How would you describe the liberal pro-gun position?

[bluestateguy]

In contrast to the conservative, right wing pro-gun position.

That is, what is the orthodoxy of the pro-gun liberal?

[hlthe2b]

1. Now this is a good question..

I look forward to seeing the responses...

[1620rock]

3. How would you describe the liberal pro-gun position?...Self defence.

[Webster Green]

2. Keep them well-oiled.

Like all the rest of your tools.

Oh, and keep them away from the kids.

[Naked_Ape]

4. Military firearms

from the past represent the best technologies available at the time. They were valuable and thus often well cared for with markings to indicate where they have been and what part of history they made. It is fascinating, for example, to note the changes in the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle from the time of the Czars through WWII. More details were left unfinished as the war progressed and the Germans pressed deeper into Russia. Nevertheless, there is a video on youtube of a modern day marksman repeatedly hitting a target at 1000 yards with one (an amazing feat).

This Liberal collects and shoots all sorts of guns and has a CHL.

[tburnsten]

5. Pro-civil rights

any more accurate way to describe it?

[PinkFloyd]

6. I'm a pro-gun liberal.

I own firearms and I support the right to own a gun for self defense or hunting. Probably the part I differ from the right on is I wouldn't be bothered if assault weapons were banned or if class 3 weapons were made completely unattainable. The reason why is most often people who buy them for legit reasons, buy them as collectibles. Both are examples of impractical weapons that you can't really use to hunt with or self-defense and too often they end up in the in the hands of inner-city gangs. However, I always hated the 10-shot magazine requirement of the Clinton crime-bill. But I never objected to his ban of "cop-killer" Black Talon ammo.

-- Edit --

Nor would I object to strengthening laws to prevent people from buying guns in states like Georgia and selling them illegally in the streets of large cities.

[TPaine7]

8. In times of local crisis, earthquakes, floods, natural disasters, etc.,

a so called "assault weapon" could be quite practical. They were used for legitimate defensive purposes in the aftermath of Katrina. Also, I see no reason that they are less useful for short or medium range self-defense than any other rifle. They seem to be more useful for closer combat than "good" rifles with wooden stocks, such as the Rifleman and others used on nice, safe family westerns.

Laws forbidding so called assault weapons are simply a political ruse designed to confuse and divide the public. The tactics used to advance such laws are quite revealing--articles and television stories specifically designed to leave the innocent with the impression that they are fully automatic machine guns, hysteria about "spray firing from the hip" and identifying almost any rifle used in crime as an AK47 or AK47-style gun to convince people that it's the same "weapon of war" popular with the Taliban. And then there is the hypocritical way the laws are enforced. For example, the same cowardly thugs who defied the U.S. and Louisiana Constitutions to deprive citizens of their right to keep and bear arms to defend their families and loved ones stood by calmly as corporations used true assault weapons--fully automatic M16s--to protect corporate property.

I don't trust the Bradys, Nagins and Bloombergs of this country as far as I can throw them, and I'm not the right.

[benEzra]

16. I think you may have been misled on this point:

Probably the part I differ from the right on is I wouldn't be bothered if assault weapons were banned or if class 3 weapons were made completely unattainable. The reason why is most often people who buy them for legit reasons, buy them as collectibles. Both are examples of impractical weapons that you can't really use to hunt with or self-defense and too often they end up in the in the hands of inner-city gangs.

I think you may have been misled on this point. "Assault weapon" is scare-speak for civilian guns with modern styling, and relatively few people buy them as collectibles. We buy them because they are practical, versatile, and fun to shoot. The AR-15 platform, in particular, dominates the centerfire target shooting scene in the United States, and is far and away the most common defensive carbine in U.S. homes.

More on the way "assault weapons" are really used can be found here.

As to rifles "in the hands of inner-city gangs", consider that Illinois, home to all the gang violence in Chicago, had 530 reported murders in 2008; rifles, including "assault weapons", accounted for only 3 of them. Rifles of any type are not widely used by criminals in this country.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

Look at the Rifles column in that table. Rifles aren't a crime problem.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. There have been only two murders with legal machine guns in 76 years.

Sorry if I don't see a huge problem with them as they are.

BTW - In real life, criminals generally don't care for full-auto. A full-auto weapon is usually hard to conceal, and uses up lots of ammo in a real hurry. It takes training to use full auto effectively, and criminals are rarely able to get that training.

[Taitertots]

25. Assault weapons are among the MOST practical firearms

"cop-killer" bullets are a farce. Black talons are actually worse at penetrating bullet resistant vests than comparable ammo.

Assault weapons and automatic rifles are very infrequently used in inner-city crime.

It is already against the law to sell guns "illegally in the streets".

[slackmaster]

28. Black Talon ammo was never actually banned

Winchester voluntarily pulled it from the market, then re-branded it as a a very similar type that is still sold today.

Its terminal ballistic performance was vastly overstated during the phony controversy about it in the '90s.

[DissedByBush]

33. Define "assault weapon"

There's the problem.

Let's say you have a hunting rifle, semi-automatic with detachable magazine.

These are quite common and not considered to be "assault weapons."

Stick a more comfortable and accurate pistol grip style adjustable stock on it for better long-range hunting and that would magically turn it into an "assault weapon" under the 1994 ban.

It doesn't make sense, but it's true.

But then most gun laws don't make sense.

Why? Because they're based on fear, not reality.

[tburnsten]

35. As far as Black Talon ammunition goes

It was never made illegal, Winchester just renamed it to Ranger-T when they redesigned it a bit, the new Ranger-T is a much better performer than the old Black Talon was, but doesn't have the scary name. Black Talon got heat because it was a very popular police bullet, not a "cop killer" bullet, which is generally used to refer to armor-piercing handgun ammunition by the way. Also, armor-piercing is a pretty subjective term, since any centerfire rifle round WILL pass through soft body armor like it wasn't even there, regardless of bullet configuration.

As far as hunting with angry looking rifles, they are actually very good for hunting for some of the same reasons that they are good for service, and are so modular that they can be readily set up for hunting with little effort. Also, some like the AR-10 platform in particular, are just outstanding for hunting. I'll send you a pair of links to threads about a guy who hunts with an AR-15 in .223 and another in 7.62X39mm with great success, and not because he does anything idiotic like wildly blasting away. He uses them the same way he would use any other rifle to cleanly harvest a big game animal.

[tburnsten]

39. Apparently you can't get messages

So I'll just link you to the site.

with a .223 AR-15, 55 grain soft point


with a 7.62x39mm AR-15, 125 Nosler Ballistic Tip


the parent thread

[jazzhound]

7. I think Dave Kopel hits all the right notes on this question

Hope this isn't considered a thread hijack, but the OP asks a very good and important question -- and I find myself agreeing with Kopel's ideas on this:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OpEds/liberal-argument-for-gun-ownership.htm

[PavePusher]

9. Mr. Kopel definitely "gets it". n/t

[Double T]

10. Preserving the Second Amendment, just in case.

[pipoman]

11. Capitulation of rights

or conservative definition of rights isn't liberal, Liberal, or Democratic....neither side of the political continuum owns any specific position, nor does one's stance on any one issue define them as anything.

[chillspike]

12. I'm pro non-lethal firearm

i don't currently own any source of protection but if i did, i would opt for a non-lethal one.

i also imagine that technology will soon solve this debate (if it hasn't already) by providing a defensive but non-lethal weapon just as reliable (if not more reliable) as a real firearm.

so my position is i am in favor of using non-lethal technology to solve the debate.

if all people want to do is use guns for personal defense, let's provide them with a ultra reliable non-lethal option so they can't complain that people are taking away their means of self defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. If such is invented, gun controllers will want to outlaw it.

Think I am kidding? So called "stun-batons" are illegal in the same states that are most strongly anti-gun. Repeatedly the anti-gun movement shows that it is really against self-defense.

http://www.tbotech.com/stunbaton.htm

From the website:

Simply touch an assailant with the stun baton and pull the trigger: three to five seconds will leave the assailant dazed and temporarily paralyzed.

(and at the bottome of the ad)

Stun Devices can not be shipped to Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Connecticut or the city of Philadelphia, PA.

Take a look at this video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2665873/what_is_the_stun_master_telescopic_stun_baton/

They are extremely effective against close in crime, and often banned.

You may be the exception, but in general gun-controlers are solidly against non-lethal self defense.

If Star Trek phasers with a permanent stun setting could be invented tomorrow morning, by tomorrow evening gun-controllers would be screaming for them to be banned.

[shadowrider]

20. Heh

"Had you pulled the trigger, I'd have been vaporized"

"Sorry, it's my first ray-gun"

[GreenStormCloud]

21. I remember that scene. Star Trek: First Contact

[shadowrider]

23. Best one of the franchise, IMHO

[Taitertots]

26. Too bad that doesn't exist and never will

When you invent the phaser I'll give up my guns to get one. But until then, I'm not holding my breath.

[Walk away]

29. Wow, you are great!

What an eye opener! I am going to start to research the technology you mention. As a life long proponent of stricter gun laws it's exciting to think that non-lethal technology would take the self defence argument off the table (unless you can never feel safe without actually ending someones life).

Sounds like the future could be a safer and saner place after all.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Go for it.

As a pro-gun person with a CHL, I would be very happy to be able to turn it my guns for a working phaser with a permenant stun setting.

Don't forget the economics. It must be about the same price as a good lower priced handgun.

And it MUST be legal to carry in all states and cities in the U.S.

And it must be as good as a gun, meaning that it must have adequate range, must penetrate normal winter clothing, multiple shots in rapid succession, and must reliably drop the person it hits.

[geckosfeet]

13. Constitutionally protected right . Defense, recreation, hunting etc.

This is not strictly a "liberal" position. The reasons for owning firearms are as varied as those who own them.

My politics are nobodies business but my own.

[shadowrider]

14. I'm not surprised

Here anymore when people try to paint gun ownership, rights, etc. as a RW position. It's not a left or right position and it unites people from both sides of the aisle when gun rights are under attack.

As far as politics is concerned, I know what my views are, but they're mine and I don't discuss them.

[hack89]

17. I like to exercise all my civil rights. nt

[benEzra]

18. I don't think it's really a left vs. right thing.

The Brady Campaign is run by Republicans, not liberals, and the original Federal "assault weapon" ban was the brainchild of a right-wing Republican, William J. Bennett. The primary gun-ban crusaders in Congress are centrist communitarian-leaning corporatists, not liberals. And conservatives in this country and abroad have a long and checkered history of supporting gun control in order to disarm minorities and dissidents, from the xenophobic Sullivan Law in New York, to the Jim Crow gun control laws in the South, to the Bush administration's proposal to deny gun ownership to anyone placed on the secret terrah blacklists.

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control
More on conservatives instigating gun controls to disarm "those people"

Taking the gun issue in isolation, I don't think there is a "liberal position" and a "conservative position"; there is a pro-rights position and there is a pro-restrictions position, and where one falls on that spectrum is determined by one's view of Authority vs. individual civil liberties. You see the same freedom vs. More Authority dynamic with regard to warrantless surveillance, cannabis prohibition, the Bush blacklists, and whatnot.

[Bosso 63]

22. Some on the right think the solution to violence is more guns,

Some on the left think the solution is fewer guns.

I would argue that the root causes of violence are deeper than that. In addition, I would add that "WE THE PEOPLE" have a tendency to focus on the individual rights that are enshrined in the Constitution, but we are less interested in the individual responsibilities that go with those rights.

"With great power comes great responsibility" - Uncle Ben

[Robert Farago]

24. Liberal's love laws

The pro-gun liberal stays true to form: elitism.

From my discussion with the breed, they believe that guns are OK for people whom society (i.e. they) deems intelligent and emotionally stable enough to bear arms responsibly.

On the extreme liberal side of the equation, they are pro-gun only for police. Backing off from that, they believe in stringent tests for gun owners and no end of restrictions (i.e. no "assault weapons" , handgun bans in D.C., etc).

[benEzra]

31. I disagree.

The anti-gun zealots are communitarian centrists (of both parties), not "extreme liberals". Plenty of liberals are pro-choice on guns, and plenty of centrists and neocons aren't.

Dianne Feinstein is not a "liberal." She is a centrist (some would say a DINO) who is obsessed with using everything as an excuse for More Authority.

[Walk away]

32. Welcome to the gun forum.

You will find lots of friends here!

[spin]

36. Don't paint with a broad brush ...

many of us here believe in "shall issue" concealed carry in which every man or woman of any race, religion or ethnic background who can pass a background check and the required training can obtain a carry permit. Many also support the "open carry" of firearms in states where it is legal and work to change the law in states where it is not.

We also support the right of all honest, responsible and mentally sane citizens to own firearms for hunting, target shooting and self defense. We would like to see steps taken to punish criminals and criminal gang members caught carrying illegal firearms and take them off the streets.

Is it unreasonable to restrict the legal sale of firearms to those citizens who have a clean record, do not abuse alcohol or drugs and who haven't displayed a history of severe mental illness? If so, is it unreasonable to suspend a person's drivers license if he/she has a record of driving while intoxicated?

Many here own "assault weapons" and use them for target shooting and hunting. Some own fully automatic weapons and have the required federal paperwork.

Of course, many here on DU are opposed to the civilian ownership of firearms or would like to ban "assault weapons" and any carrying of firearms in public.

That's what makes this forum interesting.

[Robert Farago]

40. Speak of the devil: an MSM article on this very topic

http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_14751179

Money shot (last sentence): "Gun rights are a mechanism to protect a body from attack." Protect, prevent or counter?

[slackmaster]

27. I can't say, because I'm not very liberal and I'm not pro-gun

I'm pro-CHOICE on guns, just as I am on just about every other issue involving personal liberty.

[rrneck]

30. Trying to make liberals

pull together is like trying to herd cats with a polo pony. Liberalism is primarily concerned with accelerated cultural change, so orthodoxy of any kind is always at risk in liberal thought.

The symbol of a gun will always be a more effective symbol around which to build a wedge issue for conservatives because it's more palatable for people to think of the use of force as a defense of existing traditions and ideas, or orthodoxies, than for forcing accelerated cultural change. The symbolism associated with the use of arms to compel change from those who profit from orthodoxy leads inexorably to the image of an armed (Bolshevik) militia. And nobody wants to go there.

So, I expect the anti-gun liberal position is just a weak effort to turn lemons into lemonade. Politically speaking, it would be better for liberals to put their efforts into creating an effective symbol of their own than in shoring up the weak defense of an anti-gun symbol that doesn't serve them well.

[jazzhound]

38. Outstanding post, rrneck

[gorfle]

34. There is no such thing.

There is no such thing as a "liberal" or "conservative" pro-firearm position.

You are either for the right to keep and bear arms, per the intent of our founders, or you are not.

I don't see this as either a liberal or conservative issue. It's simply a Constitutional issue.

What makes the typical conservative, in my view is:

1) Usually religious.
2) In spite of #1, usually against being his brother's keeper (welfare of any kind).
3) Highly nationalistic, to a fault. Willing to overlook anything in the name of "patriotism". A common adage is, "Like it or leave it", or "My country, right or wrong".
4) Anti-gay. Racist.
5) Anti-abortion.
6) Free-market to a fault.

A typical liberal, on the other hand:

1) Usually not religious, and more intelligent.
2) Believes in providing for the common welfare
3) Highly critical of government.
4) Very pro-equal rights.
5) Pro-choice
6) Pro-regulation, and pro-environment.