Why do liberal Democrats want to disarm law-abiding citizens?

Question

"Liberalism", as defined in American Heritage dictionary, is a political theory founded on the goodness of humans, & the autonomy of the individual, favoring civil & political parties, government by law with the consent of the governed, & protection from arbitrary authority.
"Arbitrary" - Determined by chance, or impulse, & not by necessity or reason.
So, it supposed to be equal law all around; do as you see fit, as long as you don't harm anyone unnecessarily.
Using a gun to defend oneself against a killer is hardly "arbitrary".
Why then, this hatred of firearms? Please don't spit platitudes out, I'm familiar with them.
But, going by the very tenets of Liberalism, people should be allowed to keep guns, & use them to defend themselves.

For "Fairen3" below, you're spitting out the drivel Democrats like Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, and a host of others have been feeding to the pablum-eaters like you, who take what they say without researching the facts for yourself.
You let them do your "research" for you, then you parrot what they put out.
To be fair, I suggest you visit www.nraila,org.
Use the search windows to look up various topics like "Britain's gun laws" and see just how many Democratic Congress-people and Senators want to emulate them.
Even though the real facts show how violent crimes have risen since England & Australia have banned firearms.

For "Are Ja" below, just where did you obtain that figure?
Leave it up to people who follow Dianne Feinstein and her ilk to state things like this with no source of real info, or other significant statistics.

For real facts, instead of the drivel put out by "farien3" & "are ja", go to, www.nraila.org
Use the search window to look up real statistics, not just parroting for the anti-gunners.

Answer 1

Democrats are unconfortable with the idea of people doing for themselves. If people can defend themselves, it defeats the Dems socialist agenda. Democrats are closet-socialists who want government to control a person's entire life from cradle to grave.

Answer 2

Because if you make guns available to law-abiding citizens, criminals can get them too. Every single criminal was, at one time, a "law-abiding citizen". And don't make excuses about Virginia Tech. A college of 20,000 students cannot monitor each student's mental health status. That gun should never have been sold, but the politicians of Virginia refused to require proper background checks at gun shops in order to avoid losing gun owners' votes in the elections.

Answer 3

Sensible people don't promote disarming law abiding citizens. But law enforcement, hunters and knowledgeable gun owners oppose public ownership of assault weapons, armor piercing bullets, automatic rifles etc. Most guns kept for self protection are never used and are generally under lock and key when needed most in an emergency. Firearms in the home kill more children and spouses than intruders by a margin of more than 1000 to 1. A sensible parent will want to know if their child's sleepover friend's parent has a gun and if it is safely stored, before allowing the child to spend the night.

Answer 4

Contrary to what your question states, I'm fairly liberal, but adore firearms. I believe in owning guns, using guns, for both hunting AND recreation. One of the best forms of stress relief that I have found is to go out shooting. It just makes me all warm inside to blow stuff up out of aggression. I feel better, and have harmed none in the process. As for using one for protection, I firmly believe in that right as well. There's a reason that our founding fathers decided to include the right to keep and bear arms as a right and not a privilege. If anyone were to draw on me, or break into my house, they had better rethink the effort as I am likely to be quicker on the draw than they.
Many liberals feel the same way, but on the flip side there really does need to be an amount of common sense involved. Does everyone NEED to have a fully automatic assault rifle? Not in the least. But thankfully, there are provisions that allow one to get a license to own and shoot these arms as well.
My personal view is that once guns are illegal only cops and criminals will have them. I personally don't trust either.

Answer 5

So you are a liberal then? Since you agree with the principles of the defenition?

Most democrats and liberals don't want to disarm law-abiding citizens. They want to make sure there are enough laws and measures in place to make sure criminals, children, and others that shouldn't get guns, don't get them. They also want to make sure the more dangerous guns, like assault rifles, are controled and less likely to be used for criminal activities. It will take some cooperation by the law-abiding citizens, and probably make it harder (not impossible) to get guns and use them. But hopefully in the long run it will reduce violence and gun related crimes.

Answer 6

Because, you blind morons... Guns cause crime, just like pencils cause words flies cause garbage and golf clubs cause holes in one... Can't you see?? (they sure can)

Leftist...liberal.. democrat... socialist...communist... None of those idiologies can survive any degree of self sufficiency. Their entire philosophy encompasses the need to share 100% even the simplest most basic aspects of social responsibility. Their biggest castle in the sky is that laws will protect people...they WON'T, they DON'T, they only allow the government to come clean up the leftovers and MAYBE catch the criminal. Perish the thought that an individual accept responsibility for their own safety... That just ain't in their mission statement.

Answer 7

You request we avoid 'platitudes' but you yourself use an excuse the age-old 'Using a gun to defend oneself against a killer is hardly "arbitrary".

What killer? What percentage of handgun-related deaths and injuries do you suppose are the result of a law-abiding citizen defending himself against 'a killer'? Would you be surprised to learn that it is less than 1% of all handgun-related deaths and injuries? If the percentage is indeed 1%, or less than 1% or even 5%, or even TEN PERCENT, leaving 90+percent as the result of criminal or criminally incompetant use of a gun, would you be willing to concede that perhaps uncontrolled handgun ownership is ill-advised? If not, how can you call yourself unbiased, objective, or even rational?

P.S. Well you successfully convinced us of your paranoid fantasies about Diane Feinstein, and you successfully avoided answering my question to you about the reality of using a handgun to defend yourself against a 'killer', but you failed to make any point other than that you are adept at dodging the issues and creating imaginary and implausible scenarios to shore up your ill-considered devotion to uncontrolled weaponry.

Answer 8

First off, I wouldn't follow any dictionary on the definition of being a liberal, conservative, etc...

I am a democrat and consider myself liberal. I also know some Republicans that consider themselves liberal whom are my friends. Through discussions, we have concluded we are liberals because we are constitutionalistss.

By being a constitutionalist, this means I fully support the constitution, which includes our right to bear arms.

I think you are confusing activists with liberals.

Answer 9

Many Liberals actually agree with you. It just seems that many have forgotten. Now the party you are describing sounds more like the Libertarian party.

Answer 10

I am a Liberal and I believe in the Constitutional right right to bear arms.

Answer 11

.... people call me a "liberal" all the time... and I think that people should be able to keep their guns...

I've not heard anyone talk about this seriously in like 5 years... it seems to be far down on everyone's agenda for the most part...