WMN: t3_334q3e_t1_cqhran6

[TITLE]

CMV: Gun rights are actually a liberal concept

[LoneWords]

Recently my World Empires class was discussing 18th century enlightenment philosophy, specifically John Locke and the French philosophes like Voltaire and Rousseau that advocated for inalienable rights given to each man at birth. Now, this is very important because in his time John Locke was considered a radical liberal to suggest the concept of tabula rasa, equality and the rights of the people. The French began to adopt this idea and this resulted in many political conflicts to loyalist types who could never really put down the rebellion. My professor said this was because "Once the toothpaste is out of the tube you can't put it back in". What he means by this is that once a right exists and is widely accepted it cannot realistically be removed from the people who want it. He goes onto explain several historical examples including why there is only one "negative amendment" and why it itself was amended (referring to prohibition). The major point Im trying to make is that Liberals have been historically the ones to fight for individual and civil rights. Gun rights are a right that is incapable of being put back in the tube and I don't comprehend why this is the only "right" that doesn't seem to apply to liberal politics. **edit:** Thank you all for the well stated arguments. Unfortunately I've been traveling and unable to respond within the 30 minute time window. I maintain my original point that gun rights should, by definition, be considered liberal; but I see that I am, in the manner of a true conservative, focusing on its classical/literal definition rather than the more flexible contemporary one.

[Namemedickles]

It makes no sense to take something that ideology X did on the past and use it as a semantic 'gotcha' when applied to contemporary American politics. The bottom line is that in modern America gun rights is more of a conservative ideal than a liberal one. It's that simple. It's like saying that party X used to support slavery in year Y and then trying to bring it up today as if it were still a valid point regarding that group's ideology.

[monkyyy]

Floaty words change in meaning over time, best to ignore them completely if you can't ground them. It would be a shame if people changed a definition of a word you became emotionally attached to, in order to convince you to support a position you otherwise wouldn't.

[LtFred01]

But why do you have rights? Do you have a right to punch someone else in the face? No. Rights are about human flourishing. You can't be a fully happy person without life, liberty and a house. You CAN be without a gun. Guns are a problem, because armed societies are criminal societies. Gun ownership closely correlates to high suicide rates, and correlates a little more weakly to murder rates. A society with lots of guns is less civilised. It's HARDER to flourish in such a society. And indeed, guns are useless as a means of defence. A citizen in an armed society in less safe, not more. Now, some people say guns are useful for self-defence from their government. In the last ditch, a citizenry might have no choice but to resort to revolution to overthrow their government (or, more likely, to fight a civil war against the social base that formed it). In the US this has indeed happened. In the 19th century, slave owners used their guns to revolt against their government, which they felt was likely to threaten their "right" to own slaves. As we can see from the above example, this is a pretty useless hedge. Gun ownership is as much a tool against democratic and progressive government as it is tyrannical and despotic. Indeed, it is MORE of a tool for deterring the expansion of liberty. Privately-owned guns have almost always been used against democratic, liberal government (Germany, 1930, Italy 1920, etc) and never against despotic ones. For the obvious reason that a dictatorship is going to know perfectly well how to use force! So, gun "rights" are a bit of a misnomer. You don't have a right to a gun.

[wheelsno3]

Issues and ideas are conservative and/or liberal, but our political parties are not. A conservative idea is simply an idea that clings to what is and resists change. That's it, keep the status quo. So gun rights are conservative because they are in the bill of rights and more gun control is a shift to a new way with bigger government interference. Therefore because gun rights reduces government power gun rights are also a liberal idea in that the right to own guns increases individual liberty. You see conservative and liberal are not mutually exclusive. It just so happens that our political parties have divided over various issues, be it gun control, gay right, abortion laws, tax rates, but those issues don't make the parties conservative or liberal. We label democrats liberal because they tend to be, but they also support a lot of big government interference which is not liberal, not conservative but *gasp* socialist. Yet we have made the word socialist a dirty word even if it would better describe many of the democratic stances.

[cyrux]

[STA-CITE]>Gun rights are a right that is incapable of being put back in the tube [END-CITE]We can see from experience that this is false. Australia is the most clear example, but there has been disarmament in many other countries. And unlike prohibition, there is no real movement that seeks to repeal gun control in these places. Your concept of liberalism is, like others have said, classical. The closest thing to that today is **libert**arianism, which is pretty clearly opposed to modern **liberal**ism, despite the similarities in name.

[Razer_Man]

Every country that has successfully removed suddenly illegal guns from citizens had registered who owned rhem. When the UK outlawed handgun ownership, they were able to size all but I think 7 handguns in the entire country. The US has no such registry. Even in the few states that do on their own, the registers are not nearly comprehensive.

[cyrux]

It could still be done. Recently there have been programs that have worked for guns in places like Northern Ireland where unregistered weapons were more prevalent. Sure, it may be hard, but it's still possible.

[subheight640]

Australia is an island nation that can easily restrict imports. As is the UK. The united states has two enormous, insecure borders that are hemorrhaging drugs. It wouldn't be surprising if our government is just unable to control gun smuggling to an acceptable level.

[cyrux]

Go ahead and find excuses all you want. Many countries in mainland Europe have also managed gun control. I have faith in the ability of the US to do it, if they wanted to do it.

[Millea]

Liberal's meaning used to be as you said, inalienable rights to each man at birth. However, over time this definition has changed to the point where "liberal" means left politically. This is why many people go back to the term "classical liberal" when they refer to concepts of people like John Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, etc.

[bigspr1ng]

Depends on your definition of "Liberal." There are a several ways to use the term and there are different historical contexts, but in general a liberal is defined as someone who isn't conservative. Conservatism is by definition the practice of preserving the current state of things. Almost all successful liberal issues eventually become conservative issues once enough time has passed. American conservatives are behind gun rights because that's the way things are today and have been so for the duration of living history. In another hundred years, the preservation of the right to an abortion will be a conservative issue too. So yes, gun rights *were* a liberal concept, but since gun rights can only really erode from what people are familiar and comfortable with, it is now a conservative issue.

[DHCKris]

What is liberal and what is conservative changes over time. For example, I read recently about how Voltaire was a horrible racist; we may think of Jefferson as liberal but he owned slaves, etc. The reason why conservatives are more pro-gun is because they favor a more literal interpretation of the Constitution, whereas liberals are okay with the idea of it being flexible.

[carasci]

[STA-CITE]>The reason why conservatives are more pro-gun is because they favor a more literal interpretation of the Constitution, whereas liberals are okay with the idea of it being flexible. [END-CITE]That's how they *legally* justify their arguments, but it doesn't really get to the heart of the matter. If the existing left wing (it's more complicated than right/left, but that's another matter) in the U.S. didn't already have a problem with guns, there would be no need to argue over whether or not the restrictions they want are Constitutional.

[DHCKris]

what I was getting at was that the word "conservative" has at its root the meaning of "conserve" as in, maintain the status quo of what came before. So the way in which gun rights are a "conservative" view literally speaking is because of a desire to "conserve" the values of the Constitution, whereas liberals are seen as people who desire change (moving away from past values). I'm just trying to illustrate how the literal meanings of the words "conservative" and "liberal" apply. If you have similar values and ideals to people 200 years ago chances are you are conservative by definition.

[carasci]

Except what you're contrasting is conservative and *progressive*, not conservative and liberal. Progressives and liberals often have a lot of overlap (in part because early liberalism was by nature a progressive change from the status quo), but they're not the exact same thing. Moreover, neither progressives nor liberals tend to change things just for the sake of changing them: they may be much more *open* to the idea of reinterpreting traditional understandings of Constitutional rights, but that still doesn't say anything about a given example. Basically, you're using a dictionary definition of "conservative" and a colloquial definition of "liberal" when OP's entire argument was about the original definition of liberalism and its historical focus on civil rights. Sure, if we conflate "liberal" and "progressive" then restricting gun rights can fall under that umbrella, but at that point so could making it illegal for the religious to hold public office. (Needless to say, I don't think that would end up being considered a liberal position.) Perhaps it would help if I rephrased the question: by my understanding, what OP is asking is "why is the restriction of this particular civil right now considered to be a liberal idea, yet in virtually all other cases liberals expand and defend civil rights?" Yes, change can be considered liberal, but there are lots of thing that liberals have no interest in changing and, on this sort of thing, they traditionally advocate a very different sort of change.

[DHCKris]

It's tricky, because liberals are also associated with left-wing idealogies but extreme lefism like Socialism is decidely intrusive and 100% for controlling things like gun possession because the left favors strong goverment.

[carasci]

Pretty much, which is why the whole "left/right" thing is so problematic in the first place (and where we get horseshoe theory from). Liberalism used to be typically a left-wing thing, but leftism hasn't necessarily been liberal, and nowadays ("classical") liberalism is in some weird limbo between the two (with a dash of libertarian) depending on which issues you're looking at.

[cited]

The problem with guns being a right is that they so quickly and easily infringe on other people's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you drink irresponsibly, you're mostly putting yourself at risk. If you use a gun irresponsibly, you're probably going to be putting someone else's life at risk. The primary inalienable right someone has is to live their live as they see fit - something that can't be done if it's ended by a gun. [Guns are one of the top 3 causes of death for people 1-45 in this country.](http://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2013-a.gif) As someone else noted, Australia's gun control has been widely successful, and doesn't have a corresponding movement to go back. As a side note, it seems that there is a lot of people on reddit who disagree with Republican politics - except for this. It targets single issue voters, and it's very successful for the GOP. There are plenty of people who will see all of the problems with the conservative party and ignore that just to protect their guns, which despite all of the sky is falling predictions from the GOP and NRA, are still here.

[notsofst]

[STA-CITE]> There are plenty of people who will see all of the problems with the conservative party and ignore that just to protect their guns, which despite all of the sky is falling predictions from the GOP and NRA, are still here. [END-CITE]Which makes it even funnier when the Democrats repeatedly and disastrously attempt to push gun control agendas again and again. It's almost as if the Democrats *want* to give the Republicans a second wind. Why take a fractured and inept party and give them a rallying cry? It's frustrating for me, and I'm sure a great many other people, that would love to support a lot of Democratic candidates but refuse to do so because of their awful record of infringing on firearms.

[cited]

Are your guns more important than everything else going on between Republicans and Democrats? Again, remember no one is ever arguing to send troops to take your guns in the night. It's simple stuff to keep guns away from criminals.

[notsofst]

Yes, the fact that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of gun rights (and therefore individual rights in general) in the leadership of the party is more important to me than most other issues. [STA-CITE]>Again, remember no one is ever arguing to send troops to take your guns in the night. It's simple stuff to keep guns away from criminals. [END-CITE]This is so unbelievably simple minded, I can't even respond to it.

[cited]

Because you can't think of a way to articulate what's wrong with it, or because you can't come up with a reason I'm wrong?

[notsofst]

It's such an absurd misconception of the problem *and* the solutions to it. It's a great example of why dialog on guns will never move forward in the US.

[cited]

Well let's fix that. Tell me why it's a huge misconception.

[notsofst]

Well let's start with ["no one is ever arguing to send troops to take your guns in the night"](http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/foghorn/debunking-the-myth-that-no-one-wants-to-take-your-guns/). There is a sizable base of people that want guns to be illegal, period. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I don't like people pretending that there aren't people that don't want to get rid of all guns. We could start with the [LA Times](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-gun-control-ban-homicides-suicides-20140528-story.html). [Or a 33% approval on debate.org.](http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-guns-be-banned-in-america). [Or this columnist from tallahassee...](http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/columnists/ensley/2014/11/22/stop-insanity-ban-guns/19426029/). Or the list goes on. So when gun control advocates act like gun rights advocates are "paranoid" that people are coming for their guns, it's kind of disingenuous. There are a *lot* of people that don't like guns *at all*. And that's fine, but let's not pretend they don't exist and that they don't make up the core of the gun control movement. Those people do exist and they all can vote and elect lawmakers who will try to pass any legislation they can get away with until the courts strike it down. Second, you've got this bit in here: [STA-CITE]>"It's simple stuff to keep guns away from criminals." [END-CITE]There's so much wrong with this statement. First, it implies that there is actually something simple you can do to keep guns away from "criminals". I'd be interesting in hearing which bit of flawed legislation coughed up lately is our simple solution to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If I were to sum up the problem in a nutshell, it boils down to two things: 1. The inability of the anti-gun crowd to recognize the individual right to bear arms in the second amendment, and the implications of it 2. The inability of the anti-gun crowd to actually functionally understand firearms There is room in America for gun control legislation that *actually* respects the second amendment and *functionally* regulates firearms in a meaningful way. The problem is that the gun control lobby doesn't understand firearms, the people that own them, or the legal basis for owning them, and so they repeatedly propose legislation that is fiercely opposed. The gun rights lobby has no incentive to introduce limiting legislation of any kind, so there's no help coming from that corner either. Something successful would actually take true bipartisan effort, and that's just something that doesn't really look like is going to happen. EDIT: It's not unlike watching SOPA legislation get made, where it's obvious that the bills are crafted by industry interests and people with no experience with the subject matter.

[cited]

If we want to talk about stupid things that columnists, internet polls, and op-ed pieces want, we're going to be here a long time. If we want to talk about people that actually matter, it's not part of any major political platform. It's solely [used](http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election/nra-anxieties-sell-guns-bolster-republicans-20150418-1mlvof.html) to [sell more guns.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-sales-spike-as-nra-breaks-silence/) Frankly, I think you're being played for suckers. Surely if I pointed out a columnist, opinion piece, or internet poll saying that the progun people of the United States are going to start massacring civilians, you'd be equally skeptic. Simple as in adding background checks for all gun sales. Surely this isn't a contentious issue. You don't want felons to have guns, I don't want felons to have guns. If we're selling guns and there's a way that a felon can buy it without a background check, they're going to do that and illegally possess a gun that we already have good evidence they're not going to use responsibly. I'm saying that the second amendment is a vestige from a time hundreds of years ago where people could actually, literally take up arms against their government and initiate change. I don't see a single plausible scenario where it happens. I've debated this a hundred times. By all means, paint a scenario where civilian owned guns take down the most powerful military the world has ever known. What are you going to do on the first day? Why have you never done anything after the government appears to take bribes from corporations, doesn't listen to the public, tortures innocent people by sodomizing them - is the only line you'll ever actually do something about is the one that will never happen, with the government taking your guns away? I do understand firearms. I have my expert medals in rifle and pistol from my time in the military. I find your assertion that I *must* not know anything about guns or I'd be on your side. I'm telling you, I'm a very smart person, I know a lot about guns, and I think it's atrocious that we allow any asshole with a little bit of money be able to walk into a local Wal-Mart and walk out with the easiest murder device ever invented. If you want to help the gun rights groups get on board with ideas to keep guns away from criminals, I'm all ears. I'm perfectly fine with people having their hobbies. But your hobby is killing tens of thousands of Americans a year, and that's unacceptable. It allows the crazy people of this country to take out dozens of people with them when they finally decide to go. And it happens here. It doesn't happen with such alarming frequencies in comparable countries that don't have such widespread gun sales. It depresses me that such a play to the paranoia in this country is so successful while simultaneously hurting us so much.

[notsofst]

[STA-CITE]>If we want to talk about stupid things that columnists, internet polls, and op-ed pieces want, we're going to be here a long time. If we want to talk about people that actually matter, it's not part of any major political platform. It's solely used to sell more guns. Frankly, I think you're being played for suckers. [END-CITE]There are plenty of people who hold an anti-gun opinion and who hold political office. Feinstein, who drafts much of the gun control legislation that gets proposed, has no regard for the second amendment. Again, it's disingenuous to say those people aren't out there. Australia's gun control was recently pointed to by the president as a success story, and their model was a mass confiscation. [STA-CITE]>Simple as in adding background checks for all gun sales. Surely this isn't a contentious issue. You don't want felons to have guns, I don't want felons to have guns. If we're selling guns and there's a way that a felon can buy it without a background check, they're going to do that and illegally possess a gun that we already have good evidence they're not going to use responsibly. [END-CITE]This is how I know you don't know firearms. There already is a background check system in place that covers all the firearm sales from any licensed dealer. Criminals, according to a frontline investigation, purchase their guns primarily through straw sales and corrupt gun dealers, both of which are already illegal and wouldn't be affected by forcing background checks at private sales. [STA-CITE]>I'm saying that the second amendment is a vestige from a time hundreds of years ago where people could actually, literally take up arms against their government and initiate change. I don't see a single plausible scenario where it happens. I've debated this a hundred times. By all means, paint a scenario where civilian owned guns take down the most powerful military the world has ever known. What are you going to do on the first day? Why have you never done anything after the government appears to take bribes from corporations, doesn't listen to the public, tortures innocent people by sodomizing them - is the only line you'll ever actually do something about is the one that will never happen, with the government taking your guns away? [END-CITE]Whether or not you think the second amendment makes sense is irrelevant. It means what it means, and you can't pass legislation that voids it without a constitutional amendment. Thank you for proving my point. You followed up with an answer that expressed disdain for the second amendment as well as proposing something that would do little to nothing to hamper criminals from getting firearms. You're qualified to draft gun control legislation.

[LoneWords]

But you could say that to anything. Guns are just the most apparent. A lot of contemporary liberal views, I would argue, infringe on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Drinking and drugs just as much if not more put other lives at risk, we just refuse to recognize it because of our indulgent human nature.

[joyrida12]

Over time, the meaning of liberalism has changed. What you're thinking of is considered [classical liberalism](https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism). You see allot of classical liberalism in the beliefs of modern day libertarians which tend to associate more with the Republican party than the Democratic party these days. It's important to realize that there are vast differences in party ideologies from what they were in the past. Lincoln freed the slaves but he was a Republican, [Lyndon b. Johnson was a racist democrat](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism). Ninja Edit: Formatting

[cwdoogie]

Are you implying that modern republicans wouldn't have freed the slaves and that modern democrats are never racist? I agree that party ideologies have shifted (19th century republicans sure as fuck liked their tariffs, and democrats blew their load over Jim crow laws), but there are better examples.

[joyrida12]

No, not at all. Those examples were meant to show how the standard narrative of today regarding party ideologies is vastly different than they used to be. I would hope every Republican and Democrat of today would free the slaves but taking the narrative (See Joe biden speaking of Republicans wanting to put black people back in chains using his best southern baptist preacher voice. Which would probably piss me off if I were black and gave two shits what he said) at face value would say otherwise.

[cwdoogie]

Yes, I see what the comparison was meant to do, I just think the implications were a little unfair. As you said, it was supposed to highlight the shift in party narrative, so basically, 1860 political party =/= modern political party. Which would mean 1860 republicans freeing the slaves =/= what modern Republicans are doing, and 1860 democrats are racist =/= modern democrats. Again, I don't disagree with the idea, just what the comparison implied.

[joyrida12]

I admittedly was being a little concise in my answer and probably should have expanded, but on mobile and kids lol.

[cwdoogie]

No worries mate. You have a good one!

[qfe0]

I would add to this that conservatives, speaking broadly, seek to adhere to tradition and resist change. When the bill of rights were framed, it was novel to have such rights. But it has since become part of the American tradition and something conservatives seek to preserve.

[monsterbate]

Also, do keep in mind, that america's libertarian party is a perfect example of a shift in meaning, as what we call libertarians here is nothing like what the word means elsewhere.

[joyrida12]

This is true, I was answering on the premise that we were speaking in terms of American politics. I do find the differentiation of political terms around the world pretty interesting.

[monsterbate]

There is a distinct undercurrent of calculated doublespeak that runs through a lot of american politics.

[joyrida12]

I'm sure you can find that everywhere to an extent, politics is politics. But this is the reason I will never exclusively associate with a party. I am a libertarian but even find what little party organization is there full inconsistency. I admittedly tend towards the (R) side in elections but think 90% of them only slightly differentiate from their Democrat counterparts when put into office. As much as he seems to be hated on here, I still am a supporter of Ron Paul mostly for the fact that the man stands firm on his convictions and doesn't change them with the prevailing winds. IMHO, regardless of your position, if more people were like him in regards to staying true to their beliefs(Even if your views are stupid ;) ) we would be much better off.

[monsterbate]

By doublespeak, I don't mean typical politicians politicking and flip-flopping. [I mean calculated efforts to take words and twist their meanings into dogwhistles that sound like a normal phrase, but have very different meanings depending on where you fall in the political spectrum.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Code_word) While I am sure that exists elsewhere in the world, it seems (from my perspective at least) to be much more refined / prevalent in american politics. "Right to work" is a perfect example. Everyone loves their rights, and that sounds awesome, but if politicians pushing the "right to work" agenda referred to it more accurately as the "shit on unions and roll back 100 years of employee protections" agenda, they'd get a different result.

[joyrida12]

Gotcha, I can't really speak to other countries but again it's probably there. But really it's not hard to understand why, you're trying to appeal to such a large audience and being a but vague is almost always the best bet to success (however unfortunate that is). It's no different than being "Pro Union", you don't see them campaigning under the slogan " Shitting on employers rights and using coerced money to advance political agendas " Neither are very appealing unless you specifically agree with those specific tenant.

[ponkanpinoy]

There's a big difference in framing between "pro union" and "right to work" -- one is very specific and transparent as to what their agenda is, the other implies that you're an elitist asshole if you opposing them. "Right to work" is cynically calculated to suppress any and all debate. "Oh, you don't agree with me? You must be against the right to work", or "You think the TSA should be pruned back? You're on the terrorists' side."

[joyrida12]

We can agree to disagree.

[MontiBurns]

Politics isn't on a pure left-right spectrum. There are lots of factors at play. Low taxes are inherently liberal, since they maximize an individual's right to spend money as they wish. However, they're generally championed by conservatives. Nowadays, we have an idea of what leftists support, and what rightwingers support, and we label that issue *edit as either "liberal" or "conservative"*. Perhaps pro gun views fall into conservative camp because of demographics. Urban city dwellers probably have a more unfavorable view of guns (since they see lots of violent use of guns), urban city dwellers also tend to be mostly liberal. Therefore liberals tend to be more anti gun. Opposite for rural folk *edit who have more of a positive opinion and experience with guns*. Specifically, the reason why leftists tend to favor gun control is they see it as a public safety issue. "More guns in more hands leads to more deaths, either accidental or on purpose." (more of an urban experience with guns) Also, you'll find most mainstream liberals aren't for outright banning guns, but for stricter gun control laws (handguns and semi-automatics, magazine sizes, where you can carry them and what you need to carry them). If we're following the constitution to the letter, you should be able to own any firearm or explosive, since they all count as "arms". However, few people realistically support allowing private citizens owning hand grenades and rocket launchers, let alone nuclear weapons. It comes down to a balancing act of individual rights vs. the greater good. The amount of damage an individual can do with a nuclear weapon, for example, is much greater than the damage caused by taking away everyone's right to own nuclear weapons. Where to draw the line comes into question. Some people don't see owning a semi-automatic pistol with a 30 round magazine as justifable. Others see it as an inherent right.

[carasci]

[STA-CITE]>Urban city dwellers probably have a more unfavorable view of guns (**since they see lots of violent use of guns**), urban city dwellers also tend to be mostly liberal. Therefore liberals tend to be more anti gun. Opposite for rural folk *edit who have more of a positive opinion and experience with guns*. [END-CITE]Though you've edited in an improvement, I think you're still overemphasizing the bolded portion. The problem seems to be much less city-dwellers' greater exposure to gun violence as the fact that most city-dwellers have virtually no real-life experience with guns *at all*. Since many urban people have never handled or fired a gun (and most have not actually witnessed a shooting), their entire knowledge of firearms comes from news, politics, and most importantly entertainment media. As a result many, if not most, are speaking from a position of almost complete ignorance. \*[roll "barrel shroud" clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U)\* Consider how much of the opposition to suppressors, for example, may be coming from people who actually think that a little tiny device screwed onto a pistol will magically turn a ****BANG**** into a subdued ^*fwip* and, as a result, drastically misunderstand the consequences of people being allowed to own them. [STA-CITE]>Also, you'll find most mainstream liberals aren't for outright banning guns, but for stricter gun control laws (handguns and semi-automatics, magazine sizes, where you can carry them and what you need to carry them). [END-CITE]To some degree, but bear in mind that gun control has tended to be a slippery slope. At the moment, it's usually political suicide to argue for outright bans, yet there's also a continual stream of quotes from gun control advocates (including plenty of mainstream liberals) indicating that they would love to outright ban entire categories of firearm were that ever a possibility. As with many such issues (abortion etc.) it becomes very difficult to tell where the mainstream actually stands when at least one fairly common position is outside the window of acceptable political discourse.

[DrTTmenxion]

Where are you getting your "statistics" from regarding Urban dwellers for such statements as "most have not witnessed a shooting", I mean are you relying on statistical fact base or a common sense determination? Also how would the same statistic also relate to rural and suburban dwellers? Using the common sense determination, I'd be sure to assume rural dwellers are far less likely to see a gun related violent crime, and far less likely to encounter an armed criminal they don't already know on a first name basis. I Also wonder how does technical understanding of mechanics of using and discharging controlled firearms become a substantial factor in the argument concerning "gun control" in legislative terms, not as a skill. I would agree that any regulation involiving a class of gadgets should consider their mechanics and operation and handling ralities, I'm certain the greater scope of the debate is covered by more widely relevant factors that are completely unrelated to having personal knowledge of the usage of the weaponry/equipment..eg private civilian proliferation, impact on population crime rates, public perception of the impact the presence of personal firearms on public safety, those types of things require no firsthand knowledge of the operation of the weapons, nor the various types of weapons legally available to private citizenry under the current and proposed systems, to produce a viable opinion. Wide ranging knowledge of their effects is generally quite enough to help many people form opinion on their usefulness in civil communities and the applicability of the language and context of rights alleged to have been granted, and to whom.

[textrovert]

[STA-CITE]>The problem seems to be much less city-dwellers' greater exposure to gun violence as the fact that most city-dwellers have virtually no real-life experience with guns at all. Since many urban people have never handled or fired a gun (and most have not actually witnessed a shooting), their entire knowledge of firearms comes from news, politics, and most importantly entertainment media. As a result many, if not most, are speaking from a position of almost complete ignorance. [END-CITE]I always find the idea that people are only for gun control because they don't have experience with guns an obnoxious argument. Yes, they may have less knowledge of technicalities and that's why experts should inform law-making, but there is no knowledge or ignorance that firing or not firing a gun gives you that informs the broader attitude that there should be more or less regulation on guns. People who regularly use guns are of course going to be less supportive of gun control. People who oppose guns being so freely available are going to be less likely to own guns. This is common sense, and has nothing to do with ignorance or knowledge. I don't need to use heroin to know its effects and have an informed opinion on its legality. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of saying that non-heroin users who are more likely to oppose the legalization of heroin are speaking from a place of ignorance when compared to heroin users who are more likely to support it, which should be self-evidently fallacious. The demographics that experience the most gun violence - the black community, for example - are more likely to support gun control. It's not a *lack* of experience with guns, it's the *type* of experience with guns that informs attitudes about them.

[DrTTmenxion]

Well said, I suppose this reply already articulates the substance of my earlier response to this commentator's post, and even covers a drug reference example, similar to one I was going to use but decided to leave out.

[CalicoZack]

A couple of points: 1\. To say that enlightenment philosophers invented the idea of a right to own arms is missing part of the picture. Centuries before that, people felt entitled, and even [legally obligated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181) to own military weapons of some kind. Then in the 17th century, when royals began to confiscate the weapons of regular citizenry, they felt as though they had been wronged somehow and made slaves to an oppressive king. It wasn't until the Enlightenment that this entitlement was couched in terms of a "right", but a similar sentiment existed before then. [Source, starting at page 5.](http://constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/74malt.pdf) 2\. As others have noted, "liberal" is a confusing word that can refer to both ends of the political spectrum, depending on context. But I'm not sure that this point fully addresses your view. You correctly noted that many "individual and civil rights" are associated with liberal politics (as in, left-liberal, not right-liberal). There seems to be a weird discrepancy between rights that are associated with the left versus the right. The right to bear arms and many Fourth Amendment rights (for example) are associated with "classical liberalism," i.e. conservatism, while Equal Protection rights or a right to gay marriage would be strongly identified as left-leaning. What gives? 3\. [This article](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/04/a-thrivesurvive-theory-of-the-political-spectrum/) is the best attempt I've ever seen at providing a principled distinction that separates the "right" from the "left." The argument is that the political spectrum is essentially a measure of how much energy a person devotes to defending against outside and opposing forces versus how much they devote to developing and expanding their own resources and happiness. To use a metaphor from the article, being conservative is like making choices that would promote survival in a zombie apocalypse, while being liberal is like making choices that would optimize a post-scarcity utopia. When you think of it this way, the problems in deciding what positions are liberal versus conservative seem to be much clearer. In times of relative peace, the conservative position is to promote gun rights for self-protection and to mount a defense against encroaching big government. But when a country is faced with an outside existential threat, the extreme far-right position is fascism, where citizen would be willing to throw away gun rights and other classically liberal rights in exchange for protection from a strong leader. In that case, the "liberal" (now left) position is to fight for gun rights, to protect an underprivileged minority from being stomped by an overreaching majority. At present, there isn't a strong conservative narrative of an existential threat to most countries. In that case, gun rights tend toward conservative, because those are the people who feel the need to protect themselves from the rest of the world. By contrast "liberals" support taking away guns, because in their worldview we don't really need them, and they're just dangerous toys. Edit: grammar

[DrTTmenxion]

Well put I think you highlight the often overlooked truth the OPs position actually raises intentionally or not, that the issues themselves and many of the positions that can be taken on those issues are not "owned" by any political ideology group or party, but could be assumed by any person or movement claiming any manner of ideology using their own or other popular rationales,personal experiences and also factors relative to demographics. Especially in an era of rapid information exchange and media influences, social issues and the most obvious positions that might be taken for them are often radicalized and polarized by other intersecting issues and partisan behaviors, to the point that it can become a means of characterizing individuals or movements as belonging to a "side" on any series of issues that may not even be related except by "party lines" of thinking...but the topic is profound because it reaches far deeper into the philosophy of politics than i think the OP intended. eg When a specifically identified movement of people changes its SoPol views over any measure of time, has its contemporary members fallen out of step with it founding principles,perhaps even becoming "unworthy" of the affiliation? or can the movement evolve and be redefined, as much as the people who identify with it can? Who gets to decide? The question is easily at the heart of this topic on every level: From the discussion of civic religion, conservatism,liberalism, to the continuity of a nation's founding constitution(should it be changeable or remain rigid/reliable even if doing so might be causing it to run against its own basic purpose/mandates that gives weight to its right to exist at all), the question even applies to the substance and relevance of dictionary literalism in terminology vs culturally coopted discourse that might use the terms loosely in practice.

[LoneWords]

This is interesting. I don't know if I necessarily agree but it's well put. ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/CalicoZack. [^CalicoZack's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/calicozack) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)