A question for the Left/liberals on government and gun control...

[ChartsandGrafs]

I have a quick question for the Leftists and liberals regarding the issue of gun control which I hope they can address...

In the past few years, I've heard and read a lot arguments by both Leftists and liberals regarding the loose state of the United States' campaign finance laws and how they allow moneyed interests and corporations to corrupt our political system, and therefore our lawmakers and government institutions. On this count, I happen to agree with them and find that the argument has merit. More and more in America, It seems like political control is up for sale to the highest bidder, and these interests don't always have the best interests of the country and the American people in mind.

If this is true, and it is what many Leftists and liberals truly believe, then why do many of them also argue for the same corrupt government, which, again, they claim is too easily controlled by private, moneyed interests, to either disregard and dismantle the Second Amendment or, at the very least least, heavily restrict the right of the American people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment as a last form of protection against a corrupt, tyrannical government? To hold these two positions simultaneously seems contradictory.

If the government is being or has already been corrupted, why would anyone in their right mind argue that the same government should be trusted with the issue of gun control?

[bluelang]

Gun control red herring anarchy now!

[rivergator]

Completely BS post. I don't see many liberals calling for the Second Amendment to be dismantled.

[Dreamliner]

Besides, the debate was over almost before it began. The media narrative crumbled before Christmas. Americans oppose stringent gun control measures. Obama will get nothing of any consequence. And certainly bad people will not be affected by all the hands-in-air running around.

[wargunfan]

In reality liberals think of government corruption in the same way that I would regard corruption in the church. Since the state is god in the hearts of liberals, they see government corruption as fouling the thing that they worship. At the same time they regard all special interest money which furthers the success of the mother state as being cleansed because of its aims. In other words "the end justifies the means". Individual liberty and autonomy is seen as an impediment to the mother state and so must be quashed; especially the right and ability to defend oneself. The neolib utopia is one in which the mother state is all powerful and citizens exist to further the goals of the great Nanny. In that world armed free people are deranged and must be disarmed and rehabilitated in their distrust of the beneficent mother state. So it is that there is "good" government corruption (although it would never be called such) and bad government corruption. There are good citizens (those who implicitly trust the mother state) and bad citizens (those who are armed and mistrust the mother state). So you see there is no contradiction at all.

[Dreamliner]

Speaking of corruption in the church, survey after survey shows that Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians are the demographic group most enthusiastic about Caesar's wars.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Completely BS post. I don't see many liberals calling for the Second Amendment to be dismantled.

Expert dodge. Don't address the general subject of the post, just pick some random part of it, cry foul, and run away.

Seriously, nobody will notice.

[dvillegator]

Wargunfan nailed it. Well said.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Expert dodge. Don't address the general subject of the post, just pick some random part of it, cry foul, and run away.

Seriously, nobody will notice.

If you think that "liberals want to dismantle the Second Amendment" is some minor, random part of your argument, you might want to consider rewriting your post to reflect that.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

If you think that "liberals want to dismantle the Second Amendment" is some minor, random part of your argument, you might want to consider rewriting your post to reflect that.

Wait a minute. Are you implying that there are absolutely no Leftists or liberals anywhere in America who desire for the government to dismantle or disregard the Second Amendment?

Regardless, even if you disagree that such people exist, why do you find it so hard to address the rest of the post? Here, I'll reword it just for you.

A. Many Leftists and liberals rightly complain about loose U.S. campaign finance laws on the grounds that moneyed, private interests are allowed to have too much influence on our political system. The basic implication is that this will corrupt our government.

B. Many Leftists and liberals argue in favor of this same government, that has been corrupted by moneyed, private interests, restricting the American people's access to firearms and that the American people should trust this same government to impose sensible gun control.

So which is it? Or are you next going to complain that I misspelled something?

[wgbgator]

I don't know about liberals, but there were plenty of leftists who were in favor of arming themselves to fight the government they thought was corrupt. See: domestic terrorism in the 1960s and 70s.

The essential problem with your argument is that the NRA is one of the private, monied interests you speak of. So, proposing gun control, which is naturally opposed by the lobbying power of the NRA, is perfectly consistent with A and B. Its both confronting the influence of monied interests over public policy while advocating a public safety measure.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Completely BS post. I don't see many liberals calling for the Second Amendment to be dismantled.

You would be incorrect. In Illinois, that is what they are effectively, if not literally, trying to do by recently introducing some new laws restricting gun ownership. As was tried Washington DC, but struck down by the Supreme Court.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

You would be incorrect. In Illinois, that is what they are effectively, if not literally, trying to do by recently introducing some new laws restricting gun ownership. As was tried Washington DC, but struck down by the Supreme Court.

The DC gun ban had been in force since 1976. Heller was more reflective of changing attitudes to gun rights by the court and populace than a swift reaction to overzealous gun legislation. While perhaps stricter than other laws, it was pretty reflective of the attitude of the times. Ronald Reagan even argued for gun control in the late 60s (passing the Mulford Act) and against the idea that citizens needed guns for self-defense. Of course, that was back when scary radicals and Black Panthers were arming themselves.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

The essential problem with your argument is that the NRA is one of the private, monied interests you speak of. So, proposing gun control, which is naturally opposed by the lobbying power of the NRA, is perfectly consistent with A and B. Its both confronting the influence of monied interests over public policy while advocating a public safety measure.

That still doesn't address the obvious conflict between the two claims:

A. "The government already is or is being corrupted by moneyed, private interests!"

And...

B. "We need the same government that already is or is being corrupted by moneyed, private interests to restrict our access to guns, while they can have all the guns they want! We can trust them to do this! What could possibly go wrong?!"

Injecting the NRA into claim A doesn't change the fact that the two sentiments are incompatible. If the government has been corrupted, and is working on the behalf of wealthy private interests, whether it's the NRA or not, then the absolute last thing any rational person should advocate for is that same corrupt government to impose gun control. It doesn't make any sense to want a corrupt government to control guns, since guns are our only viable protection against a corrupt government.

[bluelang]

you could make the same case for anyone. conservatives hate the government but expect it to enforce immigration laws. hell, conservatives hate the government but trust it NOT to repeal the second amendment.

your straw-man argument is made entirely of stupid.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

That still doesn't address the obvious conflict between the two claims:

A. "The government already is or is being corrupted by moneyed, private interests!"

And...

B. "We need the same government that already is or is being corrupted by moneyed, private interests to restrict our access to guns, while they can have all the guns they want! We can trust them to do this! What could possibly go wrong?!"

Injecting the NRA into claim A doesn't change the fact that the two sentiments are incompatible. If the government has been corrupted, and is working on the behalf of wealthy private interests, whether it's the NRA or not, then the absolute last thing any rational person should advocate for is that same corrupt government to impose gun control. It doesn't make any sense to want a corrupt government to control guns, since guns are our only viable protection against a corrupt government.

I really don't see the conflict, sorry. The NRA is the monied interest in preventing gun control laws from passing, and advocating and lobbying for public policy that liberalizes gun ownership and usage. Advocating gun control is achieving both ends, in curbing the influence of money over public policy and having the government pass regulations that are opposed by the monied influence. Is it your contention that because some other private interest lobbys for something beneficial to its industry but unrelated to guns (lets say agribusiness) and has achieved it, that it is some sort of congnitive dissonance on the part of liberals? That because the government has been corrupted over public policy in farming, that it cant be uncorrupted or trusted over guns? Is that a serious argument?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by bluelang

you could make the same case for anyone. conservatives hate the government but expect it to enforce immigration laws. hell, conservatives hate the government but trust it NOT to repeal the second amendment.

your straw-man argument is made entirely of stupid.

LOL, says the authority on stupid.

If you can't come up with any kind of rational rebuttal just declare it a straw man and run away. How convincing!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I really don't see the conflict, sorry. The NRA is the monied interest in preventing gun control laws from passing, and advocating and lobbying for public policy that liberalizes gun ownership and usage. Advocating gun control is achieving both ends, in curbing the influence of money over public policy and having the government pass regulations that are opposed by the monied influence. Is it your contention that because some other private interest lobbys for something beneficial to its industry but unrelated to guns (lets say agribusiness) and has achieved it, that it is some sort of congnitive dissonance on the part of liberals? That because the government has been corrupted over public policy in farming, that it cant be uncorrupted or trusted over guns? Is that a serious argument?

It sure is a serious argument, and you don't seem to have an answer for it, other than predictably changing the subject to the NRA.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by bluelang

you could make the same case for anyone. conservatives hate the government but expect it to enforce immigration laws. hell, conservatives hate the government but trust it NOT to repeal the second amendment.

your straw-man argument is made entirely of stupid.

exactly. "hey, you think the government is corrupt (or inefficient or incompetent or ...) yet you want it to do something! that makes you a hypocrite!"
But he tried to point it at those gun-stealing liberals. And since he knew he wasn't going to get anyone saying "Why, yes, I want to dismantle the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution, let me explain ...." the thread is really just a phony set-up for blasting his strawman.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

In reality liberals think of government corruption in the same way that I would regard corruption in the church. Since the state is god in the hearts of liberals, they see government corruption as fouling the thing that they worship. At the same time they regard all special interest money which furthers the success of the mother state as being cleansed because of its aims. In other words "the end justifies the means". Individual liberty and autonomy is seen as an impediment to the mother state and so must be quashed; especially the right and ability to defend oneself. The neolib utopia is one in which the mother state is all powerful and citizens exist to further the goals of the great Nanny. In that world armed free people are deranged and must be disarmed and rehabilitated in their distrust of the beneficent mother state. So it is that there is "good" government corruption (although it would never be called such) and bad government corruption. There are good citizens (those who implicitly trust the mother state) and bad citizens (those who are armed and mistrust the mother state). So you see there is no contradiction at all.

After reading this response a second time and mulling it over a bit, I think this might be the closest we get to an answer.