From a Historical Perspective, why are

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: 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.

The south was the "Soild South" because Dems blocked blacks from voting - since they were Republicans. It's like shooting apples in a barrel with some of you.

 

[NeoV]

actually Prince, Craig's comments were pretty spot-on - no need to get defensive about them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
The south was the "Soild South" because Dems blocked blacks from voting - since they were Republicans. It's like shooting apples in a barrel with some of you.

Yoiu're half right, which is a big improvement.

The Dems did block blacks from voting in the South - but the blacks were Democrats, not Republicans.

The actual history you are so clearly ignorant of is that when Republicans did gain control of Southern states, they would put as many blacks into districts as possible - which benefitted Republicans by creating densely Democatic districts, gerrymandering, while blacks agreed to it because it let them elect black people for the first time. Some of these blacks referred to this as a 'deal with the devil'.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: 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.

it's not really current... the urban v rural squabbles have existed ever since our cavemen ancestors decided to form a group of huts together instead of apart.

 

[elmer92413]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Craig234
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.
...
[cut]
...

You're so totally full of shit.

Could you please explain?

Originally posted by: 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.

That's interesting. Perhaps the two parties have more in common than differences? But why is this? If what you are saying is right why aren't they more diametrically opposed? I don't believe this to be the case though, and would like to hear more from you on this.

And by "gun opposing" it would be the idea of either outlawing runs outright (ie the UK) or weighing down the process as to be unnecessarily obtrusive as viewed from the other side of the issue like you said. But would the NRA be considered a vocal "minority"?

 

[elmer92413]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: 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.

it's not really current... the urban v rural squabbles have existed ever since our cavemen ancestors decided to form a group of huts together instead of apart.

There has been an obvious divide of urban and rural peoples for a long time yes, but it wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that you saw a shift in the people. And there has been political/social issues between the two for a long time too, but in American politics, especially with some of the comments last election, there has been a recurrence of these issues that have brought the divide back in the light. What do you think? (this is kind of a corollary to the current topic, but interesting nonetheless)

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: elmer92413
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.

It's available on Hulu.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: elmer92413
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.

It's available on Hulu.

Unfortunately, I don't think it settled much. Each side took the other to meetings with people, but none it had much impact.

One problem was that the 'anti-gun liberal' was more fearful based on personal history than informed or political in her opposition.

So she sort of squeaks and crumbles when the discussion happens, other than some tears and discussing her feelings.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: 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.

until you can get enough support to put your bullshit "modern history" into law by repealing the bill of rights, I think you've got the market cornered on bullshit.

 

[elmer92413]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: elmer92413
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.

It's available on Hulu.

Unfortunately, I don't think it settled much. Each side took the other to meetings with people, but none it had much impact.

One problem was that the 'anti-gun liberal' was more fearful based on personal history than informed or political in her opposition.

So she sort of squeaks and crumbles when the discussion happens, other than some tears and discussing her feelings.

Awesome I will be checking it out on Hulu now.

And ya, it's never a good debate when one side is so clearly better prepared.

 

[LunarRay]

Has anyone conducted a survey regarding which political party criminals who use guns in the commission of their crimes might belong to?
Failing that survey, I'd imagine they'd be more prone to be liberal.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Has anyone conducted a survey regarding which political party criminals who use guns in the commission of their crimes might belong to?
Failing that survey, I'd imagine they'd be more prone to be liberal.

Racist!

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: 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.

until you can get enough support to put your bullshit "modern history" into law by repealing the bill of rights, I think you've got the market cornered on bullshit.

Careful or you will get a PM

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Has anyone conducted a survey regarding which political party criminals who use guns in the commission of their crimes might belong to?
Failing that survey, I'd imagine they'd be more prone to be liberal.

Racist!

Although driving very fast can be a crime in some cases, racing on a race track generally is not. However, racing on a residential street most often is and the racist ought to be charged for exhibition of speed at least.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

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

Republican 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..

Finally I agree with ButterSotero / BarryBean

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 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..

What's great is that our good friend Barry deliberately cut off the remaining portion of the description of the vote. Gee, I wonder why? Don't worry though, I'll include it:

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Anyone who has taken even one course on 20th century history knows the difference between southern and northern Democrats, specifically as it related to civil rights. Hell, it's the primary reason why the south suddenly started turning Republican in the late 60's. What this vote total really told you was that southerners were fucking racist, with the Democrats being slightly less racist than the Republicans.

But it's Barry, I'm sure we're all used to his bullshit by now.

 

[Moonbeam]

My theory, and one that while just a theory, I ascribe great weight to, because it is, after all, my theory, and I make it a habit always to be right, or if not right, then armed, both of which, by the way, so far have not failed me, is this:

I believe that ones attitude toward guns lies in direct proportion to the degree to which a person's subjective reaction to them is vivified in their imagination as to who is pointing one at whom. If the fantasy runs in the direction of me saving a beautiful woman by blowing some ugly Iranian away, and one with a big mustache and a cutlass, I fancy myself to be very pro gun, whereas if, on the other arm, I picture myself coming under fire from the Campanile by an insane mathematical genius of Polish origin, with a sniper scope on his elephant gun, I tend on those days to more favor gun control.

And as Hermes Trismegistus once commented, 'as above so below', I am convinced that this same idea applies laterally, such that the folk around me, you, you, and you think also just as I do.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My theory, and one that while just a theory, I ascribe great weight to, because it is, after all, my theory, and I make it a habit always to be right, or if not right, then armed, both of which, by the way, so far have not failed me, is this:

I believe that ones attitude toward guns lies in direct proportion to the degree to which a person's subjective reaction to them is vivified in their imagination as to who is pointing one at whom. If the fantasy runs in the direction of me saving a beautiful woman by blowing some ugly Iranian away, and one with a big mustache and a cutlass, I fancy myself to be very pro gun, whereas if, on the other arm, I picture myself coming under fire from the Campanile by an insane mathematical genius of Polish origin, with a sniper scope on his elephant gun, I tend on those days to more favor gun control.

And as Hermes Trismegistus once commented, 'as above so below', I am convinced that this same idea applies laterally, such that the folk around me, you, you, and you think also just as I do.

Hahahahaha, you are right again!

 

[b0mbrman]

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)

I'm comfortable with this

 

[LunarRay]

I support the right for folks to own and carry guns. I've not one problem with that. I do have a problem if those guns are not secure from criminals or nutty folks who'd use them in some criminal activity, however!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: 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.

until you can get enough support to put your bullshit "modern history" into law by repealing the bill of rights, I think you've got the market cornered on bullshit.

I didn't even finish your post, but you are clearly confused as the history of how people's opinions on guns have formed does not violate your second amendment rights.

The BS some people come up with and embarrass themself with is amazing sometimes. I'd say get a clue, but why bother, you won't.

 

[BrownTown]

Well this devolved pretty quickly into a Republican Vs Democrat debate. Kind of sad that something as supposedly objective as history can be seen so differently by people based on their political affiliation.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My theory, and one that while just a theory, I ascribe great weight to, because it is, after all, my theory, and I make it a habit always to be right, or if not right, then armed, both of which, by the way, so far have not failed me, is this:

I believe that ones attitude toward guns lies in direct proportion to the degree to which a person's subjective reaction to them is vivified in their imagination as to who is pointing one at whom. If the fantasy runs in the direction of me saving a beautiful woman by blowing some ugly Iranian away, and one with a big mustache and a cutlass, I fancy myself to be very pro gun, whereas if, on the other arm, I picture myself coming under fire from the Campanile by an insane mathematical genius of Polish origin, with a sniper scope on his elephant gun, I tend on those days to more favor gun control.

And as Hermes Trismegistus once commented, 'as above so below', I am convinced that this same idea applies laterally, such that the folk around me, you, you, and you think also just as I do.

Also, I jsut want to take this time to say that for the first time in history I am actually agreeing with Moonbeam (even though teh way he expresses his point still clearly shows his insanity). The way people see guns (and pretty much everything else) is based on how they have seen guns used when they grew up. I can guarantee you most peolpe where I live will be pro-gun, but that's because they see guns in terms of hunting and such, most of these people were shooting guns well before they could even drive. Obviously in a city not nearly as many people gun hunting, and crime is higher, so people view guns differently.

Personally I have never even SEEN a gun except being carried by a police officer or other security officer. So, I guess I see guns as a symbol of protection and security, not of crime, or hunting. Although ironically enough i do see people with assault rifles every day at work, but they are security guards, not criminals.

 

[0marTheZealot]

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.

States with concealed carry laws are safer than states without.

Chicago is a bastion for gun haters. You cannot own a gun legally here unless it was registered back in the Dark Ages. You'd think Chicago would be almost devoid of gun violence. That is not the case. Every night on the news, you hear about another gunshot victim. Chicago is always a top runner for the most murders in the country, with the vast majority being committed by guns. By definition, every gun used was illegally obtained.

All gun control laws do is take the guns away from people who want to protect themselves. Criminals will always have access to guns, whether we ban them or not. I'm not advocating the repeal of all gun control laws, we shouldn't have people walking around with fully automatic rifles. However, I firmly believe that if every citizen was allowed to carry a pistol for personal protection, crime in this country would basically halt after 5 years.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Craig234
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.

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.

Craig brings up some key points which I'd like to comment on.

Guns will always be available to criminals, who don't get their guns from "Dave's gun shop" legally. Disarming the populace through gun control or lack of self-defense with deadly force laws simply means the criminals have the upper hand (look at Britain). This is simply common sense. Accidental deaths, while always tragic, should not qualify as a reason to repeal or curtail our right to self defense with deadly force, which goes to the core of liberty.

There is plenty of precident to take the slippery slope argument very seriously. Just look at what we've done with smoking and cigarettes taxing them out of existence (guns are safer IMO).

It is true that a shotgun is the best home defense weapon because a blast will not penetrate both drywalls killing your kid in his bedroom if you miss while attempting to defend against a home invader. However many states like NJ do not allow barrels less than 18" legally, which means the shotgun is still less maneuverable in tight quarters than a handgun in a life/death situation.

Finally, the armed populace argument is valid. While it's hard to imagine in the modern age how we might "overthrow" our oppressive govt if the need arose given the weapons available to us versus the U.S. military, there is no way 10s of millions of armed Americans could ever be subjigated by our govt -- which is the true purpose of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Also, I jsut want to take this time to say that for the first time in history I am actually agreeing with Moonbeam (even though teh way he expresses his point still clearly shows his insanity).

Now now, My Dear BT, I simply did not match the impedance of my lines to the load of assumptions a power line engineer like yourself has been inculcated to assume is the only effective style of discourse for the transmission of, shall we say, sufficient current for the illumination of that wonderful bulb we call the brain crowning our nervous systems.

It's not that I couldn't have said simply, and without grammatical flourish, that one's support for gun ownership increases as the square in proportion to one's distance from a police station, or that it is determined, with the similar conciseness of language, as a function of whether one has to rely for one's personal safety on one's own efforts, or whether that safety is supplied by one's surrounding, or even which end of the barrel it is at which one pictures himself standing, but I did not, and for reasons I can't begin to coalesce and make concrete out of the vast flow of whimsy that washes through me. What propels this old ape to hoot with this or that musical note at this or that time of fancy, is a mystery that completely escapes me. My instinct tells me it happens willy or nilly simply depending on the passing of some stray cosmic ray joggling this or that synaptically functional molecule in my madcap brain.