If I may, Badbo... where are
you on gun control, and why? I think that is a pretty good start.
Snowdog,
I differ from a lot (but by no means all) Democrats in that I'm a firm believer that the 2nd Amendment enshrines the right of the People to defend themselves from government tyranny. I believe this for a couple of reasons.
First, history does not offer one example prior to the formation of the USA where a government did not eventually defy the will of its people. The vast majority of people for the vast majority of history had no say in government, and governments should always be viewed with optimistic suspicion. Like the Red Sox. As John Stewart Mill argued, governments "fit" the people they govern, so maintaining an active and ready capability for defiance is a fitting counterbalance against government authority.
Second, some people argue that the 2nd Amendment only establishes a state militia, ie, the National Guard. However, every other right reserved in the Bill of Rights is applied to people individually, not corporately, so my 2nd Amendment rights have to be apply to me, not my state.
Like all of our other rights, I don't think the 2nd Amendment is absolute. You can't yell "fire" in a movie theater, walk naked down the steeet (at least most) or tell a cop to his face that he's a fascist. The Supreme Court has long upheld this principle for most of our rights, including the 2nd Amendment. So I have no problem with having to register machine guns and being prohibited from owning an armed tank, as do most people I think. Other restrictions, like concealed carry of handguns and the assault weapons ban have valid arguments on both sides of the fence. While Bush said he'd sign an extension to the assault weapons ban (Field and Stream Magazine) and a group of police supported its extension, we all know that the DC Sniper would have been just as deadly with a NEF, and nobody would have survived if he'd used a 308. Nor do I see how a flash supressor on an AR-15 substantially changes it. I'm very interested in the pros and cons of concealed carry laws too, and think discussion of them is valuable. I strongly disagree, however, with the current movement to outlaw semiautomatic long guns.
The problem most Democrats have with guns is that, mostly coming from urban or suburban areas, they associate them with cops and robbers. They're scary to shoot at first and are very dangerous without training. They don't see a place for them in their lives, so they tend to take a dim view of them. Most news accounts of guns show them being used badly, because safe gun usage is too mundane to make the broadcast. I understand this point of view even if I don't share it. Further, they get their food in neat packages from the supermarket. The sight of blood makes them faint. In an environment as dirty as cities, people develop an instinctive aversion to anything they perceive to be unclean. We know better, but they've never been shown otherwise. I've had arguments with friends who consider hunting wrong but have no problem with eating a burger. In addition, unlike most of the people on this board, very few have a hunting or military background that would teach them how death is inherent to propogating life.
Blame it on Disney, separation from the Land, whatever, many Dems have nothing in their lives that represent guns in a positive light. So they think guns are scary, they don't know why good people would want them, and figure the fewer bad guys that have them the better. That's how they think, and the traditional pro-gun tactic of defiance not engagement has not helped matters at all. Ignorance is not a good place to argue gun policy from, and both sides are guilty of it. Liberals are ignorant of the role guns play in free society and rural societies and Conservatives are ignorant or dismissive of the reasons for Liberal aversions.
Hope this helps, Snowdog, and I look forward to hearing from you again.
