A good reason for liberals to oppose gun control

Any gun control will be viewed as the fault of the Democrats. The electoral fallout from that would push the Democrat social agenda back by many years. So what do liberals want more, gun control or all those other changes, such as gay marriage?

This entry was posted in civil rights, rkba. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to A good reason for liberals to oppose gun control

  1. Lyle says:

    Whatever it takes to degrade the country most effectively.

  2. Russ says:

    Both suck.

  3. Spud says:

    I too believe as you… and have been advising liberal minded folks of this very fact.
    All the recent gains will indeed be lost, if they pursue this futile path of control over which that is impossible to control.
    In fact I fear the dawn of a new dark age where things will swing so far right that the future itself could well be jeopardized .
    Do they not understand that those with the guns, gets to make the rules ?

  4. TheIrishman says:

    “I’d be even happier if marriage was revised back to a custom contract without other government involvement”

    And there in lies the rub. Far too many on both sides want the government to force the issue one way or the other. Why not just get them out of the business completely? Where is it written that the fed, or even the states, have the authority to “license” marriage. It’s a contract. The only government involvement should be if a dispute occurs during the dissolving/termination of said contract. I can give ANYONE power of attorney, grant anyone custody of my children in the event of my death and will my estate to yet anyone else. The only thing which I can’t extend to someone without a “civil union” or marriage is health insurance. As that is a contract with your provider, it is between you and them to settle that issue.

    Drop the ridiculous, over complicated separate taxes between married and single as well. What happened to “equal protection” under the law. Why are those of us that are single paying different rates than those who are married?

    • Paul Koning says:

      A good way to look at it is that all laws relating to marriage are violations of the 1st amendment (the part against an establishment of religion and interference with the free exercise thereof). Come to think of it, so are drug laws.

  5. LarryArnold says:

    Unfortunately, I believe they think they can win. Sometimes their reasoning is astounding.
    “The Democrats ran a campaign on ‘You can trust President Obama, he won’t take away your guns.’ They convinced enough gun owners to vote for him as the lesser of two evils that he won. Therefore he has a mandate for gun control.”
    They also keep citing the studies showing that there are only a few gun owners left.

    But it’s not 1994 any more.

  6. mobiaxis says:

    Coming from the far left portion of the conventionally understood political spectrum, I can’t tell you how frustrating the past weeks has been. Many of my normally intelligent and level headed pinko friends have been whipped into a fury by the media. I have never believed there was a liberal bias to the media, but there definitely is a ‘bi-coastal’ bias, meaning that many of the reporters are from or have assimilated the values typically associated with urban northeast liberals. Seems to me that THEY are the ones whipping the rest of the lemmings into a fury. Here is Ohio, most of my lefty friends are either gun owners themselves or do not care one whit for gun control as part of the national progressive agenda. I think when all the hubbub dies down we may have a few more relatively minor (although irksome nonetheless) regulations…maybe limitations on high-cap mags, or some such nonsense. The good thing about a relatively uninformed and disengaged citizenry is that by next week they will be off of gun control and on to the next kerfuffle du jour – I just do not see much support for additional gun regulations from rank and file Democrats here in the heartland.

  7. staghounds says:

    “…when all the hubbub dies down we may have a few more relatively minor (although irksome nonetheless) regulations…maybe limitations on same sex couples renting apartments, or some such nonsense. ”

    Some Liberal.

  8. Patrick says:

    Not so many years ago the Democrats overplaying their hand on a particular issue, gun control for example, would have had consequences. But I think you underestimate the extent to which the United States has changed.

    Liberalism, fueled by third world immigration, has pushed the US past the tipping point. Obama’s re-election demonstrated that.

    The Democrats won’t pay any political price for gun control or any other of their policies. It’s their country now. Welcome to Argentina.

  9. BH says:

    Since the emotional argument is now firmly on the side of gun control, I don’t think 52% of the country (minimum) will “blame” or “fault” Democrats for anything. It’s what they want. They don’t care about rights, unless it’s extending marriage rights to people who don’t have them currently.

    All they can think about are 20 dead kids. Us talking about rights and oppressive government isn’t going to get anywhere. It’s the same as the election- there’s no way to win talking about deficit reduction when the other guy is playing Santa Claus.

  10. BLAMMO says:

    Being principally libertarian (but not an ideologue), I’d like somebody to explain to me why they care that I own guns or why I should care if two people of the same sex are civilly joined with the same standing as I and my wife.

    • LarryArnold says:

      People who don’t want you to own guns want you to depend on government law enforcement to protect you from bad people, instead of protecting yourself from bad people. This is because people who can protect themselves from bad people have a tendency to become uppity.

      People who want you to depend on the government also believe that you shouldn’t do lots of other things, like purchase 32 ounce drinks or marry the wrong person.

      Uppity people often come to the conclusion that people who work for the government can be bad people, and that uppity people can protect themselves from bad people.

      The people who believe in depending on the government don’t like that idea.

  11. McLovin says:

    If they mean to pursue a confiscatory ban on magazines or rifles, in some cases they’ll be turning people who haven’t even had a parking ticket in 30 years into instant criminals. What we do to deal with that scenario is keeping me awake at night.

    As far as the marriage thing goes, any government that tells me who I can’t marry will eventually tell me who I can marry (“no mein herr, ve allow no cross-breeding in ze vaterland”). Screw ‘em, I just want the govt out of my life.

  12. Rolf says:

    I agree as far as wanting to see the FedGov getting out of the dis/approval of marriages, beyond perhaps approving that an individual CAN BE legally married (i.e., not already married, of age, not adjudicated incompetent, etc). But I can see a good reason for different tax rates: there is a strong national /social interest in having a large majority of the population in solid marriages, as that is the best and least expensive way to raise a family (either your own biological children or those of someone else), lowers health care costs, promotes social stability and long-term thinking, etc. It’s not a compelling interest to the point of requiring it, but promoting it via a modest different in tax rates? I can support that.

  13. Nyanman says:

    Surprisingly, one liberal website had an article saying liberals should support the second amendment, since they support every other amendment against government interference, etc.
    Another reason to not support gun control: it’s hypocritical.

  14. Rivrdog says:

    Yeah, drugs are like guns. They lie there in their containers, doing absolutely nothing until some use is made of them. Regulate the use, not the drug. That said, there’s plenty of weasel room in there that needs to be tightened up. Abuse of a drug brings you to Drug Court, where you get a second chance; several, actually. Abuse of a gun brings you to the REAL court, where you usually have a mandatory minimum sentence imposed. Why don’t we have Gun Courts like we have Drug Courts? You have too big a magazine? You lose your gun and do some community service for the first offense. It’ll never happen, because the NRA is stuck on the “hammer the gun use” laws and uses it’s Bully Rolodex to promote them as solutions. Such “solutions” are not real.

    I’m taking the view of bringing back the Militia Act. Let’s try the Swiss system for a while. Besides arming the able-bodied populace for the reason the Second Amendment really calls for, an anti-tyranny force, the Universal Service aspect of a Militia tends to identify the problem kids quickly, something that we REALLY need to be able to do. Persons ageing out of the militia would get to maintain lesser firearms than the modern battle rifle or carbine they were issued with. We old geezers can also perform some useful service in support battalions for the Militia, a fair trade for our Medicare. We would actually BE “well-regulated” in syncopation with the Second Amendment. We are NOT “well-regulated” right now.

Comments are closed.