From a Historical Perspective, why are

[elmer92413]

As the topic states, I'm curious about this and have been for awhile. It seems backwards to me, and this may be just because I'm unfamiliar with the history of the two parties to begin with. If anybody wants to take a crack at answering this I'd appreciate it, just let me know where you are speculating and where something is more fact.

 

[nageov3t]

I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

urban politicians view guns through the lens of urban crime, as opposed to hunting (and generic fear of government)

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: elmer92413
As the topic states, I'm curious about this and have been for awhile. It seems backwards to me, and this may be just because I'm unfamiliar with the history of the two parties to begin with. If anybody wants to take a crack at answering this I'd appreciate it, just let me know where you are speculating and where something is more fact.

Liberals tend to be interested in people doing well, and they look at the harm caused by tens of thousands of gun killings annually, the tragedy, and are concerned about it.

They recognize that there are dangerous people who will kill if guns are easily available, and they recognize that handguns are especially dangerous for crime.

They recognize that having an ocean of guns means they'll be all too available, including through burglaries.

Right-wingers tend more to identify guns as empowering them. They imagine themselves using the gun to defend against a criminal - some in some vague sense of defending against government tyranny, at least the sense than an armed populace is a deterrent to a tyrant.

Their gun tends to make them feel more powerful and they want to keep that.

As often in politics it has a lot to do with who you pay attention to. Do you look at the mother who lost her child to a 15 year old gang banger shooting him or her with a stolen handgun, or do you look at the man who shoots a home invader? Both are 'real' situations, and each side has their arguments why the other side's policies would cause big problems.

Most liberals support long-barrel guns for home defense and many see handguns as only having attributes that make them more suitable for crime. Right-wingers tend more to reject any control wholesale, encouraged by the NRA, often citing the slippery slope comment that handguns are only the first step, and if you give them an inch they'll take a mile.

So that's the basic difference - liberals viewing handguns as a danger and right-wingers viewing guns as empowering.

Edit: Loki made a point I forgot to include, that politically cities tend liberal and rural tends right-wing; this makes liberals' experience more with guns in crimes, and right-wingers more used to guns for hunting and recreational use, so each group's experience with guns is very different.

The TV show '30 days' did an episode on this where they had a gun-fearing city woman live for a month with a gun-obsessed rural family.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

urban politicians view guns through the lens of urban crime, as opposed to hunting (and generic fear of government)

/thread

 

[Infohawk]

Interesting question OP. (I don't think I've ever said that on P&N.)

I wonder how many posters will actually admit that they are speculating though.

 

[Triumph]

I almost threw up my dinner reading the bullshit that Craig just posted. You completely avoided the topic entirely (HISTORICAL perspective on gun control) in favor of a chance to get on your soap box. HISTORICALLY, the Democratic party is the party of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and the KKK. Of course this has nothing to do with guns, but to listen to Craig's post you'd think that the dems have never done anything wrong. I make this point to explain that you are replying with a modern day interpretation of a liberal's view on firearms. So Craig, can you revise your post to say something that actually contributes to the topic at hand?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I almost threw up my dinner reading the bullshit that Craig just posted. You completely avoided the topic entirely (HISTORICAL perspective on gun control) in favor of a chance to get on your soap box. HISTORICALLY, the Democratic party is the party of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and the KKK. Of course this has nothing to do with guns, but to listen to Craig's post you'd think that the dems have never done anything wrong. I make this point to explain that you are replying with a modern day interpretation of a liberal's view on firearms. So Craig, can you revise your post to say something that actually contributes to the topic at hand?

you realized that there was a realignment about 40 years ago right?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I almost threw up my dinner reading the bullshit that Craig just posted. You completely avoided the topic entirely (HISTORICAL perspective on gun control) in favor of a chance to get on your soap box. HISTORICALLY, the Democratic party is the party of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and the KKK. Of course this has nothing to do with guns, but to listen to Craig's post you'd think that the dems have never done anything wrong. I make this point to explain that you are replying with a modern day interpretation of a liberal's view on firearms. So Craig, can you revise your post to say something that actually contributes to the topic at hand?

Damn, tell me what to do to remove the almost next time.

I answered his question as I interpreted it, as being about *modern* history, as that's the period when I see the partisan divide increase on guns.

I'm not aware of much difference between the parties before the last few decades. The 'bullshit' is in your own post.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Triumph
I almost threw up my dinner reading the bullshit that Craig just posted. You completely avoided the topic entirely (HISTORICAL perspective on gun control) in favor of a chance to get on your soap box. HISTORICALLY, the Democratic party is the party of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and the KKK. Of course this has nothing to do with guns, but to listen to Craig's post you'd think that the dems have never done anything wrong. I make this point to explain that you are replying with a modern day interpretation of a liberal's view on firearms. So Craig, can you revise your post to say something that actually contributes to the topic at hand?

you realized that there was a realignment about 40 years ago right?

Right, but my point is that Craig's post gives no historical reason for why the two respective camps are where they are on this topic. All I hear is "Liberals care about people's welfare and little Jimmy who took his daddy's hand gun and shot little Bobby and oh think of the children and Conservatives want to shoot your children!"

 

[PJABBER]

Why not just go to Wiki for a fairly detailed review of the issue, with a good discussion of the history?

Gun Politics In The U.S.

And if you are really interested in some practical information from the same source -

Carrying Concealed Weapons

A review of law from the NRA -

NRA - Gun Laws

:laugh:

 

[Triumph]

"Modern" history? Come on, give me a break. Now that's just a cop out.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: elmer92413
As the topic states, I'm curious about this and have been for awhile. It seems backwards to me, and this may be just because I'm unfamiliar with the history of the two parties to begin with. If anybody wants to take a crack at answering this I'd appreciate it, just let me know where you are speculating and where something is more fact.

Liberals tend to be interested in people doing well, and they look at the harm caused by tens of thousands of gun killings annually, the tragedy, and are concerned about it.

They recognize that there are dangerous people who will kill if guns are easily available, and they recognize that handguns are especially dangerous for crime.

They recognize that having an ocean of guns means they'll be all too available, including through burglaries.

Right-wingers tend more to identify guns as empowering them. They imagine themselves using the gun to defend against a criminal - some in some vague sense of defending against government tyranny, at least the sense than an armed populace is a deterrent to a tyrant.

Their gun tends to make them feel more powerful and they want to keep that.

As often in politics it has a lot to do with who you pay attention to. Do you look at the mother who lost her child to a 15 year old gang banger shooting him or her with a stolen handgun, or do you look at the man who shoots a home invader? Both are 'real' situations, and each side has their arguments why the other side's policies would cause big problems.

Most liberals support long-barrel guns for home defense and many see handguns as only having attributes that make them more suitable for crime. Right-wingers tend more to reject any control wholesale, encouraged by the NRA, often citing the slippery slope comment that handguns are only the first step, and if you give them an inch they'll take a mile.

So that's the basic difference - liberals viewing handguns as a danger and right-wingers viewing guns as empowering.

Edit: Loki made a point I forgot to include, that politically cities tend liberal and rural tends right-wing; this makes liberals' experience more with guns in crimes, and right-wingers more used to guns for hunting and recreational use, so each group's experience with guns is very different.

The TV show '30 days' did an episode on this where they had a gun-fearing city woman live for a month with a gun-obsessed rural family.

AAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA *breathe* HAHHAHAHA

 

[PJABBER]

And Craig throws another tantrum while failing to persuade anyone.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
And Craig throws another tantrum while failing to persuade anyone.

You can barely speak for yourself, and my posts are not for you.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PJABBER
And Craig throws another tantrum while failing to persuade anyone.

You can barely speak for yourself, and my posts are not for you.

OMG. Just read through the links I posted above and then come back and say something intelligent and on topic.

The first link is all you really need for background and a starting point for a further exploration if you want to play.

Here it is again -

Gun Politics In The United States

 

[Infohawk]

I think it's interesting the NRA only supported a presidential candidate for the first time in 1980. (fact.) Wikipedia In the 1970s, there was a tension between the gun club NRA and the political NRA. (fact) History of NRA Seems like the 1960s assassinations (of Democrats) were a big factor in getting the Democrats to push gun control and the NRA pushed back. (speculation.)

Ultimately, my theory is that the Republicans became the party of tradition in the 1960s. (speculation) Guns are part of traditional America along with racism and religion. (speculation)

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

This. Definitely this.

Rural folks also view Government as "big city slickers" (read: different than what they're used to), and therefore are naturally distrustful of it.

I was just talking to my grandparents (90+ years old, live in farm country but are not farmers), and they related to me how many of their friends who WERE farmers, were always EXTREMELY angry with and distrustful of commodities markets. Illustrative quote: "I grew this corn, why should I let some city slicker in Chicago tell me how much it's worth?"

All this while blissfully ignoring the fact that, assuming a correctly functioning market, they were getting THE BEST price possible for their corn. Not to mention the fact that: they now no longer have to find actual buyers for their grain, nor do they have to deliver it all over the map, nor do they have to do any bargaining/haggling for price, etc., leaving them more time to do ... get this ... ACTUAL FARMING.

Also, I think education (or lack and/or distrust thereof), plays in to this as well.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
And Craig throws another tantrum while failing to persuade anyone.

It's pretty amusing. He tries to sound intelligent in writing his long-winded, pseudo-intellectual replies, yet it's so easy to see through all that to the shallow little person he is. It almost seems like the more he talks, the better he feels about himself.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hmmm. I'm not really clear on what "gun opposing" is exactly supposed to mean. I'm a liberal, and I don't "oppose guns." I think there can be reasonable regulations imposed by the government on the ownership and sale of guns, but I don't support an all-out ban on guns, for instance. I expect that Democrats and Republicans differ on exactly which regulations and proposed regulations are "reasonable," and I'd wager that both sides have their vocal minority of extremists that will never see eye-to-eye.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: miketheidiotyou realized that there was a realignment about 40 years ago right?

The "realignment" was basically the Dem party giving up resisting civil rights changes that the GOP was long for - including anti lynching laws which American public and GOP were vastly in favor of but Dems always blocked voting on.

In fact, the 1964 vote for Civil Rights had more solid support across GOP than Dem party.


Vote totals 1964 civil rights bill:

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

* The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
* The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
* The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

By party

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964


Democrat party history is a sordid affair despite the propaganda facade it was given by media. It's no surprise it's now the party of anti-American radicals crippling the nations security and economy..

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I almost threw up my dinner reading the bullshit that Craig just posted.

You wouldn't be the first.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
In fact, the 1964 vote for Civil Rights had more solid support across GOP than Dem party.

As has been explained to people who use the numbers dishonestly like you do many times, the fact is that the opposition to the civil rights bills was in the south.

The south was 'the solid south' for Democrats then; the moderate Republicans weren't yet purged by the radicals like you.

The group most in favor was the non-Soutern Democrat group; next was the Repubican group; and then the opposition was centered in Southern Democrats.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: elmer92413
As the topic states, I'm curious about this and have been for awhile. It seems backwards to me, and this may be just because I'm unfamiliar with the history of the two parties to begin with. If anybody wants to take a crack at answering this I'd appreciate it, just let me know where you are speculating and where something is more fact.

Liberals tend to be interested in people doing well, and they look at the harm caused by tens of thousands of gun killings annually, the tragedy, and are concerned about it.

They recognize that there are dangerous people who will kill if guns are easily available, and they recognize that handguns are especially dangerous for crime.

They recognize that having an ocean of guns means they'll be all too available, including through burglaries.

Right-wingers tend more to identify guns as empowering them. They imagine themselves using the gun to defend against a criminal - some in some vague sense of defending against government tyranny, at least the sense than an armed populace is a deterrent to a tyrant.

Their gun tends to make them feel more powerful and they want to keep that.

As often in politics it has a lot to do with who you pay attention to. Do you look at the mother who lost her child to a 15 year old gang banger shooting him or her with a stolen handgun, or do you look at the man who shoots a home invader? Both are 'real' situations, and each side has their arguments why the other side's policies would cause big problems.

Most liberals support long-barrel guns for home defense and many see handguns as only having attributes that make them more suitable for crime. Right-wingers tend more to reject any control wholesale, encouraged by the NRA, often citing the slippery slope comment that handguns are only the first step, and if you give them an inch they'll take a mile.

So that's the basic difference - liberals viewing handguns as a danger and right-wingers viewing guns as empowering.

Edit: Loki made a point I forgot to include, that politically cities tend liberal and rural tends right-wing; this makes liberals' experience more with guns in crimes, and right-wingers more used to guns for hunting and recreational use, so each group's experience with guns is very different.

The TV show '30 days' did an episode on this where they had a gun-fearing city woman live for a month with a gun-obsessed rural family.

You're so totally full of shit.

 

[elmer92413]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it boils down to the urban v rural divide.

This. Definitely this.

Rural folks also view Government as "big city slickers" (read: different than what they're used to), and therefore are naturally distrustful of it.

I was just talking to my grandparents (90+ years old, live in farm country but are not farmers), and they related to me how many of their friends who WERE farmers, were always EXTREMELY angry with and distrustful of commodities markets. Illustrative quote: "I grew this corn, why should I let some city slicker in Chicago tell me how much it's worth?"

This seems to be a recurring theme in current politics (urban v. rural) and I find it disheartening. Whatever party truly recognizes this and moves to bridge the divide will come out on top, and this will be facilitated by the fixing of the education system.

@Infohawk, thanks for explicitly (fact) quantifying your response.

@PJABBER, facts are good but don't always explain the reasons behind the behavior.

@Craig234, thanks for speculating on the current political scene regarding gun rights/control you bring up some interesting points. And I did happen to catch some of that '30 days' episode but sadly missed alot of it. I'm hoping to catch it again, so I can see the whole show.

@Triumph, could you please elaborate? "Jim Crow laws, segregation, and the KKK" From some of the reading that I have done I have found that gun control and blacks are linked more than I thought. And by that I mean that some of the first issues of gun control dealt with access to guns by free slaves, which helps explain the reason for "will issue" laws.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You're so totally full of shit.

One of your best argued points yet. And appreciated from a contra-indicator like you.