curious

[noone]

I am curious as too why most people in this forum seem to lean more towards the conservitive side. I only visit two forums on the internet(a gun forum and a car forum) and they both seem to contain a majority of people with conservative views. are the reasons for this just the gun stance, or is there more too it?
I am not trying to start a flame war, or being a troll, just trying to get some ideas.

 

[sdb777]

Okay. I'll try...

Most shooters are "conservative", at least that's my observation. I don't think I've met more than a handfull of "liberal" "pro-gun" individuals in my life time(39+). And those were people that had been on the fence politically in the first place.

If you are truly "liberal"(your signature thing)? Can you tell me why you are a "gun forum" viewer? Don't be offened....I just want some ammo to convert the rest of America.

 

[noone]

well first I dont view myself as a liberal, that is just what im labeled as by most people who i have conversations with. also alot of my views are the same as those of the majority of the democratic party. and the minute people hear they them they label me a liberal(which i dont think is appropriatte).
as to my being on a firearm forum.....well i dont know, i am a gun owner, shooter, and believe in gun rights.
sry i just realised that this is in the wrong section, is there a way to move it?

 

[sdb777]

Your all right in my book!!!

I consider myself to be a "consitutionalist". There are things in government that should and shouldn't be....but I don't want to go there. You live too far away, but if you didn't......we would get along just fine.

Scott B.

 

[pax]

noone ~

I'm not a conservative, really. I'm a libertarian, which means both sides hate me.

What defines a libertarian? "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- author L. Neil Smith

What that means is that I annoy conservatives by supporting your right to sleep with whomever you wish (as long as they wish it, too), to marry whomever you wish (male or female) and however many you wish (as long as all parties consent), to live wherever you wish, to earn a living in whatever way you wish (including ways that personally disgust me), to read, write, or publish whatever you wish (including pornography), and to put into your body whatever substances you wish (hey, it's your life). I support personal freedom even when I'm disgusted by the choices people make with their freedom.

But I annoy liberals by believing that involuntary taxation is theft, that public schools are immoral, that the welfare state is a travesty, and that the people who run those greedy corporations should be allowed to do so without being molested by petty bureaucracy and without being fettered by controlling legislation. I support property rights even when I'm jealous that someone else is earning more than I do.

Obviously, my right to own property includes firearms, and I'll support your right to do so too.

pax

 

[gfen]

Hi there, leftist-leanin, liberal, card carrying Commie pinko right here!

Oooh, and I enjoy guns. Lots.

See, I like things like Utopian Communism (yes, I did in fact just say that!), socialism, helping your countryman, and all that dirty hippy kinda thing. I'm pro-enviroment, anti-war, and lots of other things that'll likely get me some nastygrams from folks 'round here. The Democrats may not really be Utopian Communists or socialists, even if they get painted as such all the time, but I think they're far closer to it than the RNC is.

Matter of fact, my one major beef with the Democrats, and most other left-leanin' groups is that they don't feel the same way 'bout firearms that I do. Matter of fact, if they'd never make another attempt to restrict them again, I'd probably be happy enough to pull the lever for "D" every time I hit the voting boot.

Of course, I can also safely say that I'm fully aware that ALL sides of the political specturm are out only for themselves, and neither gives one whit (what is a whit?*) about we, the people, in the least.

gfen, accepting of being an TFL pariah.

* - whit ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hwt, wt) n.
The least bit; an iota: doesn't give a whit what was said; not a whit afraid.
[Middle English, amount, from Old English wiht. See wight1.]

 

[noone]

sdb777

pax, not clear on the corporations shouldn't have controlling legislation against them thing? where are you going with that? otherwise good answer, but i will continue to support the demacrats until this country is ready for different options. kind of a lesser of two evil thing.

 

[noone]

right on gfen!

 

[pax]

pax, not clear on the corporations shouldn't have controlling legislation against them thing? where are you going with that?

I thought I'd been pretty clear. If Bill Gates wants to make a bajillion dollars selling software, no government should be able to steal even a penny of the money he earned doing it. If the tree farm down the road wants to hire someone, the boss shouldn't have to fill out 6,342 separate pieces of paper documenting everything from the employees' place of residence to whether or not they have dandruff -- the boss and employee should just be able to shake hands or sign whatever contract they themselves think is necessary. If the work is dangerous, the employee should be able to decide for himself, without government meddling, whether the job is too dangerous and not worth the pay offered, or what safety precautions he will take while doing it.

otherwise good answer, but i will continue to support the demacrats until this country is ready for different options. kind of a lesser of two evil thing.

The problem with voting for evil is that at the end of the day, evil wins.

pax

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -- Edmund Burke

 

[butch50]

Another Libertarian here. At least most of the time. There are some rules that the govt enforces that I appreciate. Forcing everyone to drive on the right side of the road, for instance.

I think that gun owners tend to be conservatives because it is the conservatives that are most likely to protect the Constitutional rights of everyone, which includes the 2nd ammendment. There are quite a lot of gun owners that are one issue voters; that is they vote for the people/party most likely to protect 2nd ammendment rights and don't care about the other issues, and since the 2nd ammendment is most likely to be protected by the conservatives, they vote conservative.

Don't know why car people would tend to be conservative.

 

[22-rimfire]

I think gun owners fall within both the liberal and conservative sides of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Libertarians.... you're just anti-government in general, and I don't have much use for the party although I selectively agree with some of the general party views. I prefer a smaller government (federal and state), but the general populations seems to want more and more "programs" for what ever cause and that just means larger and larger governments.

There are lots of Democrats, liberal and conservative who hunt, shoot, or own firearms. It is just one of many issues which serve to define a person in terms of what is currently considered liberal or conservative.

I prefer a more constitutional view of national government, which is why I hope the Supreme Court turns from a law making group to a defender and interpreter of the Constitution. The Congress is supposed to pass laws, not indirectly by rulings by the courts. Recent public comments by Justice Briar (sp?), demonstrate that he views the US and its laws in a one-world government scenario. We live in the United States and do not live in Iraq, Turkey, England, or France. I don't care about what France or Germany does unless it affects what the US is doing or trying to accomplish.

With voting, I draw the line at a politican's stance on firearms ownership and use. If they are anti-gun, I won't vote for them from either the Democratic or Republican sides. Period. Kerry, Gore, and Hillary Clinton are anti-gun and have demonstrated it in their voting records and statements. I can not allow my opinion to be swayed because a liberal candidate moves to the moderate side for an election such as Hillary is doing now. They are still the same person and will work against the private ownership of guns. There is no place for politicans with views like that in my world and can not vote for them.

One issue guy? No not really; it usually does not come down to that as every candidate is a blend of views, voting records, and personal experiences. But, I will not vote for an anti-gun candidate even if I have to vote independant. It is a personal decision on the importance of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms and what that right means. I believe that if we loose this right, the country is going to the dogs. It's hard to give back all the melted down or scraped guns if they were ever outlawed by changing a law later.

I wish there were more people who are willing to draw the voting line with the firearm question. Democrats in general are too willing to give up their freedoms for what is viewed by them as the "common good". Frankly, Bush is a little too liberal for my tastes, but he generally falls on the pro-gun side of the fence. Lets not forget that he said he would sign the "assult weapons" law renewal if it were passed by the Congress prior to the last presidential election.

 

[noone]

good posts im seeing some good arguments.
pax, that cleared it all up, i thought u might of been talking about something else. I agree completly with you.

as for the lesser of two evils thing it is my only option as of now, sadlly.

the thing about bush being too liberal though......now that is good stuff

 

[Rob P.]

Gun owners tend to look/talk/act like a conservative because it is the conservative members of congress who talk about the RKBA.

Were it the liberals who were the ones espousing the 2nd amendment, then those same gun owners would say they are liberals too.

It's a narrow focus thing driven by political smear and dirt and not by reality.

 

[Mike40-11]

Several things going on.

Conservative and Repub politicians are the ones most commonly taking about RKBA stuff, so they're going to get the most interest from a lot of gun folks.

Most people though aren't "one-issue voters" although obviously, some are.

If you define conservative as wanting to be responsible for your own well being and government to be limited and leave you alone for the most part, that seems to go right along with firearms ownership. To be anti-gun you have to assume that:
a) you don't "need" them cause the gov't will take care of your protection and
b) the risks of you having one outweigh the sporting benefit (since we already said you don't need it for protection)

IMO the conservative answer to a is: No they won't, my responsibility
to b it is: Says who and what gives you (the gov't) the right to make that decision?

This is working from my definition of conservataive. Many alleged conservatives aren't, IMNSHO.

RKBA should not, I believe have any relationship to opinions on abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, or any other hot-button liberal vs. conservative issues.

 

[gb_in_ga]

"If you define conservative as wanting to be responsible for your own well being and government to be limited and leave you alone for the most part, that seems to go right along with firearms ownership."

Mike: While I do agree with the points you bring up, the definition of conservatism that you bring forth is actually more properly applied to "classical liberalism" or libertarianism. Not that that is a bad thing, it essentially sums up my own personal world-view.

All too often, "real" conservatives lean towards classical liberalism when dealing with matters of property rights and economics (which is good). Unfortunately, they do tend to want to engage in the legislation of morality, which is not such a good thing all the time. Meaning, they all too often end up sticking their noses into peoples' private "businesses" with no good reason, they end up being yet another flavor of busybody. At least they tend to not be as larcenous as their main opposition -- or at least they pay lip service to that concept. And at least they do tend to favor the more "classical" concepts of natural law, including the rights of free citizens to arm themselves and assume some measure of responsibility for their own self protection. They tend to view free citizens as free citizens, and not so much as subjects/tax resources/votes to be pandered to as their opposition does.

 

[Mike40-11]

gb, I absolutely agree.

Any political labels are pretty slippery and the little bit I mentioned would probably be defined my most people as more libertarian I would guess.

Ah, whatever the label, keep the rules light and reasonable and leave me alone if stay within em.

 

[stephen426]

I'm not so sure about the whole conservative vs. liberal lables either but I consider myself more of a moderate. I feel there are many "extremists" on this site because few people who don't care about guns would speand their time here. A friend of mine summed it up nicely for me when I asked why we as pro-gunners need to be somewhat extreme. Basically, it is to counter the extreme anti-gun group and hopefully end up on some rational middle ground.

Extreme pro-gun people want no restictions. Carry and own whatever the heck you feel like. Antis probably wouldn't be happy unless every single gun ever made was destroyed (except maybe for the police and military and only when ABSOLUTELY necessary). Basically, I feel there is some need for some restrictions. I don't think Joe Blow should be able to walk into Wally World and but full auto weapons. Even if there were no restrictions and everyone carried, Joe Blow could do a lot of damage before he was stopped. Let the flaming begin!

 

[pax]

Extreme pro-gun people want no restictions. Carry and own whatever the heck you feel like. Antis probably wouldn't be happy unless every single gun ever made was destroyed (except maybe for the police and military and only when ABSOLUTELY necessary). Basically, I feel there is some need for some restrictions. I don't think Joe Blow should be able to walk into Wally World and but full auto weapons. Even if there were no restrictions and everyone carried, Joe Blow could do a lot of damage before he was stopped. Let the flaming begin!

That sounds like another thread to me. Better start it rather than hijacking this one.

(Aww, what the heck...)

[hijack]

I've said for years that the real problem with the RKBA movement is that our extremists aren't extreme enough.

The middle point between "allow citizens to own all firearms" and "forbid citizens from owning any firearms" is "forbid some firearms, and put restrictions on some citizens owning firearms." Of course, as soon as some firearms are forbidden, the extremes then become, "keep everything legal that is already legal" vs "forbid citizens from owning any firearms," and the mid-point becomes, "forbid some more that used to be legal." Thus the long, slow slide into non-existent firearms ownership -- as we have already seen in several notable big cities and very nearly in at least two states.

However, if the extremes instead were, "Require every citizen to own firearms" vs "Forbid anyone from owning firearms" -- well, then the midpoint would look suspiciously like the 2nd Amendment, which forbids any restrictions upon weapons at all.

[/hijack]

Go start that other thread!

pax

 

[stephen426]

pax,

that wan't an attempt to hijack the thread. I was just using that as an illustration so people have a reference as to what I feel is extremist pro-gun, moderate, and extremist anti-gun.

Like I said...

Basically, [extremist pro-gunners are necessary] to counter the extreme anti-gun group and hopefully end up on some rational middle ground.

I fully understand where you are coming from. But getting back to the original question, do you think anti-gun people would last long on a forum such as this one? That is why the people on this forum are skewed towards the pro-gun side. Go to a Ford Mustang and you will find most people there are Mustang fanatics. Don't expect to see to many Camaro fans unless they are there to troll or flame!

 

[Sir William]

There are few things that I owe allegiance to. I am a ultraconservative, pro choice, pro death penalty, pro imprisonment/penalty, pro gun rights, constitutional absolutist, pro freedom until your choice interferes with my own choice and anti government regulation type myself. If a handshake was fair and honest for my grandfather, it should still be considered the same today.