Tweet
We are all on this board because we love the 2nd amendment, and support the right to keep and bear arms. We disagree on other topics. Some of us are pro-choice, some of us are pro-life. Some of us believe in climate change, others don’t. Okay, whatever. I personally happen to be fairly socially liberal whilst being fiscally conservative (therefore, mostly libertarian). However, because of that, it’s always puzzled me why exactly liberals are against guns.
I’m an atheist, I support gay marriage, and I am pro-choice. I also believe guns defend those, and all other rights. I don’t feel like supporting those socially liberal positions somehow naturally transitions to support for gun control. There is nothing incompatible about believing in evolution and global warming and being pro-gun. It makes no sense to me whatsoever why the vast majority of liberals are anti-gun.
I’ve thought a lot about this question, and I think I have the answer. There’s two main parts to modern American liberalism, specifically as practiced by the American Democratic Party, and only one of those parts has anything to do with supporting gun control.
The first part of liberalism is a belief (critics would say “obsession”) in creating “fairness”. Whether you agree with it or not, many liberals have a natural sympathy for any group they feel is not being treated fairly. This includes any “downtrodden”, “oppressed”, marginalized, underprivileged, disadvantaged group that is not part of the ruling power. Thus, liberals have a special soft spot for gays, women, minorities, the poor, etc. They want 1.) fairness in rights (right for gays to marry, right for minorities to not be discriminated against, etc. I agree with this part), and 2.) fairness in wealth/resources (spreading the wealth, taxing the rich. I disagree with this part).
Again, whether you agree with it or not, there is nothing in this section of liberalism for OR against guns. Guns are a tool, a double-edged sword. It can be used by slave-patrols to keep slaves in line, or it can be used by slaves to defend themselves and create a revolt. Guns can be used by oppressors to oppress, or they can be used by the oppressed to defend their rights. That’s why I always thought liberals ought to be pro-gun. Are you a victim of anti-gay (or black, or whatever) hate crimes? Buy a gun and protect yourself. There are many liberals that agree with this.
_________________________
The second part of modern American liberalism is that part I completely disagree with, the part that IMHO runs completely counter to the American cultural ethos, and the part that leads to support for gun control and gun bans. This is the liberal support for collectivism. This second part is a belief that we should create an interdependent, orderly, harmonious society bound by rules. “Peace, order, good government”, as they say in the Commonwealth. It is a belief in society-ism (socialism) and community-ism (communism). It emphasizes the group, and devalues the individual.
This part of liberalism argues that rugged American individualism and self-reliance is selfish and dangerous because it disrupts the harmony of the group. It disrupts the peace. In this way it is completely in-line with traditional Asian cultures where I come from, a “we” culture as opposed to an “I” culture, where the needs of the many are used to trample the freedom of the few.
Collectivism demands that you must: 1.) Trust the Group, and doubt the individual. Thus, trust the police to protect you, trust the government to spend your money wisely, trust the public education system to educate your kids. Doubt the individual, doubt that private citizens are responsible enough to drink the correct sized soda, or handle firearms in a safe manner. 2.) Sacrifice for the Group, humble the individual. Give up freedom in return for a safe, orderly society. Give up ideas of “us” vs. “them” to create as big a society as possible (preferably a global one), thus give up “American Exceptionalism”, be humble to other cultures, other countries, play nice, and promote peace, don’t fight. Sacrifice doing things on your own for the sake of depending on each other. Give up your right to defend yourself, because that’s vigilante justice, and instead outsource that entirely to a professional police and military force. Don’t build a private park for yourself, give up money to make a community garden. Give up your car, and instead take public transportation to work because that creates a more interdependent, “equal” society where everyone shares resources (transportation, defense, parks).
___________
Of course the two parts of liberalism are connected (otherwise, liberals wouldn’t tend to agree with all of it.) If you are ruggedly self-reliant, doing everything on your own and for your own, then you are not being a team player, and you are not sharing, and liberals are obsessed with sharing everything. If you are not sharing everything, then some people will have more than others, thus you are not being as fair as you could possibly be. The extreme version is of course communism, where there is no more private property, and everything is shared. Guns are a hindrance to sharing, because forced sharing is counter to human nature, and a lot of humans will attempt to resist with guns.
However, I believe it is possible to agree with one part and not the other. Moreover, many conservatives agree with large parts of collectivism. For example, many Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians are from highly socially conservative cultures that are against gay marriage, premarital sex, and are obsessed with collectivistic harmony and protecting the Group. The Republican Party wants you to trust the Group, but in this case the Group is the Church, traditional Judeo-Christian values. Trust the Bible to tell you want to do with your private parts. Doubt the individual’s ability to make good choices about their sexuality and their own bodies. Sacrifice for your country. Join the military, fight and die for traditional American values. The knife of collectivism cuts both ways. The difference is: who is the Group?
For reasons I can’t yet explain, the conservative version of collectivism sees guns as a positive, as a tool for preserving the harmony of the group and maintaining harmony (“an armed society is a polite society”). That might be an essay for another day. Only libertarians are against all forms of collectivism. Anyway those are my two cents, thanks for reading.
I’m an atheist, I support gay marriage, and I am pro-choice. I also believe guns defend those, and all other rights. I don’t feel like supporting those socially liberal positions somehow naturally transitions to support for gun control. There is nothing incompatible about believing in evolution and global warming and being pro-gun. It makes no sense to me whatsoever why the vast majority of liberals are anti-gun.
I’ve thought a lot about this question, and I think I have the answer. There’s two main parts to modern American liberalism, specifically as practiced by the American Democratic Party, and only one of those parts has anything to do with supporting gun control.
The first part of liberalism is a belief (critics would say “obsession”) in creating “fairness”. Whether you agree with it or not, many liberals have a natural sympathy for any group they feel is not being treated fairly. This includes any “downtrodden”, “oppressed”, marginalized, underprivileged, disadvantaged group that is not part of the ruling power. Thus, liberals have a special soft spot for gays, women, minorities, the poor, etc. They want 1.) fairness in rights (right for gays to marry, right for minorities to not be discriminated against, etc. I agree with this part), and 2.) fairness in wealth/resources (spreading the wealth, taxing the rich. I disagree with this part).
Again, whether you agree with it or not, there is nothing in this section of liberalism for OR against guns. Guns are a tool, a double-edged sword. It can be used by slave-patrols to keep slaves in line, or it can be used by slaves to defend themselves and create a revolt. Guns can be used by oppressors to oppress, or they can be used by the oppressed to defend their rights. That’s why I always thought liberals ought to be pro-gun. Are you a victim of anti-gay (or black, or whatever) hate crimes? Buy a gun and protect yourself. There are many liberals that agree with this.
_________________________
The second part of modern American liberalism is that part I completely disagree with, the part that IMHO runs completely counter to the American cultural ethos, and the part that leads to support for gun control and gun bans. This is the liberal support for collectivism. This second part is a belief that we should create an interdependent, orderly, harmonious society bound by rules. “Peace, order, good government”, as they say in the Commonwealth. It is a belief in society-ism (socialism) and community-ism (communism). It emphasizes the group, and devalues the individual.
This part of liberalism argues that rugged American individualism and self-reliance is selfish and dangerous because it disrupts the harmony of the group. It disrupts the peace. In this way it is completely in-line with traditional Asian cultures where I come from, a “we” culture as opposed to an “I” culture, where the needs of the many are used to trample the freedom of the few.
Collectivism demands that you must: 1.) Trust the Group, and doubt the individual. Thus, trust the police to protect you, trust the government to spend your money wisely, trust the public education system to educate your kids. Doubt the individual, doubt that private citizens are responsible enough to drink the correct sized soda, or handle firearms in a safe manner. 2.) Sacrifice for the Group, humble the individual. Give up freedom in return for a safe, orderly society. Give up ideas of “us” vs. “them” to create as big a society as possible (preferably a global one), thus give up “American Exceptionalism”, be humble to other cultures, other countries, play nice, and promote peace, don’t fight. Sacrifice doing things on your own for the sake of depending on each other. Give up your right to defend yourself, because that’s vigilante justice, and instead outsource that entirely to a professional police and military force. Don’t build a private park for yourself, give up money to make a community garden. Give up your car, and instead take public transportation to work because that creates a more interdependent, “equal” society where everyone shares resources (transportation, defense, parks).
___________
Of course the two parts of liberalism are connected (otherwise, liberals wouldn’t tend to agree with all of it.) If you are ruggedly self-reliant, doing everything on your own and for your own, then you are not being a team player, and you are not sharing, and liberals are obsessed with sharing everything. If you are not sharing everything, then some people will have more than others, thus you are not being as fair as you could possibly be. The extreme version is of course communism, where there is no more private property, and everything is shared. Guns are a hindrance to sharing, because forced sharing is counter to human nature, and a lot of humans will attempt to resist with guns.
However, I believe it is possible to agree with one part and not the other. Moreover, many conservatives agree with large parts of collectivism. For example, many Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians are from highly socially conservative cultures that are against gay marriage, premarital sex, and are obsessed with collectivistic harmony and protecting the Group. The Republican Party wants you to trust the Group, but in this case the Group is the Church, traditional Judeo-Christian values. Trust the Bible to tell you want to do with your private parts. Doubt the individual’s ability to make good choices about their sexuality and their own bodies. Sacrifice for your country. Join the military, fight and die for traditional American values. The knife of collectivism cuts both ways. The difference is: who is the Group?
For reasons I can’t yet explain, the conservative version of collectivism sees guns as a positive, as a tool for preserving the harmony of the group and maintaining harmony (“an armed society is a polite society”). That might be an essay for another day. Only libertarians are against all forms of collectivism. Anyway those are my two cents, thanks for reading.
?
Comment