Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Libertarian

Libertarian Libertarian Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 26th, 2012, 08:45 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,272
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2994455.story





A new poll by the Pew Research people show that support for gay marriage and gun rights are increasing in this country.



This is good news for the Libertarian Party as it is the only political party that supports both gay rights and gun rights.
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Old April 26th, 2012, 10:39 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
http://www.chicagotr...0,2994455.story





A new poll by the Pew Research people show that support for gay marriage and gun rights are increasing in this country.



This is good news for the Libertarian Party as it is the only political party that supports both gay rights and gun rights.


I was thinking about gun rights tonight, Nwolfe. For better or worse, our system of government was in part based on a citizenry able to defend themselves by force if necessary. The sequence of the rights to free speech, freedom of, or from, religion, a free press, and the ability to petition Congress being followed by the right of an individual to bear arms was no coincidental. Quite the opposite, it was intentional.



Supporting gay rights and gun rights fits neither of the major established political paradigms, to the consternation of both.
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 26th, 2012, 10:54 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Supporting gay rights and gun rights fits neither of the major established political paradigms, to the consternation of both.


Most Dems support both gay rights and gun rights, so I'm not sure what either you or Wolfe are talking about.



The split on gun rights tends to fall along urban vs rural lines. The Independent / Republican mayor of NYC wants more restrictions on guns, while the Democratic governor of Montana favors fewer restrictions.
skrekk is offline  
Old April 27th, 2012, 05:14 AM   #4
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1335508795' post='398256

Supporting gay rights and gun rights fits neither of the major established political paradigms, to the consternation of both.


Most Dems support both gay rights and gun rights, so I'm not sure what either you or Wolfe are talking about.



The split on gun rights tends to fall along urban vs rural lines. The Independent / Republican mayor of NYC wants more restrictions on guns, while the Democratic governor of Montana favors fewer restrictions.


Exactly. And I am a NJ democrat that supports gun rights and gay rights. But I do favor common sense regulations while supporting the second amendment.
waitingtables is offline  
Old April 27th, 2012, 05:51 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
knowuryder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,895
Gay rights are equal rights and gun rights is kind of a misnomer. Gun access is a better term than rights in my opinion. When we talk about equal rights for all Americans, we are talking about human rights that set the very foundation of who we are as Americans. The right to bear arms has been the most abused amendment in our constitution. Unfettered access to firearms should not be a right any more than slander is a tenet of free speech or yelling fire in a crowded theater. In a civilized society, we should be able to regulate these things accordingly, just as we can distinguish between allowing consenting adults in lawful relationships equal access to the law regarding those relationships but put restrictions on relationships (like those that concern minors) where we see fit to protect the citizenry. We can restrict and control the access without curtailing the rights, but for people whose favorite amendment is #2, that is unthinkable.
knowuryder is offline  
Old April 27th, 2012, 08:10 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1335509640' post='398258

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1335508795' post='398256']

Supporting gay rights and gun rights fits neither of the major established political paradigms, to the consternation of both.


Most Dems support both gay rights and gun rights, so I'm not sure what either you or Wolfe are talking about.



The split on gun rights tends to fall along urban vs rural lines. The Independent / Republican mayor of NYC wants more restrictions on guns, while the Democratic governor of Montana favors fewer restrictions.


Exactly. And I am a NJ democrat that supports gun rights and gay rights. But I do favor common sense regulations while supporting the second amendment.

[/quote]



So far, Second Amendment issues aren't in the 2012 Democratic Party platform. I favor common sense regulations too, but the term needs defining.



I believe those who favor tough common sense regulations always overlook the fact that regulations impact law-abiding citizens far more than criminals, who as a matter of course don't obey laws.



"Cooling off" periods imposed on gun sales make some sense, to keep a law-abiding citizen from making a rash decision in a moment of passion. Background checks make some sense, but remember, the Virginia Tech shooter passed his background check. Sale to minors is wrong. Beyond these common sense regulations, gun laws do impose on a citizen's Second Amendment rights. Obama, in 2008, said this:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals donít have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.


Campaign rhetoric, as we cannot "make sure" lawbreakers don't have guns. Gun store to citizen sales can be regulated, but citizen to citizen sales cannot.



The best common sense gun regulation isn't a regulation at all: Add 10-20 mandatory years of prison to the sentence of any person convicted of using a gun in the course of committing a crime. Why our beloved politicians fail to promote this idea baffles me.
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 27th, 2012, 08:16 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
So far, Second Amendment issues aren't in the 2012 Democratic Party platform. I favor common sense regulations too, but the term needs defining.


Why would "Second Amendment issues" need to be in the party platform, other than to pander to gun nuts? Is there some substantial threat to gun ownership in the country? If anything the court cases have trended the other way.
skrekk is offline  
Old April 27th, 2012, 08:33 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowuryder View Post
Gay rights are equal rights and gun rights is kind of a misnomer. Gun access is a better term than rights in my opinion. When we talk about equal rights for all Americans, we are talking about human rights that set the very foundation of who we are as Americans. The right to bear arms has been the most abused amendment in our constitution. Unfettered access to firearms should not be a right any more than slander is a tenet of free speech or yelling fire in a crowded theater. In a civilized society, we should be able to regulate these things accordingly, just as we can distinguish between allowing consenting adults in lawful relationships equal access to the law regarding those relationships but put restrictions on relationships (like those that concern minors) where we see fit to protect the citizenry. We can restrict and control the access without curtailing the rights, but for people whose favorite amendment is #2, that is unthinkable.


Read the Second Amendment:



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



It's a right, ryder. In 1996, Australia imposed restrictive gun laws. The results of the ban show little impact. Accidental gun deaths show no pattern. Suicide rates, with or without a firearm, had been trending downwards anyway, and deaths without the use of a firearm are ten times higher anyway. Assault rates have trended upwards for 20 years, and the gun ban had no effect on that trend. No effect on armed robbery has been noted. Murder rates were unaffected, and murders committed without firearms are six times higher than those committed with firearms.



I think we can learn something from the Australian example. Gun control, or gun bans are just the stuff of campaign rhetoric.
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 27th, 2012, 08:40 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1335543028' post='398280

So far, Second Amendment issues aren't in the 2012 Democratic Party platform. I favor common sense regulations too, but the term needs defining.


Why would "Second Amendment issues" need to be in the party platform, other than to pander to gun nuts? Is there some substantial threat to gun ownership in the country? If anything the court cases have trended the other way.


Why do you believe quotes are required around Second Amendment issues?



What is your definition of a gun nut?
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 27th, 2012, 09:06 AM   #10
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
I think that E.J. Dionne makes a lot of sense in this article and sums up my feelings pretty well on the issue.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120903312.html



Quote:
Beyond the NRA's absolutism



By E.J. Dionne Jr.

Thursday, December 10, 2009




When it comes to passing sensible gun laws, Congress typically offers Profiles in Cowardice.


The National Rifle Association wields power that would make an Afghan warlord jealous because the organization is thought to command legions of one-issue voters ready to punish any deviationism from the never-pass-any-new-gun-laws imperative. Many legislators fear that casting a vote for even a smidgen of restraint on weapons sales could be politically lethal.


But imagine if NRA members were more reasonable than the organization's leaders and supporters in Congress in understanding the urgency of keeping guns out of the wrong hands.


NRA leaders, meet your members.


It turns out that the people in the ranks actually are much wiser than their lobbyists. In a move that should revolutionize the gun debate, Mayors Against Illegal Gunsdecided to go over the heads of Beltway types and poll gun owners and NRA members directly.


The survey, which will be released soon, wasn't conducted by some liberal outfit but by Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster lately famous for providing talking points against the Democrats' health-care bills.


"I support the NRA," Luntz insists. What he doesn't go for is the "slippery slope argument" that casts any new gun law as the first step toward confiscation. "When the choice is between national security and terrorism versus no limits on owning guns," Luntz says, "I'm on the side of national security and fighting terrorism."


Most NRA members seem to agree.


In his survey of 832 gun owners, including 401 NRA members, Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Sixty-nine percent favored "requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns," and 78 percent backed "requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen." Among gun owners who did not belong to the NRA, the numbers were even higher.


It's true that these gun owners, including NRA members, don't buy broader forms of gun control. For example, 59 percent of NRA members opposed "requiring every gun owner to register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry," though I was surprised that 30 percent supported this.


And gun owners continue to worry that President Obama "will attempt to ban the sales of guns in the United States at some point while he is president." Asked about this, 44 percent of NRA members said Obama "definitely" would and 35 percent said he "probably" would.


Still, those surveyed stood behind the core idea that gun regulations and gun rights complement each other. The poll offered this statement: "We can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them." Among all gun owners and NRA members, 86 percent agreed.


NRA members also oppose the idea behind the so-called Tiahrt amendments passed by Congress. Named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), the rules prevent law enforcement officials from having full access to gun trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and require the FBI to destroy certain background-check records after just 24 hours. Talk about handcuffing the police.


The mayors' poll offered respondents this statement, antithetical to the Tiahrt rules: "The federal government should not restrict the police's ability to access, use, and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws." Among NRA members, 69 percent agreed.


This survey should empower Congress to take at least some baby steps down the safe path the mayors' group is trying to blaze. They could start by overturning the Tiahrt rules and keeping guns from those on terrorism watch lists. "There are too many public officials taking an absolutist position when they don't have to," Luntz says. "And they're taking it not because they want to, but because they're scared into doing it."


Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee said in an interview that he and his colleagues are trying to send a clear message to gun owners: "If you have a gun you use for hunting or for self-defense in your home, I don't want your gun."


What he does want are tougher rules on purchases that might have kept six of his city's police officers from being shot with guns bought at the same gun store. A lot of gun owners get that.

waitingtables is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Libertarian

Tags
gay, gun, poll, rights, shows, support



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Clinton, Obama Promote Gay Rights As Human Rights Around The World Mom Gay and Lesbian Rights 22 December 8th, 2011 01:40 PM
Gay Rights Are Civl Rights knowuryder Gay and Lesbian Rights 11 May 10th, 2011 04:56 PM
Are Gay Rights Civil Rights ? gigg Gay and Lesbian Rights 24 November 23rd, 2007 07:17 PM
Any Similiarity Between Gay Rights and Civil Rights? tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 47 August 22nd, 2007 12:16 PM
Giuliani reaffirms abortion rights support CNN Current Events 3 May 15th, 2007 04:35 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.