4 ms·
"Peasant autonomy and self-defense of any kind could not be tolerated." In the United States, "gun control" (restrictions on gun rights) is universally classif
by rsync 6y ago
"Peasant autonomy and self-defense of any kind could not be tolerated."
In the United States, "gun control" (restrictions on gun rights) is universally classified as a liberal/left policy and the absence of "gun control" is classified as a conservative/right policy.
Without entering into a discussion of these politics I would like to point out that those classifications are completely backwards.
The US Second Amendment (and associated US gun rights, court interpretations, etc.) are extremely liberal, from an historical perspective.
- craig1f 6y agoIncorrect. Republicans have successfully branded themselves as gun advocates, and Democrats as anti-gun. There are as many liberal gun owners as conservatives. Liberals just don't jerk off with their guns on social media.
- js2 6y agoSome brief googling doesn't support the assertion that there are as many liberal (Democratic) gun owners as their are conservative (Republican) gun owners: https://news.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-among-republicans-than-democrats.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-amon... But this is way too reductive. There's lots of gun ownership in the US across all political affiliations. Additionally, gun ownership is independent of someone's views on guns. I know people with liberal views on gun ownership who don't own guns and people with restrictive views on gun ownership who do own guns.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoThis is just factually incorrect. Republicans are significantly more likely to own guns than Democrats: https://www.statista.com/statistics/249775/percentage-of-population-in-the-us-owning-a-gun-by-party-affiliation/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/249775/percentage-of-pop...
- NovemberWhiskey 6y agoPlease do not confuse "liberalism", the moral philosophy espoused by Locke/Montesquieu/Mill et al., with "liberal" as used as an adjective in modern-day US politics. The two have almost nothing to do with each other.
- bitdizzy 6y agoI would not consider the philosophy of those three writers to be the same philosophy.
- hacknat 6y agoThey don't have almost nothing to do with one another. Modern American liberalism is based pretty heavily on universal suffrage and human rights. The Rawlsian veil of ignorance[1] that the modern American left is pretty much based on is largely an extension of Locke. Sure, there are some economic ideas that the early liberals had that most modern liberals (and modern conservatives for that matter) would eschew, but to reduce their thinking to being purely libertarian does a disservice to the modern left, which needs all the historical support it can muster. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
- cmrdporcupine 6y agoFrankly as an outside observer (Canada), the "right to arms" in the context of the United States seems fairly clearly to be tied to the history of slave ownership, not the revolutionary war. Raising a militia for defense in the context of the US south has pretty clear implications. Just because there's a right to bear arms in the US doesn't mean the public there has any effective resistance against state coercion or violence. History doesn't bear that out at all. Likewise over history in countries that have no right to bear arms there have been many instances of the population resisting state coercion. Guns are fairly easily obtained in a licensed and registered manner here in Canada and in many other countries that have large rural areas, etc. for the purpose of hunting and sport. Sure, hand guns or assault weapons, no. And yes, there are no constitutional guarantees of this. But it's mostly irrelevant because the public is on the whole supportive of the notion that guns like cars and pesticides and other things are a fairly dangerous tool where the public as a whole gains from carefully watching them.