People keep telling me I’ve gone a little conservative on the gun issue. No, I’ve stayed liberal on the gun issue, gun-banners have gone full-blown Republican and Tea Bagger on this issue. I haven’t changed my political philosophy. They have adjusted their philosophy to keep up with their party’s drive to become more authoritarian. Sure it doesn’t have to do with gay rights or women’s rights so most Democrats won’t give two shits. I think this guy sums that up best in “The Post in Which I Piss Everybody Off” http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/the-post-in-which-i-piss-off-everybody
Let’s start with a definition
LIBERALISM: c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism)
Any liberal that suggests the usurpation, severe restriction or banning of a civil right, by definition, isn’t a liberal. I would argue that the preservation of your own life is a human right. Any person that would suggest levying a fine or a fee (i.e. “insurance”) to practice a right is not a liberal. Sorry, you’re not. You may be a party line Democrat but that doesn’t make you a liberal. The conservatives have jumped so far to the right and the rules of the protection of civil liberties and rights have changed so much in the past decade, that you may be confused as to where you actually stand in the political spectrum. But don’t confuse being in lock step with the centrist corporatist party with being a liberal.
It’s not just about the protection of civil liberties, let’s talk about the “amelioration of social inequities” and how “insurance” as a requirement to own firearms. Such a burden would make it cost prohibitive for those on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder to practice a right. So, the poor, working poor and some middle class won’t be able to afford this insurance and you say, “so what?” If you look at it from a Marxian viewpoint the Proletariat will be left defenseless and unarmed while the Bourgeoisie and elite rich will be the only people to afford to be legally armed. To me, as a more Social-Democrat, I see that as a large issue. The last thing you want is the working class unarmed while the rich are the only ones that have the ability to arm themselves. Talk about a fast-track to the slavery of the working class.
So, let’s be honest about why you want the “insurance” requirement: it’s not for any sort of liability, it’s the same reason Republicans want voter ID, it’s the same reason we had poll taxes. It is in order to make it cost prohibitive to own a gun therefore reducing the number of people who will go through the process of getting one.
You want de facto outlaw gun ownership with bureaucracy and, what would be for some, unattainable financial burdens.
Instead of going through the front door and having a vote on the repeal of the 2nd Amendment which would set the party back politically for years, you will wrap your arguments in ignorance, fear, prejudice and emotion. You will use these mostly inane argument to have votes to do silly things like require liability insurance, allow people to only have 4.236 bullets in a 7 1/2 round magazine, make up arbitrary rules about which cosmetic features make a gun legal or illegal. You want to make the rules so confusing and the violation of those rules so severe that you scare people away from practicing a civil right. The new gun laws aren’t much different in ideology, practice and theory of the new voting rights laws.
So, you can call yourself a Democrat or a progressive but please don’t call yourself a Liberal. You may be confused about what that word really means.
