expect to see much more armed violence used by the government against its citizens in other industrial democracies with very low gun ownership rates, such as the Netherlands. In fact, though, it’s exactly the other way around.

American governmental authorities are much more likely to use armed force against American citizens—even though, according to you, it would be much more “efficient” for them to use “other means of obtaining cooperation from the populace” instead. Dutch governmental authorities, on the other hand, are much less likely to use armed force against their citizens—even though, according to you, armed force would be a very cheap and efficient “means of obtaining cooperation” for them, because their citizens won’t shoot back.

In short, your argument might sound plausible in theory but clearly doesn’t hold up in practice.

Airman, you need to reread what I actually wrote. I didn’t say that anyone who believes the 2nd Amendment serves a practical purpose is a “fetishist” or a “militaristic hothead”. I said that I think that the 2nd Amendment serves no practical purpose except to juice up the militaristic hotheads who fetishize gun ownership. If you disagree with that opinion of mine, that doesn’t imply that I am calling you a fetishist or a militaristic hothead. Nor am I being inconsistent in making that distinction.

To take a simpler analogy: If I say that I think Thanksgiving turkey is a waste of time and serves no useful purpose except to please the mangy alley cats who pick through the garbage, and you happen to think that Thanksgiving turkey is actually quite tasty and serves lots of other useful purposes, does that mean that I’m calling you a mangy garbage-picking alley cat? No. It simply means that you and I disagree about the appeal and usefulness of Thanksgiving turkey.

So please ease up on your, um, hotheaded reactions and pay more attention to what I actually said instead of your indignation at what you mistakenly believe I said.

No problem villa, upon rereading I actually think you made that quite clear in the first place. I guess Airman isn’t the only one who flies off the handle now and then. My apologies.

85

Question: If the second amendment did not exist, would a right to keep and bear arms exist?

IOW, please clarify, because this seems to be you saying that “individual rights” are whatever the body politic says they are, and not intrinsic to the individual, and that sounds like what liberals are often wrongly accused of believing.

86

I haven’t yet decided which side I hate more.

I don’t see how what you said is materially different from what I said. Liberals believe in an altruistic government that provides for the peoples protection and well being while conservatives tend to be mistrustfull of a large centralized government.
SNenc Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakai
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?

The thing is, conservatives believe in a certain tradtional morality. The idea of “normal” is what is familiar to them - go to work, raise a family, live a nice quiet boring life. New or different ideas seem strange or threatening to them. Porn, drug use, homosexuality, non-traditional family structures and foreigners fall outside of their comfort zone and are considered “abnormal”.

By definition, conservatives are resistant to social change. It is this resistance that ironically, often makes them very predictable and sheeplike, so long as their sheppard plays off their traditional values.

Everyone has an intrinsic right to defend and provide for themselves. One does not have a right to endanger other people though. A person’s right to bear arms, however, should be consistent with what is reasonable to preserve those other rights and should be contingent on their not presenting a danger to others. You have a right to go where you please, yet we still restrict vehicle use to people who demonstrate an ability to use the vehicle properly. We limit access to controlled substances that might be dangerous like chemicals or explosives and I don’t see firearms are any different.

Also, the “what exactly is an assault weapon” question is a little disingenuous. Military weapons designed to spray bullets everywhere are assault weapons. Assault rifles like AK-47s, M-16s, and M-4s. Belt fed machineguns. Submachineguns like HKs, Uzis and Tommyguns. These are clearly weapons designed for military and law enforcement purposes.

I will conceded there are some grey areas. An M14 or M1 vintage battle rifle is probably not functionally different from a hunting rifle. Barrett .50 might be kind of pushing it a little. Then again your average street thug won’t be buying an $8,000 rifle.

87

No it isn’t. The way Zoe worded it sounded to me as if she wants to ban ‘scary-looking guns’. M-4s and M-16s are virtually banned already. But what’s the difference between a civilian AR-15 and one of these? Why is one an ‘assault weapon’ and one a ‘target rifle’? They’re both .223 caliber. They’re both gas-operated semi-automatic (because I never said or implied that they were machine guns). They’re both fed by box magazines. One was marketed as a ‘varmint rifle’ and the other was a ‘ranch rifle’. Both have other uses than law enforcement or military, and neither is particularly suited to the military because they are not ‘assault rifles’. The only difference is that the civilian AR-15 was derived from a military selective-fire rifle and the Mini-14 was derived from a military selective-fire rifle. Oh, wait…

One of the things I object to is people making pronouncements that such-and-such should be banned, when they have no idea what they’re talking about. ‘Assault weapon’ sounds scary. ‘Machine gun’ sounds scary. Some of them look scary. But in the end the differences between a Scary Black Gun and a sporting rifle are cosmetic.

The disingenuous thing is to bandy about phrases like ‘machine gun’ and ‘assault weapon’ and ‘Uzi’ and trying to make people believe that people are actually running around with military gear they picked up at the local pawn shop. Either these people are intentionally lying, or they don’t know what they’re talking about but want to sound as if they do.

88

Actually, I don’t see what you mean. I think the fact that adults should be able to fuck whichever other adult they want is at least as obvious as the fact that the second amendment establishes the right to keep and bear arms. So if conservatives want to give people the latter right, but not the former (which exists independently of what any government says–as has been pointed out already, governments protect rights, they don’t grant them), then conservatives are to that extent opposed to individual rights.

In fact, the point you made above about liberals caring more about social rights or welfare than individual rights is at least as true of conservatives as liberals. It is conservatives who are concerned about the moral decay of society, or the breakdown of traditional marriage, and use these obviously communitarian considerations to justify restricting individual liberties. So yeah, by subordinating individual rights to some nebulous social good, conservatives are expressing an opposition to individual rights, and placing the good of the collective above individual rights.

89

Well I don’t think liberalism is a practical results-oriented philosophy and neither is conservatism. I think both of them are naive and idealistic. Just because you are a liberal doesn’t mean you can proclaim liberalism to be the practical one.

I’m sure everyone thinks they are being practical, but ideologies aren’t defined by practicality, they are defined by what people think is practical and produces results.

Well porn and drugs can harm others if they make the user more perverted or violent.

Vigilantism could be another reason why conservatives want their guns and liberals don’t. Conservatives are more inclined to solve their own problems than liberals are.

90

Also, city people think of push-comes-to-shove resistance to authority as taking the form of riots, in which sheer numbers of warm bodies matters more than armaments.

The “jack-booted thugs” referenced in such comments are abusive Feds, not the gun-rights defenders.

Basically, gun rights are in the same position as voting rights. If we lived on some Platonic ideal plane, the notion that you ought to prove that you aren’t an utter ignoramus before getting the vote makes a lot of sense. In the real world, with its historical context, the well is thoroughly poisoned for such notions. The historical record of “reasonable restrictions” designed to squeeze the RKBA by attrition has much the same effect.

91

Why is it so difficult? I mean, all they have to do is point to the state of gun laws in jurisdictions under such solid leftist control that they can enact their agenda without compromise, such as Washington DC…

Oh. Never mind.

92

What I mean is that conservatives concern themselves more with properly established individual rights such as gun ownership.

Gun ownership is properly established, because it is in the Constitution. Gay marriage and sodomy are not. Therefore, any right to gay marriage and sodomy has to be established by way of “the states, or the people”.

And the proper way to establish which rights should be protected by the federal government is thru the “states, or the people”, not thru judges.

You’re correct insofar as you recognize that the Ninth Amendment establishes that there can be rights other than those mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment makes it clear how to get the federal government to recognize those rights - by the actions of “the states, or the people”.

But liberals, as I mentioned, prefer more centralized authority, and therefore bypass state legislators and referenda and the other actions of “the states, or the people”, and go to the federal courts to try to establish to force the government to recognize these “rights”. This is illegitimate under the Tenth Amendment.

Regards,
Shodan

93

Nope. The Tenth Amendment refers to powers, not rights. (At least, it does if you read the words actually written in ordinary ink. For all I know, reading it through your magic Penumbral Emanation Spectacles could reveal text that supports your assertion, and also the outcomes of each game of the 2008 World Series and plans for the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.)

94

I think you are missing the point here, as are many. There is no one set viewpoing of liberalism, or conservatism. My liberalism is not results based solely. I believe in the principle of freedom of speech even when it has bad results. I’m not a consequentialist, and while there is a strong consequentialist element in modern liberalism, there are also other liberals who don’t subscribe to that belief.

95

How about the properly established fourth amendment right to be secure against unwarranted search and seizure, versus the Bush adminstration’s bypassing the FISA court to tap phones? Why isn’t that on the conservative radar with regard to individual rights?

96

Reading this thread makes it clearer than ever that the gun control debate is NOT liberal vs. conservative, nor is it Republican vs. Democrat, nor is it left-wing vs. right-wing. It’s urban vs. rural.

One of the Democratic candidates for Senator in Montana in the last election sent out a brochure that showed him carrying a shotgun on a duck hunt. Owning guns out here (the population density in my county is 3 dwellings per square mile) is a completely different issue than owning guns in New York City. Virtually none of the arguments put forth in this thread regarding gun control apply here.

To return to the OP, I wish one of our major political parties was in favor of personal rights. One of them favors some rights (e.g., abortions), and the other favors some other rights (e.g., gun ownership), but neither has a good track record with rights like privacy. If only the Libertarians could put up some solid candidates at the national level. sigh

Complete and utter B.S.–a perfect example of what I said above.

Oh, how I wish it were true. Unfortunately, there are far too many lazy voters that look only at the (R) or (D) after a candidate’s name and don’t look at the candidate’s actual past behavior and experience (unless it’s truly egregious).

A completely unproven assertion. I’ve seen many, many cites ranging from books to government studies, that argue both sides of this “guns increase crime” claim, but I’ve yet to be convinced of it.

Please explain to me how me, personally, owning a gun affects you, decreases the safety of my fellow citizens, or potentially increases crime. I’m properly trained; I have a concealed carry permit; I use both trigger lock and gun safe.

97

Totally inaccurate. We do not prefer centralised authority, we fear the tyranny of the majority against the minority. I am not a Christian. I like the fact that the Liberal government has thus far managed to fight off the Religious fringe from being able to force all of it’s views down my throat. Without the government there to enforce and protect the rights of the minority, the majority would simply overwhelm them. And this applies to all sorts of things, not just guns or religion. Sometimes the majority is simply wrong, and sometimes, the Government must act to protect those not in the majority.

I love how you cast wide aspersions but immediately back-track to ‘but not in the case of the 2nd amendment’. Confine your arguments to the Second Amendment and I will do likewise.

I’ve stated before and will state again - a liberal believes free press keeps people free, not guns. A conservative believes the opposite. It’s nothing to do with group versus individual rights.

The ACLU is only left-wing in the echo chamber of the right; the charter of the ACLU is about as centrist as it goes. And again, you attempt to dismiss by limiting my arguments but not your own. The ACLU supports the plain wording of the 2nd Amendment, which starts ‘A well-regulated militia…’ so I think that is pretty fundamental to what the Amendment is concerned with.

You’ve got that one a bit backwards (and again have broadened your argument beyond the 2nd amendment in order to prove your point, I might add). Many of the most progressive things America has ever done have come not from some mythical Liberal wing of the American public convincing anyone but by liberal legislators themselves doing things they knew would benefit the people. The messy and inconclusive process of convincing the whole public would mean that African Americans would still be considered 3/5 of a person and not have the right to vote. Progressive legistlation, over the strong objections of a majority of states, resulted in that change. And guns are no different.

Finally - Conservatives concern themselves with individual rights just so long as you’re in lock-step with the rest of the Conservatives. It’s when you try to vary even a little bit that the ‘individual rights’ become things to be railed against by other Conservatives.

98

I think an issue that hasn’t been addressed, but needs to be, is the emotional self-identity issue that accompanies gun ownership. These are people you’re talking about, and people hold opinions based largely on how they feel viscerally about something. My younger brother, who also is a dear, dear friend and co-worker, is an avid gun owner/collector/shooter/reloader. He is socially and politically conservative, while I am socially and politically liberal. We are the fourth generation of our family to grow up here in rural eastern Colorado. Based on personal experience and a lifetime of observation, here’s my contribution to the conversation:

Gun ownership here isn’t a matter of scholarly discourse, it’s a deep emotional issue. In an isolated homestead on the windswept prairie, gun ownership is *felt * as a matter of personal survival. The facts, the realities, don’t matter to those who feel this way, and all of the facts and reality in the world won’t change that. The demographic here is not just rural, it’s agricultural. The culture here is that we are direct descendants of those who “settled the West”, and it matters not a whit that most of that “culture” is derived from movies and television shows. My great-grandfather homesteaded here more than a century ago; the fact that he did it without a firearm means nothing to my brothers and I. We are “of the West,” and as such we own guns. It’s possible that Southerners have similar sentiments, but I’ll leave it to a true Southerner to offer that.

Then there is the matter of what happens when someone pulls the trigger on a loaded weapon. I’ll be the first to admit that there is nothing more exciting that I can do with my clothes on than aim downrange and fire. And when an elk or white-tail deer falls because I pulled that trigger, the visceral reaction is more euphoric than anything else I’ve ever done. There is simply no denying that anyone who isn’t deeply opposed to firearms in general gets a bit of a rush from shooting one. To have that kind of power in one’s hands, to have control of it and discharge it at will tickles the pleasure centers of most people’s brains.

None of this has much to do with political philosophy. I think it has everyhthing to do with self-image and visceral responses to steel tubes that go BANG!

99

So, you continue to refuse to open your mind to the clear light of my flawless reasoning? :shrugs: Your loss.

( :wink: )

100

Exactly what part of what I said do you consider B.S.? I was pointing out what seems to me to be the fundamental mindset of two irreconcilable philosophies. For the record, I’m pro-libertarian and pro-gun ownership.