How did gun control become a left wing issue?

[lancemurdoch]

I would say I am left-wing, especially on economic matters, pro-union and so forth. I also think the US is still too racist and affirmative action is necessary, feminism is OK and gays shouldn't be treated like pariahs. And I think US foreign policy, even under Democratic presidents, has been outrageous ever since the US invaded the Philippines over a century ago and probably before that.

I can't see for the life of me why the left supports gun control however. What's the history of this, when did the Democrats, or the left or whatever start down this road? On TV, I hear Democratic politicians and pundits say they are not for getting rid of all guns, just little tweaks like banning this or that or passing this or that law. But when I speak to Democrats I know, some of them say scary things, and give odd reasons for gun control. The scary things are they want all private arms confiscated by the government (I suppose the military, national guard, polcie and probably a dispensation for private corporate security would be allowed though, of course) and give odd reasons for it such as "I'm scared of what all these workers in Idaho, Mississippi, Kentucky etc. who have guns might do". Huh? Personally, I feel a lot safer knowing working people in Idaho, Mississippi, Kentucky and so forth have guns. Not just for protection from crime or whatever, but in case in the future some kind of political change happens that they don't approve of. Sure nothing like that appears on the horizon, but if you look at history, it's quite likely.

That's in the US. I've read a little about the history of this. Actually, if you see the move "1900", the PCI type guy at the end tells all the workers why they should disarm themselves at the end of the movie. I didn't really buy it though. Of course, this reflected PCI's request for disarmament in the 1940's. What is not mentioned is how many of the workers became alienated from PCI due to this. PCI was Italy's left-wing party - they got over 30% of the vote in 1972 (they were the left party, not the center-left party, PCI was way to the left of the Democrats). Anyhow, what's the history of the whole thing of the left wanting the government confiscating workers guns? And don't tell me it's just minor changes because most of the people I know want a lot more than minor changes.

[bowens43]

1. I have NEVER heard a prominent Democrat

say that they wanted to ban guns. This is just rhetoric from the right to scare those who don't want to take the time to learn the true positions of those on the left. Do you think you should be able to own a nuke? How about a SAM? Biological weapons? How about a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on your Jeep? This gun control.It is Constitutional and necessary. Listen closely: No one wants to confiscate your guns.

[lancemurdoch]

8. As I said

I said that no prominent Democrat has ever said "we want to ban all guns". But the anti-gun rhetoric I have heard came not from the mouths of the right, but many Democrats or left-wing people I know. A great many of the people I know who are Democrats want to see this.

As far as nukes, SAMs, biological weapons, 50 caliber machine guns and the like - the US army seems to acquire all of these things without much uproar. Does the US army need all of these things to protect US borders? I think not. If you want to talk about ridiculous, it's what the US military has versus what it needs to protect the US from attack. Of course the purpose of the US military is not that - it is to keep watch over the wealth of multi-national corporations in foreign lands, and if necessary, to march against it's own people (which has happened many times in American history, from the 19th century, to against WWI veterans in the streets of Washington DC in 1932, to Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict...in fact, as recently reported, several million of the $87 billion supposedly for Iraq actually went to Florida's FTAA conference, to shore up security against mostly American anti-globalization protestors). For many years, US citizens could have put up a pretty good fight against it's own army if necessary - I don't think the army outpacing the average citizen by miles is a good thing. In the short-term I suppose such ideas are "radical", but over the long-term historically I don't think so. The US has only existed coherently for a little over two centuries, and already had one major internal challenge to it's existence (the Civil War). But I would say with the PATRIOT act, a massive CIA, NSA, Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security, national guards, expanding prisons, ICBM's and so on and so forth, disarming American citizens, or even having them register their firearms is more dangerous than ever. And actually I take back what I said, my view is not radical because a large percentage of Americans have similiar thoughts to mine.

[sendero]

30. what the right does...

... with great effect and success is to take a position of the most extreme on the left and paint it as a mainstream left position.

We should be doing that to them. The opportunities to do so are astounding in number and quality.

[Fescue4u]

31. Diana Feinstein not prominent?

Interesting

[NashVegas]

2. "I Know What's Best For You Lobby"

Tends to be more successful when it makes an appeal to the left than to the right, is all.

[JHB]

Wrongo, Crisco!

There are plenty of those on the right, too.

[fujiyama]

3. I remember hearing

that LBJ was the first democrat that started to really push for gun control as a measure to fight crime in the inner cities.

Soon other movements were begun in the early mid 90s to control handguns and assult weapons (right before the Brady Bill was passed)...Clinton supported these measures and signed the Brady Bill into law. He also signed the assult weapons ban. Him and Gore shared similar views on gun control, but Clinton played it smart, downplaying it during campaigns.

However, this is an issue where there is a lot of diversity on(even within the party).

I myself hope this is an issue that we don't make a big deal out of in the next election. It's a losing issue, and won't really get us any votes in states we need them in.

[Guaranteed]

11. I think we oughta switch positions on it.

It's not going to gain us any votes to be for gun control. Our curent position is just plain stupid.

[Kolesar]

4. You are not asking a question. You are criticizing gun control advocates

Your post "wanders around" more than a bit, so I cannot figure out exactly what you are saying.

Here is where your biased opinion is expressed:

"But when I speak to Democrats I know, some of them say scary things, and give odd reasons for gun control. The scary things are they want all private arms confiscated by the government (I suppose the military, national guard, polcie and probably a dispensation for private corporate security would be allowed though, of course) and give odd reasons for it such as "I'm scared of what all these workers in Idaho, Mississippi, Kentucky etc. who have guns might do". "

If you want to state a position on gun control, just state it, but don't start labeling people and tagging positions to Democrats. Many Democrats are pro-guns.

This thread started in GDF, but I expect it shall be moved to the Gun forum.

[Gman]

5. I talked to a radical liberal friend the other day

that said he'd changed his position on the 2nd amendment 180 degrees since the theft of the presidency. He's now taken the position that we may need to keep and own firearms because the government has gone too far and an armed insurrection may one day be necessary.

[pinkpops]

9. Yes

This is one belief that some individuals on the right and the left may have in common. The wording of the second ammendment is vague, probably because the framers were in the same quandry we are. The last defence against despots may be force.

[Guaranteed]

10. The 2nd is there to protect the 1st.

I've always been a very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, because I've always been paranoid about the government. Now, I don't think I was so paranoid.

[Kolesar]

6. So you lob a grenade into GDF, then disappear

I wish that that sort of behavior could be controlled.

[reknewcomer]

12. It's all about control isn't it?

Control behavior, control guns, control thought next?

[Don_G]

7. Anybody Can Pick And Choose An Issue

And make it seem like everybody who shares a few similar values thinks that way.

Hitler and Rush are past masters in propaganda.

Myself? I express my opinions briefly and not in the 16 lines I've read above. I like to make my point, express it in the fewest words possible and move on to the next goal.

Otherwise, you're preaching to the choir; I'm already a Democrat.

[Paladin]

13. This Looks Like Just Another Attempt.......

....to get the Democratic Party to adopt an NRA-friendly position on guns, using questionable facts (usually culled from far right-wing publications), and scare tactics. These "I'm really left wing, EXCEPT I've been re-thinking the 2nd Amendment thing over, and golly-gee...." pronouncements come up with interesting frequency. Lots of "I used to be scared of guns, then a friend took me out to the firing range, and GODALMIGHTY, guns are great!" tales, as well.

This effort has been going on down in the Justice Public Safety "Gun Dungeon" for some time, now. Be not deceived.....

[reknewcomer]

16. Meanwhile many of us grew up with guns

And are disgusted by either wing that tries to take them away. Most native people here in Vermont will not support the kind of control you propose in the basement. Wisely most dems have backed off the guns and had better not revisit the issue re banning.

[Paladin]

24. I Grew Up With Guns, Myself

And I find it interesting that so many supposed Democrats who back the NRA's stance on guns think: (1)it would be a terrific idea for the Democratic Party to shut the hell up about guns; while simultaneously (2)bellowing publicly at the top of their lungs how dissatisfied they are with the party's position on guns, and how the party's leaders are a bunch of gun-grabbers, thus drawing as much negative attention as posssible to a divisive issue......

[PsN2Wind]

14. This administration

Has already done more to curtail those liberties guaranteed by the Bill Of Rights than any other in history. So you might really want to consider just how long it will be before, in the interest of Homeland Security, the Second Amendment will have to be suspended.

[liberalcapitalist]

15. agreed, it's completely illogical

n/t

[Padraig18]

17. I'm quite liberal myself, socially, but....

... I do not understand why the left fails to grasp the simple fact that it is not a free press, the right of habeus corpus or the ballot that, in the final sense, protects individuals from their government, it is a GUN!

The left has 'cherry-picked' certain dicta from the US v. Miller decision to justify its positions on gun-control while ignoring the remaining language which pointedly narrows its scope; they also ignore the enormous number of other decisions, including the most recent one in US v. Emerson, 5th Circuit, en banc (2001), cert. denied. US S. Ct. (2002), which specifically affirm the individual right to 'keep and bear arms'.

Logic and Constitutional law have never been strong points of the gun-control lobby. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

26. Not true

They both allowed restriction of weapons to ones that are suitable as individual, personal weapons; and upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 as well. There's no court decision to support the idea that individuals can own any gun they want to.

US v. Emerson

"We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia.(66) However, for the reasons stated, we also conclude that the predicate order in question here is sufficient, albeit likely minimally so, to support the deprivation, while it remains in effect, of the defendant's Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's dismissal of the indictment on Second Amendment grounds."

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm

US v Miller

Government's Brief
In this connection the brief goes on to assert that it is "indisputable that Congress was striking not at weapons intended for legitimate use but at weapons which form the arsenal of the gangster and the desperado" (id. at 7) and that the National Firearms Act restricts interstate transportation "of only those weapons which are the tools of the criminal" (id. at 8).

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158..."

"Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by writers are cited. 3 We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded. (Government won)

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

[Kitsune]

18. Frankly, I agree with you

I've never understood why restricting something is a liberal position as opposed to an authoritarian position.

But then, Dems are just as authoritarian as Repub- *punches self in face to avoid "Dems are just as bad as Repugs" arguement* Too early. Need tea.

[curse10]

19. Perhaps because it's the right thing to do?

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

20. Undermining the Bill of Rights is *never* "the right thing to do"! n/t

[curse10]

21. Christ

:eyes:

no one is talking about taking away your precious little guns. But let's have a little safety here.

[Jerseycoa]

22. Concealed Carry Laws

These laws seem to have become very popular with the left, if I can judge by a thread within the last few days. I was surprised the concealed weapons laws could be seen as favorable at all by Democrats, but they are.

Gun Thread Here

It looks like a Republican legislative goal that is now being embraced by Democrats to me. Personally, I'm glad Clark opposes this.

[liberalcapitalist]

25. "precious little free speech, precious little right to a fair trial, etc."

I do not own a gun, have no interest in owning a gun, and frankly, do not empathize with the reasons most people who do own guns choose to own guns... But I fully support their right to do so. Don't mock the Bill of Rights. Once one right is eroded, the others are quick to follow-- hence, the Patriot Act.

[Fescue4u]

32. I can hear Bush saying the exact same thing

When he takes away other civil rights.

[leesa]

23. Courtesy of the Right Wing. How better to capture gun owners votes

than to tell them they are going to have their guns taken away if they don't vote Republican.

[Fescue4u]

33. No, its courtesy of the Democratic party

But the Right Wing sures enjoys our efforts at self destruction!

[lewiston]

27. Just Curious

Have the canidates been asked a gun control question during any of the debates (I missed it if they were)? If so, did they spin or give a direct answer?

[Fescue4u]

35. .I don know the answer.

In fact, now that you asked, Im curious myself.

Unfortunately, when it comes to guns, the public has a long memory, and remember well the gun grab of 1994. Al Gore can tell us all about it, Tennesee and you know the rest.

[salin]

28. Just curious where these scary democrats pushing for confiscation

exist? I have known folks interested in closing thing like the gunshow loophole... I have never heard them, nor anyone else discuss, push for or even express a hidden desire for gun confiscation.

Never.

So where are these "scary" democrats? And when did you get the impression that it is a predominant line of thought among democrats?

[rman]

29. CONTROL or BAN? - big difference

The difference should be obvious.

A complete ban would be horrible, it's one of the things fascism does in order to gain control over the people. (watch the shrimp on this one, even if you'r "opposed to guns")

Car ownership (certainly actaully driving one) is controlled, you know, drivers licence and such.

What would be so bad about having gun control?

As a matter of fact there already is some form of gun control in the US, though often it is so minimal there might just as well be no control at all, with many terrible tragedies as a result.
A tighter form of control would enable people to not just own a gun, but own it safely. You'd have to work for it though, ie passing an exam to get the licence.

[Fescue4u]

34. Exactly, 1st control, THEN ban

Which is exactly the course that every country that has banned guns has taken.

Its almost impossible to ban them without first "controlling" them"

[rman]

37. but control doesn't necessarily lead to ban

Any kind of government control can go wrong. Is that a reason to oppose any kind of government control? Would it be reason to abandon government?
If so then who would run the place? no-one? or perhaps corporations? would that be better?

I say we do need government and regulations AND we need to be "forever vigilant"; it is the price of freedom.

[Fescue4u]

38. True, but its not worth the chance.

Part of that forever vigiliant thing is not giving anyone a chance to take rights away.

Once you start regulating Civil rights, they'll be eaten away from bite at a time.

[durutti]

36. It isn't a left-wing issue.

It's a Democratic issue. I don't consider Democratic Party part of the left (though individual Democrats may be). Gun control has never been of much interest to leftists, who are more interested in addressing the root causes of crime.

There are a lot of socialist groups, for example, that are staunchly opposed to gun control.

Me, I don't care either way.