Why not?
Radley Balko notes that, while he’s never supported gun control, he’s just not passionate about gun rights. This seems to be a source of contention between libertarian-liberals and libertarian-conservatives. I was engaged once in a discussion with a contributor to the lefty-libertarian site UnknownNews in which they stated something to the effect of how they ought to be careful no to align themselves with gun-nuts due to perception issues (’cause we’re all racists and homophobes, you know). I wholeheartedly disagreed with that assertion.
Pro-gun and pro-freedom (they go hand in hand) folks should align with whoever they can. And we gun folks pretty much assume that if you don’t display support for gun rights, you must oppose them. We do. It’s true. Can’t help it. But there is hope.
If you asked me 10 years ago if I thought pro-gun folks would ally with the gay and lesbian community, I’d have probably laughed. But it has happened (ask these fine folks). Sure, there’s some opposition from some of the less tolerant factions of the gun community (but you have those issues anywhere) but it is taking hold. It’s not widespread but it’s happening. The gun community needs to draw as many into the fold as it can and alienating a group will do that. Same with those pro-freedom folks who aren’t passionate about guns. I’m not particularly passionate about gay marriage (probably because I’m not gay and no gay person I know wants to get married) but I support their cause and draw attention to it.
Some lefty libertarian sorts unintentionally alienate gun owners. Alienating gun owners is not good, ask Gore.
March 1st, 2005 at 8:29 pm
Gays with guns don’t get bashed.
March 1st, 2005 at 8:36 pm
I’m sure you’ve figured out about me that I am somewhat “pro-gun” but not very comfortable with the stance… The 2nd amendment doesn’t say anything about guns. It says that we are allowed to bear arms. My question, before I could get too friendly with the pro-gun movement, is – do you guys see a reasonable limit to what kinds of arms private citizens should enjoy a right to keep and bear, and if so, approximately where do you draw that line? I guess now is as good a time as any for me to get clear on what being “pro-gun” means… I’ll choose to remain agnostic before I will become anti-gun, but I don’t want to jump on a band-wagon that has no reasonable limits, either. I just don’t like the idea of unrestricted access to whatever kind of arms a person chooses to keep and bear. If that’s what the 2nd amendment means, it needs to be amended…
March 1st, 2005 at 9:40 pm
I’ve outlined my thoughts on it before. Can’t find the link though. Basically, i figure that a citizen should be able to carry whatever arm a standard military man can use as a primary weapon (shotgun, hand gun, rifle capable of full auto-fire).
March 2nd, 2005 at 8:32 am
I’ll mull that over… Do you think your views are fairly representative of the pro-gun community at large?
March 2nd, 2005 at 8:55 am
Depends. the sporstsman types just care about hunting, typically.
March 2nd, 2005 at 12:17 pm
“arms” in the day of the founding fathers meant anything that was man-portable, as opposed to what would need transport.
Since the original intent was to ensure that the population always had enough fire power to keep a despotic government in check, I would go along with SayUncle on this.
If you are convinced that this will lead to chaos, you need to evaluate the situation in Switzerland. Also, most Israelis have full-auto weapons. (The reason suicide bombers came into being is that you cannot ambush a random group of Israelis with firearms. They will out gun you and draw on the first shot they hear.)
Its true the gun community – though containing its share of idiots – has been generally more welcoming than the left. As I have said – and others too – the left – and particularly the crazy left – will accept you as one of their own until you voice an un-approved opinion. Then you are insane, a monster, …