Progressivism and the 2nd Amendment?

[SilverTauron]

As a backwards gun toting conservative in the repressive and socially unevolved backwater of South Dakota, perhaps I just don't get how someone can be a progressive and still support a right to keep and bear arms.

I mean no malice, and am not trolling the board. I ask, one kindred mind to another, how is it that a Progressive/liberal/leftist can support the Democratic Party and also support an individual right to own a firearm.

For one, the Democratic Party has gun control as its party motto. Second, the underlying principle of Progressive Dogma is that the government should intervene in human problems of poverty, economic inequality, and social justice. How can such a government enforce its decrees for the greater good, when everyone has the right to own a weapon which would be used to resist ?

Nitwits and partisans need not apply. I'm just an ordinary man looking for a logical and honest answer to a question.

[jumbopanda]

People are intelligent enough to develop well-informed positions on a variety of political issues without adhering to a single label or ideology on every issue. Politics is not about choosing either one set of beliefs or another. You're allowed to mix and match.

Not every liberal is a Democrat and not every conservative is a Republican.

[SilverTauron]

People are intelligent enough to develop well-informed positions on a variety of political issues without adhering to a single label or ideology on every issue. Politics is not about choosing either one set of beliefs or another. You're allowed to mix and match.

Not every liberal is a Democrat and not every conservative is a Republican.

I don't consider people to be one dimensional beings who are limited to one political spectrum.

With your point acknowledged, ill respond with this-while there's nothing wrong with being multi-dimensional on political issues, there are certain philosophies which are fundamentally incompatible. Firearms are not an issue which one can be divided about, because the foundation of why we have the right is incompatible with the Progressive philosophy in a way that is unique to gun rights.

Here's why. The basic reason we all have the RKBA is because this nation's founders commonly held that the individual is better able to determine their destiny then a central authority. Hence the individual right to bear arms.

This right is completely incompatible with Progressivism, because that philosophy holds that the good of the collective supersedes the needs of the individual. Its the Star Trek aphorism of "The needs of the Many, Outweigh the Needs of the One". How can the needs of the many supersede the needs of the one , when the one retains a right to lethal force against the collective?

True though your post is, it does not answer that query.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

You have to talk to people and ask them what they think before you can start to know what they believe or support politically.

You are applying a tiny little label to a huge range of people with widely varying beliefs. Progressive, Liberal, Leftist and Democratic Party are all very different things. You are lumping them together as all the same when they're not. Perhaps the universe and people in particular are more complex than you understand them to be.

You pin a label on people and then assume that all of them hate all that you love and love all that you hate when this is not the truth. Although of course this would be very accurate for some of them, but you don't know which ones until you ask.

Non-Conservatives are a huge range of different types of people with hugely varying beliefs and ways of seeing the world. Some millions of them are Gun Owners and passionate 2nd Amendment Rights Patriots. Nothing strange about that.

You are assuming that anyone not a Conservative/Republican favors gun control. Often not the case.

You are assuming that everyone not Conservative/Republican favors a nanny state that takes away peoples power to make decisions for themselves and therefore should take away the final political recourse of armed resistance. Not generally true.

If I may be so bold as to ask, is it possible that you have been drinking some Conservative/Republican ideological Kool-Aid that leads you to make unwarranted assumptions about large groups of people that you don't know much about?

There is a large and active Conservative/Republican media machine that paints large groups of peoples with beliefs and qualities that they do not in fact possess. Turn off this noise for a while and see if the world looks different to you.

When you stop asking questions because you have all the answers you stop learning about the world. This can make the world even more perplexing than it already is.

Consider the possibility (I'm just saying ), consider the possibility that people other than yourself look at the world around us and come to different conclusions than you do and are still logical, reasonable, caring and loving human beings and patriotic Americans.

Perhaps millions of gun lovers/owners voted for Obama after looking at his first term and seeing no action on gun control. (Fast and Furious doesn't count for many millions of Americans because they didn't pay attention and didn't have all the facts. It shows how impossible straight forward Federal Gun Control is in today's political climate that they would try such an Bassakward, stupid, round about way to promote gun control.) Millions and millions of US voters don't see an evil Obama conspiracy to destroy America, revoke the Constitution and cast us all down into a pit of slavery and destruction. Obama's just some guy, you know? Trying the best he can and having a tough time of it.

Millions and millions of Americans, including millions of gun owners, looked at the same world you're looking at and came to different conclusions than you and voted differently than you did.

I believe that Obama would gladly sign Federal Gun Control legislation, but no such bills have made it to his desk. And I'll betcha that no such bills will arrive at the Oval Office in the next four years either.

I believe that the odds are 5 times greater that a Liberal SCOTUS Justice will leave the bench in the next four years than the odds of a Conservative Justice will leave. (Trust me, I have a Calculator! ) So Obama won't have a chance to change the slant of the SCOTUS either.

And by the way, I did not vote for the SOB, campaign for him or send him money. I have other reasons to despise him than you do. He's not the worst president I've ever lived under but I definitely don't agree with a lot of his policies.

As long as Congress is not willing to pass Gun Control Bills he is no threat to American Gun Owners.

[SilverTauron]

I grew up in Chicago and was raised under a family that do this day supports the Democratic Party.My extended family are all liberal in political outlook,so I'm no Conservative who labels the opposing viewpoints like a Fox News shill.I fully realize and understand there is no one way to view things.

That being said,certain issues are just polar opposites of each other.That's not labeling anyone,any more than saying the Earth is 6 billion years old is a hate crime toward Christians.Facts are the basis of the modern dogma of government solving society's ills is rooted in an individual trusting a government authority.I merely wish to know how the 2nd Amendment is compatible with the 'progressive' mindset,is all.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

I don't consider people to be one dimensional beings who are limited to one political spectrum.

With your point acknowledged, ill respond with this-while there's nothing wrong with being multi-dimensional on political issues, there are certain philosophies which are fundamentally incompatible. Firearms are not an issue which one can be divided about, because the foundation of why we have the right is incompatible with the Progressive philosophy in a way that is unique to gun rights.

Here's why. The basic reason we all have the RKBA is because this nation's founders commonly held that the individual is better able to determine their destiny then a central authority. Hence the individual right to bear arms.

This right is completely incompatible with Progressivism, because that philosophy holds that the good of the collective supersedes the needs of the individual. Its the Star Trek aphorism of "The needs of the Many, Outweigh the Needs of the One". How can the needs of the many supersede the needs of the one , when the one retains a right to lethal force against the collective?

True though your post is, it does not answer that query.

I think you're confusing Progressivism with Stalinist/Maoist ideology. Fascists also try to sell that "needs of the many" load of animal waste. These groups spin that ideology as a way of maintaining their absolute power.

Your mistake is in thinking that you know how people that call themselves "Progressive" think and believe. You need to stop and set down your preconceptions and really listen to what people are actually saying not to what other people are saying about them.

And yet I think that we all agree that there are situations where a government acting on behalf of all of us is needed to deal with problems too large for the individual to handle. Think for a moment of all the good that the US Federal Government has accomplished when they made wise decisions.

I see Progressivism as a push back against Corporatism when Enormous Corporations are raping our Nation for their own profit to the detriment of all. Which does happen from time to time.

Liberals and Progressives are not in favor of Fascist/Communist dictators.

Honest.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

I grew up in Chicago and was raised under a family that do this day supports the Democratic Party.My extended family are all liberal in political outlook,so I'm no Conservative who labels the opposing viewpoints like a Fox News shill.I fully realize and understand there is no one way to view things.

That being said,certain issues are just polar opposites of each other.That's not labeling anyone,any more than saying the Earth is 6 billion years old is a hate crime toward Christians.Facts are the basis of the modern dogma of government solving society's ills is rooted in an individual trusting a government authority.I merely wish to know how the 2nd Amendment is compatible with the 'progressive' mindset,is all.

Nothing incompatible at all.

"Power to the People, Right On!!"

Political Power grows from the barrel of the gun. Just ask the Founding Fathers.

Our government is of the people and for the people. Our government is meant to act in the best interests of everyone. (It still happens sometimes. Sometimes.)

You are equating Progressives with Fascists. Turns out not to be true.

There are some Liberal/Progressive/Democrats (see, I can lump together too) who have been taught to fear firearms as a fantasy Hollywood evil force. It's our job to lure each and everyone of them to the Gun Range and teach them that Guns are Good, Guns are Great, Guns are incredible fun, the Gun is our Friend to be Respected and Treasured, to be held ready for times of greatest need.

Firearms are the fundamental Power of the People to be exercised only when all else has failed.

To me this is as Liberal as it gets.

You have been taught to see qualities and beliefs in all the members of a large body of people when these qualities and beliefs only apply to a few. There are millions of Americans who you have labeled the enemy when they are in fact your friend.

[SilverTauron]

I think you're confusing Progressivism with Stalinist/Maoist ideology. Fascists also try to sell that "needs of the many" load of animal waste. These groups spin that ideology as a way of maintaining their absolute power..

I don't associate Stalin with Progressivism. In point of fact, that was not the topic of this thread at all. I also wasn't judging the merits of the political movement either.

Your mistake is in thinking that you know how people that call themselves "Progressive" think and believe. You need to stop and set down your preconceptions and really listen to what people are actually saying not to what other people are saying about them..

I used to be a Progressive. There can be no preconceptions, as I once stood on the same side of the fence you are on for 20+ years of my life.

And yet I think that we all agree that there are situations where a government acting on behalf of all of us is needed to deal with problems too large for the individual to handle. Think for a moment of all the good that the US Federal Government has accomplished when they made wise decisions...

Indeed.

Yet this has nothing to do with my one, singular question:

How can someone simultaneously support the Democratic Party and Gun Rights?

A straightforward answer to this query is what I seek.

I see Progressivism as a push back against Corporatism when Enormous Corporations are raping our Nation for their own profit to the detriment of all. Which does happen from time to time.

Liberals and Progressives are not in favor of Fascist/Communist dictators.

Honest.

Off-topic.

[SilverTauron]

There are some Liberal/Progressive/Democrats (see, I can lump together too) who have been taught to fear firearms as a fantasy Hollywood evil force. It's our job to lure each and everyone of them to the Gun Range and teach them that Guns are Good, Guns are Great, Guns are incredible fun, the Gun is our Friend to be Respected and Treasured, to be held ready for times of greatest need.

Firearms are the fundamental Power of the People to be exercised only when all else has failed.

To me this is as Liberal as it gets.
.

Thanks.

There is however, one quibble I have with this response.

Even if all of us take 10 people a month to the gun range, it will take years and probably decades for the word to get out and the party's attitude to change at the top.

Until that time we are left with the present Democratic Party bosses , who are very much opposed to gun rights and some of whom rabidly seek our disarmament. They're not going anywhere for the foreseeable future , and it would appear to me that supporting the party's leadership with votes would be contradictory to the goal of backing gun rights.

[Kappy]

It's OK if you don't get it. That's part of what makes us the US.

Look... if you really want to know, conservativism and liberalism are supposedly two radically different ideas. And, the truth is, at their separate roots, they are.

I'm going to shorthand this by quoting myself from another thread:

The bottom line is this:
Conservativism is supposed to be about me taking care of myself and you taking care of yourself. As long as I don't bug you, you need to leave me the Hell alone. I pay my way; you pay yours.

Liberalism is (apparently) the idea that I need help. You need help. We all fall down from time to time. I need help paying my way, you help me out. You need help paying your way, I help you out. My actions impact everyone else, so you have a vested interest in controlling those actions to some degree. And while that's all charitable and noble, there is certainly a growing segment of the population who is abusing that dynamic.

So... the problem is that liberals are still doing their same-old, same-old. They want to control what's in my safe, they want me to pay for crap I don't want to pay for... that's all BS. But the conservatives... they want to complain that they're being forced to pay folks' ways... but they also want to control things... like the availability of contraceptives, the right to marry whomever we choose, the right to absolute sovereignty over our bodies.

And yet somehow they think that they are still conservatives.

That, sirs, is why you lost this last election. Pick a belief (singularism or pluralism) and stay on message.

For what it's worth, I am largely and increasingly conservative, but I believe people fall down from time to time. It is nice to have safety nets for them... it makes me feel less guilty for the nice home, good food, and badass truck I enjoy.

Damn, I love my truck. If loving it is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Anyway... I hope this gets you on the way to the truth between the two sides... but voting Obama isn't necessarily a 100% liberal vote. Romney (and the Republicans) don't represent true conservativism.

Here's what you should know about my life: my wife, a conservative hardcore Christian told me to vote Obama because Romney was bad for our tax liability. Romney wanted to take away one of our biggest tax deductions (our mortgage). He also had (his admission) several undisclosed other ways of potentially increasing our tax liability. Couldn't trust it.

[SB1964]

General statement...Dems/Libs are generally the ones doing the Bans, Land grabs & denying access to PUBLIC LAND. B. Boxer`s behind most of it. I`ve been HEAVILY INVOLVED with Public Land access, mostly the Desert. It`s always the same LIE. I could go on & on about areas/acres & attempts that were SHUT DOWN, but most people dont care until it`s CLOSED!!!

On the Topic...If you RIDE DIRTBIKES/BUGGIES/QUADS/HUNT/SHOOT/FISH/HIKE/BICYCLE...WANT ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND....WAKE UP!!!

I dont care what Party you belong to, or how you Vote...But I will say I was a Democrat for over 30 years. NOT ANYMORE!!!

[CaliforniaLiberal]

Yet this has nothing to do with my one, singular question:

How can someone simultaneously support the Democratic Party and Gun Rights?

A straightforward answer to this query is what I seek.

Please understand that I have never whole heartedly supported the Democratic Party. And much less so today.

Perhaps it would be useful to consider the Log Cabin Republican. The Republican Party has never been a friend to Gay and Lesbians Rights. And yet here is this group of passionate believers who support both Republicanism and Gay Rights and Equal Marriage. I conclude that they are seeing things differently than I do, using different measures of value, other ways to win through to their own self interests than I can conceive of.

And so it may be that there are Gun Owning, Passionate 2nd Amendment Rights Supporters who see things differently than you do. Who see the Democratic Party as not really all that anti-gun. Or "They talk big anti-gun, but they're just woofing, not really going to do anything."

Or maybe there are those who go for that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" even when this seems not to be the case from where I am standing.

People choose to believe all sorts of stuff that I can't make sense of. Maybe you just have to accept your lack of understanding of this point of view.


The only thing I know for sure is that all my beliefs are completely rational and ought to make perfect sense to everyone. Must be something wrong with them if they don't see the same way I do.

[SanPedroShooter]

Yet this has nothing to do with my one, singular question:

How can someone simultaneously support the Democratic Party and Gun Rights?

A straightforward answer to this query is what I seek.



Off-topic.

You wont get it. I've been over this road more than once.

The best answer I get is an explanation of priorities.

Its weak, but its the best you'll get.

[SilverTauron]

sides... but voting Obama isn't necessarily a 100% liberal vote. Romney (and the Republicans) don't represent true conservativism.

True. Romney is not a conservative.

The question I have however has nothing directly to do with Obama or Romney. I see many gun owners here are of the "progressive" side of things, and while I don't have a problem with that some of them rabidly claim to be staunch adherents to the 2nd Amendment, Molon Labe, etc.

How does that work exactly when they back people who support gun control? I'm a registered Republican. I personally am pro-choice, but if I said that I'm a staunch defender of women's rights I'd be a lying hypocrite. I can hold a certain stance on an issue that contradicts the party line ;but that doesn't qualify me to claim I'm a die hard activist for that stance.

IMO-and this is just me-if someone posted that gun rights were not a primary or even a tertiary concern for them, I wouldn't call them some kind of sketch Commie. I'd applaud their honesty!

[rjpsb1]

It's not all or nothing. I don't think all conservatives are extremist Christian fundamentalists, although one might think that based on conservative tv news/radio/blogs. Some are conservative and secular. Understandable, right?

Likewise, being liberal and a 2A supporter is no mystery. In my case, 8 years of Bush/Cheney and seeing things like the Patriot Act happen made me see the wisdom of the 2A. Fear of jackbooted thugs wearing US flags kicking in your door isn't just a conservative fear.