Are there any prominent liberal voices on the pro-gun side?

[DanTex]

So first off, this is an honest question, and I don't know the answer to it. To be clear, I'm not challenging the liberal credentials of anyone who posts here. I also understand that the fact that most liberal pundits hold a certain opinion doesn't automatically make that opinion correct. And so on.

But I'm sincerely wondering whether there is any liberal voice who I respect on other issues, and who also argues that, say, we shouldn't close the gun show loophole, or takes the pro-gun side on any of the other arguments that we've been having here.

What do I mean by "prominent liberal voice". Well, it's not really a precise thing, but I'm talking about pundits, columnists, TV/Radio hosts, etc. By prominent I mean someone a decent number of people on DU would know about, someone with a reasonably wide following as opposed to some random blogger. And no need to be stickler about who is really a liberal. In fact, for the purposes of this question, I'd even accept centrists like, say, Andrew Sullivan, Tom Friedman, Fareed Zakaria (but don't push it... and don't even try suggesting that David Brooks is anything but a right-winger!). Although I'm more interested in actual liberals.

Why do I care? Just curious really. It seems that whenever I come across a pro-gun opinion piece, even the ones that get posted here, you look at the author's other columns and you find things like "Obama is a big government socialist" or "Sarah Palin was right about ______". But I honestly don't know the answer -- maybe there's a whole slew of pro-gun liberal commentators and I just haven't found them yet. If so, help me out.

[iverglas]

1. when I asked a couple of days ago

I got the standard second-amendment quote from the current President, followed by intimations that his words were belied by his actions ...

You can now expect misrepresentations of Gandhi and ludicrously irrelevant references to Eleanor Roosevelt. Oh, and photos of JFK shooting at targets.

I've probably left a few out. Oh yeah, Eric Blair, well-known informant on progressive voices in the British arts community, also being taken out of context. (I'm sure that he, like me, would loudly protest at the label "liberal" anyhow.) There will be others!

Modern-day, recognized progressive voices? I've been holding my breath for about a decade in this forum now!

[TheWraith]

58. Bill Richardson. Russ Feingold. Howard Dean. Kirsten Gillibrand. Jerry Brown

Dean, in particular, won the NRA endorsement in his campaigns eight times. Jerry Brown as Cali AG joined in supporting the McDonald vs. Chicago lawsuit against Chicago's firearm restrictions. Bill Richardson is known to personally carry a concealed weapon. Russ Feingold came out and said as much as that the Assault Weapons Ban and the entire premise behind such bans was a failure, he wouldn't support renewing it, as well as having a solidly pro-gun record the last ten years or so.

Pundits? I really have no idea. Really, how many pundits have you heard talk anything about guns? The only ones you do hear spout off are the ones who are against the way things are now.

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. Top of my head, Big Eddie?

He is a guns rights advocate, but went on a glorious rant against the kind of clips/magazines/whatever that allowed Loughner to walk in public with 10 bullets ready to go in one reload.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Here's Big Ed on the topic as mentioned above (VIDEO)

https://www.wegoted.com/blog/blog-details2.asp?BID=520

[DanTex]

6. Thanks for the link.

I'm pretty sure he'd come down squarely on the pro-control side of this forum.

For example, in that video he criticizes 30-round magazines, and also criticizes the NRA. He also makes the comment "these guns are made to kill people".

The pro-gun horde here doesn't have much use for those kinds of thoughts...

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. He did a week on the topic after Gabby was shot.

There are several YTs on it, including one with Lautenberg talking about the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

That said, he is a guns rights guy. This interview is a classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-3GTwalrGY

(Noting that Zamudio did say he almost shot the guy who tackled Loughner. Zamudio is the argument for gun ownership, IMO - a responsible kid whose family took the time to TRAIN him extensively in weapons and instincts. That said, I think inate gut instinct played a 98% role with Zamudio - and that can't be taught).

[Glassunion]

4. Bill Richardson nt

[TPaine7]

5. Would this guy make your cut?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Gun_Control.htm

[DanTex]

8. Actually, yes, thanks.

I will say that politicians are different than pundits in that they need to appeal to the electorate. For example, that web site says Richardson voted for the AWB, and then voted to repeal it.

Non-elected commentators have more leeway to say what they actually feel, and I was kinda hoping for an editorial or TV clip or something where a liberal (or at least non-rightwinger) makes the case that, say, we shouldn't require IBCs for private sales at gun shows because it's too much of an imposition on the rights of gun owners. Or one of the other arguments that we keep having on this board.

Still, thanks for the info on Richardson.

[PavePusher]

9. There was never any vote to "repeal" it.

It was never brought to the floor to vote for/against an extension. It had a built-in 10-year "sunset" clause, requiring an active renewal process. Note that President Bush said he'd sign an extension, if passed. So much for Republican "por-gun" creds...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[DanTex]

11. I understand, but I was quoting Richardson directly.

“I voted to repeal the assault weapons ban because I should respect the wishes of my constituents. In this case, the strong majority favor repealing the ban. That doesn’t mean it’s the right vote."

So whatever he meant by that is what I meant also.

[RSillsbee]

10. Gabrielle Giffords? Howard Dean? Bill Richardson?

What do you consider "prominent"?

[DanTex]

13. Prominent, yes, but let me clarify.

Those are politicians. I'm actually looking more for editorials or opinion pieces from respected progressive commentators, which come down on the pro-gun side of the debates we keep having here.

This OP was prompted by another suggesting that London would have been better off during the riots if the shop owners had guns to protect themselves. There were two opinion pieces cited, but those came from raving right-wingers. So I'm wondering if anyone can find an opinion piece supporting the pro-gun side of some contentious issues here on DU that is written by a prominent progressive.

For example, maybe an editorial talking about how bad it would be to close the gun show loophole. Or maybe arguing that gun control advocates are actually bigots, a very common argument made on this board.

Ed Schultz was brought up as an example pro-gun progressive voice. But the video clip linked showed him criticizing three things:
1) high-capacity magazines
2) the NRA
3) guns designed to kill people
That would put him well on the pro-control side on this board.

[RSillsbee]

15. Does it matter?

I’m not trying to be a smart ass but if the whole world is wrong and I’m right guess who’s right. Even if no respected progressive commentators come out in favor IMO individuals should have the right to bear arms.

I do think Rachel said in an interview that she took her girlfriend shooting on their first date but she's not exactly what I'd call a pro gunner.


EDIT Trust me before I corrected this it looked like a monkey on acid typed it

[DanTex]

17. Not necessarily, but I'm just curious.

As I mentioned in the OP, I'm not trying to argue that if that all respected progressive commentators believe something then it must be right. I'm just wondering if anyone can find an editorial or interview or whatever with a respected progressive commentator who comes down on the pro-gun side.

And by the pro-gun side, I mean the extreme pro-gun side that you find on this board (e.g. don't close the gunshow loophole, the London riots would have turned out better with more guns around, the people from Brady are freedom-hating bigots, etc.). I don't mean just someone who owns a gun or likes shooting.

From what I can tell, Rachel is reviled by most pro-gun people on this board. I think she once said "clip" instead of "magazine", or something equally unforgivable...

[gejohnston]

20. it was not that,

it was the plastic gun urban legend

[RSillsbee]

21. Dude, seriously there IS NO gun show loophole

A private sale is a private sale no matter where it happens.

FWIW every gun sold at a gunshow in Colorado must go through a background check (IE the gunshow loophole) and it really hasn't impacted crime at all that I'm aware of.

From what I can tell, Rachel is reviled by most pro-gun people on this board. I think she once said "clip" instead of "magazine", or something equally unforgivable...

Rachel is "reviled" because she told a bunch of blatant lies about guns on her show
TYPO

[DanTex]

23. That's the stuff!

Now go find a prominent liberal commentator who says "there IS NO gun show loophole" and opposes closing this non-existent loophole and accuses Rachel Maddow of telling a bunch of blatant lies about guns. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

[RSillsbee]

25. It is very likely that I will find none.

then what?

What does the term "gunshow loophole" mean to you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdxp3wvdA6I

Rachel Lies about 'cop killers' and plastic guns

[DanTex]

30. Then nothing.

You are welcome to your opinions whether or not any progressive commentators agree with you. I'm just using your post for clarification, as an example of kinds of things I'm wondering whether any prominent liberal commentators have ever said.

That's all.

[RSillsbee]

35. Prehaps you didn't see it so I'll ask again

What does the term "Gunshow Loophole " mean to you ?

[DanTex]

38. Well, I was trying to keep this OP on topic.

Here's a post I made about the gun show loophole in another thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x447423#447935

[RSillsbee]

41. I will respond to that post NT

[gejohnston]

29. it is not a loophole in that

all federal and state laws apply. FFLs still do NICS checks. Private sales of course, are a different issue in most states. It applies to all private sales. Is it a loophole in that it breaks the spirit of the law? Try this experiment. Get the phone number to NICS and phone them just like you were doing a background check. (If I knew it, I would tell you). When the FBI person on the other end asks you for your FFL number, tell them that you are a private seller who wants to be responsible and know who you are selling to, or something to that effect. Base your opinion on what happens next.

[Hoyt]

47. You want every Tom, Dick, and Harry wanting to unload a gun in an alley, accessing NCIS?

I don't.

So, require all gun sales to go through FFL -- simple as that.

Of course, those who trade guns for cash, will whine . . . . . . .

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. Listen buddy....

...I access NCIS a few times a week..........on the TV.

I think you mean NICS. ;)

[Atypical Liberal]

37. I love Rachael Maddow.

I think Rachael Maddow is awesome. Same with Keith Obermann and Cenk Uyger and Thom Hartman.

Sorry if I misspelled any names, I did not google to verify.

Yes, Rachael is anti-firearm, and I think she is wrong. I still love the messages that they get out concerning politics in America and the rise of the plutocracy.

[RSillsbee]

42. I like Rachel on MOST things

but when it comes to guns she is a sugar coated Satan sandwich

[SteveM]

51. I think you are trying to poison the well, here with:

"I mean the extreme pro-gun side that you find on this board (e.g. don't close the gunshow loophole, the London riots would have turned out better with more guns around, the people from Brady are freedom-hating bigots, etc.)."

(1) "Gun show loophole" is a creation of gun-controller/banners, and most here have yet to hear a cogent argument as to why it is a "loop hole." If the intent is to make universal the NICS test, then make a proposal; you might get a sympathetic listen. Otherwise, "gun shows" are merely a "scary picture show" whose object has no meaning.

(2) Who said the "London riots would have turned out better with more guns around?" There were people (including me) who said that shop owners and individuals may have stood a better chance at defending themselves, as in the '92 L.A. riots when Korean-Americans and others defended their shops/businesses. I DO recall controller/banners arguing that pro-2A people said stuff like the "riots would have turned out better..." But I don't recall pro-2A people actually saying that.

(3) As for "Brady are freedom-hating bigots," I don't recall anything like that. Can you reference?

(4) The "'clip' instead of 'magazine'" remark is gratuitous. Most pro-2A folks don't really care if someone has all the jargon down pat, they ARE concerned when controller/banners can't get the stuff they want to ban straight. Don't you think it is reasonable for controller/banners to have straight in their mind that which they want to control/ban?

Extremism can come in many form, it seems.

[DanTex]

59. Well done, now find a prominent liberal commentator who says those kinds of things

1) I know exactly how right-wingers feel about the gun show loophole, I don't need you to repeat it for me. My question is do any prominent liberals feel that way.

2) There was just a big long thread about London, see for yourself. Two editorials from right-wingers were cited. If you can find me any prominent liberal commentator who mentions that the shopkeepers would have been better off with guns, without also pointing out that the looters would also have had guns in this case, and a lot more people would have gotten killed -- I'll accept that as well.

3) Do a little searching -- and don't play dumb -- the gunners here refer to Brady and gun control advocates as "bigots" all the time. Here's one example.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=234418&mesg_id=234610

4) Don't play dumb again. This often comes up when someone (usually a liberal) talks about banning "high capacity clips". I actually agree that the gunners probably don't care about the jargon, after all, the meaning is perfectly clear to everyone. It's just easier to say "well by gosh, if someone doesn't know a 'clip' from a 'magazine', then how could they possibly..." then it is to come up with something intelligent to say. I'll let you do your own search this time.

[SteveM]

60. I'm really not concerned about "prominent commentators"...

If one is around, fine. But talking heads, sages on stage, etc. -- not much in the forefront of things in declining (and increasingly irrelevant) media forms.

(1), (2): See above.

(3): I'll take that one "dumb" point.

(4): Again, if you seek to enact PUBLIC POLICY which involves BANS & CONTROLS, get the jargon right; no "clip" when you mean magazine, no "thing that goes up..." when you mean barrel shroud; no "military assault rifles" when you mean "assault weapon" (semi-auto carbines). I don't really care if someone calls a gun or accessory by the wrong name UNLESS they seek to ban or control such. The terms used by controller/banners are not "perfectly clear to everyone." That is by design. Hence the dumb game of playing around with all-inclusive meanings.

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons." -- Josh Sugarmann, Nat'l Coal. to Ban Handguns.

Hence, the dumb (and corrupt) game of playing around with all-inclusive meanings. So, take your "dumb" point back.

[DanTex]

62. This thread was about prominent commentators, though.

Despite your shot at the media, there are a lot of people whose opinions I highly respect on the progressive side. Columnists like Paul Krugman, TV hosts like Rachel Maddow, etc. Just wondering if anyone could help me out and find me a progressive voice who I respect and who can maybe explain how this pro-gun stuff can be reconciled with a generally liberal take on things. Like I said in the OP, I'm not saying that none of the gunners on this board are real liberals, just that I would be curious to know if any prominent and respected liberal voices, as opposed to random internet posters (no offense -- I'm a random internet poster too) are saying these kinds of things.

(4) Regarding the clip/magazine thing, it's obviously not the same as, say, the "assault rifle" controversy. Why? Because it makes absolutely no difference at all when you replace the word "magazine" with "clip". When people refer to a semi-auto AK47 as an "assault rifle", you might argue that they are using terminology incorrectly to make the gun sound like something it is not. I might argue that "assault rifle" is defined by Webster as "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use". And then we'd go back and forth.

But when someone says "clip" rather than "magazine", they are clearly not trying to mislead anyone. It's just word choice -- outside of gun circles, nobody knows that there's a difference, and nobody cares. It's quite possible that the speaker knows the difference but uses the shorter word "clip" because to a general audience the distinction is irrelevant. In any context except here, you would probably agree that correcting such a speaker would be pedantic. The point is, a high capacity _____ allows someone to shoot a lot of bullets without reloading. That's perfectly clear, no matter what word fills in the blank, and the only reason to go after someone for saying "clip" is in an attempt to substitute snark for substance.

[SteveM]

64. Yes, I noticed you whittled it down to "commentators"...

Hey, you can respect any of those folks you want.

I suggest you read The Great American Gun Debate by Kates & Kleck (oh, no, they're not "commentators," but researchers). They will give you a good overview of how MSM has operated throughout the modern era of gun-control Lotta potty-talk from some of those "commentators." You might be struck by this "form letter" sent to a reader, dissatisfied with Time magazine's coverage of gun topics:

"The July 17 (1989) cover story is the most recent in a growing number of attempts on the part of Time editors to keep the gun-availability issue resolutely in view. Such an editorial closing of ranks represents the exception rather than the rule in the history of the magazine, which has always endeavored to provide a variety of opinions and comment, in addition to straightforward news reporting, as a way of engaging readers in interpreting the significance of issues and events as they arise. But the time for opinions on the dangers of gun availability is long since gone, replaced by overwhelming evidence that it represents a growing threat to public safety."

Seems an editor/commentator can have any view on guns they want. As long as it agrees with Time.

Again, you miss the point about terminology: When you seek to ban something, you better have your stuff in order. Sugarmann knew damned well that there was a difference between guns, and rather clinically and with complete dishonesty, used confusion in seeking HIS variety of bans. That is the nature of prohibitionist debate.

I could care less about clips v. magazines. I am concerned when a gun banner wants to ban barrel shrouds, but describes "a thing that goes up." No excuse for such studied ignorance. Why do you think Rep. McCarthy wanted to ban a (true) barrel shroud?

You accuse me of playing dumb. Now it's time you stopped playing dumb.

[iverglas]

65. funny what I noticed ... right there in the OP

"What do I mean by 'prominent liberal voice'. Well, it's not really a precise thing, but I'm talking about pundits, columnists, TV/Radio hosts, etc."

Judging by the responses in this thread, nobody else even read past the subject line of the OP.

I'd have been happy to help out, but sadly, I had no answers ...

[Starboard Tack]

77. Moi non plus

[DanTex]

70. So now you're playing word games in a post complaining about word games...

It didn't occur to you to pretend not to understand what a "prominent liberal voice" meant is one post, and then whine about Sugarmann somewhere else?

And yes, I'm familiar with Kates and Kleck -- they're hardly "prominent liberal voices", I doubt anyone outside of gun circles has heard of either one. Everything I've read from either one has been gun-related (and also pretty shoddy...)

Seems an editor/commentator can have any view on guns they want. As long as it agrees with Time.
Yes, the Time editors do get to determine what gets published in Time. Shocker.

Believe me, I've heard all of the excuses, about how the media is "biased", and the science journals are "biased", and so on. The purpose of this thread wasn't to argue about whether there's some big elitist conspiracy to keep the gun owner down. We can do that in every other thread. In this thread, I wanted to see if any prominent liberal voices can be found echoing this or any of the other strange pro-gun beliefs you find expressed on this board on an average day.

I could care less about clips v. magazines.
I'm glad to hear that. That's all I was saying. Note that my comment didn't say anything about barrel shrouds and assault rifles/weapons. If you're asking me whether Carolyn McCarthy should have been more familiar with the provisions of the AWB, the answer is yes. If you're claiming there's no difference between a hunting rifle and a tactical/assault weapon/rifle/whatever, you're wrong.

In any case, I'm glad that next time some gunner tries to make a case out of "clip/magazine", we can count on you to point out how silly they are being.

[SteveM]

71. Not word games, just pointing out your pointless post...

"Yes, the Time editors do get to determine what gets published in Time. Shocker."

My point, Dan. You expect to find Kates or Kleck in mainstream media when gun-control was ramping up, esp. countering the "prominent" bathroom scrawl of the commentators they referenced in their books? Ever heard of self-fulling prophecy?

About your remarks: "wasn't to argue about whether there's some big elitist conspiracy to keep the gun owner down." Actually, MSM has in general merely kept the pro-gun view out of its news stories and commentaries, sometimes they couldn't even buy space. (Boy, I bet their selling ad space to pro-2A groups, now!)

That is the import of the grossly unprofessional Time quote.

Your take on this is yet another straw man: Ain't no one "keeping the gun owner down." They have taken other actions in other realms to advance the Second Amendment.

"no difference between a hunting rifle and a tactical/assault weapons/rifle/whatever, you're wrong" HA! Goodness Dan, You've made my point again (under the surface of your "prominent" topic, we find more "whatever"): You can't seem to fix on what it is that concerns you about these .../.../.../... firearms(?) in your bushel basket definition.

So, Dan, what do you conclude from your posting? What is the importance of your "findings?"

Oh, and you can count on me to object to high capacity .../... bans, too.;-)

[DanTex]

72. The global warming deniers and creationists aren't too popular in the "liberal media" either

It's not true that pro-gun voices aren't available in the MSM. You can find plenty of pro-gun lunacy in National Review, FOX, etc. A surprisingly similar situation occurs with global warming. In fact, when I argue about guns with teabaggers, they almost always lump guns together with global warming, and blame it all on "liberal bias" in the media and in scientific journals. At least they're consistent...

[SteveM]

73. That's the standard of your logic?

You have at least admitted MSM finds the discussion of Second Amendment issues is not "popular." Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to "commentators," isn't it?

Frankly, I think that with the gun-control issues, the MSM got stuck with a big bill and a bad case of the clap after a night in Vegas. Even the potty-mouthed recognized "commentators" of a few years passed have crawled away, leaving the column space to the dubious ramblings of NYT, WaPO, and the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Center. You have to look to the anti-gun cartoonists to do the courthouse lavatory doodlings. BTW, did you know the NRA pays royalties to these cartoonists, so it can re-publish in their journals? Really effective stuff, hey?

[DanTex]

74. "the standard of my logic". Whaaaa...? Did you read my post?

Maybe five sentences was too much. So let's just go with the first three:

It's not true that pro-gun voices aren't available in the MSM. You can find plenty of pro-gun lunacy in National Review, FOX, etc. A surprisingly similar situation occurs with global warming.

I'm guessing you understood my point, and chose to ignore it. Let me know if I'm giving you too much credit.

[gejohnston]

75. I remember when this was the same MSM

that Ted Koppel worked for when he described Rush Limbaugh an expert in environmental issues. Showing my age. Interesting read on Biostitution.
http://notesfromtheriverbank.blogspot.com/2011/08/biostitution-you-dont-have-to-put-on.html

Lots of economists. All kinds of parallels.

http://desmogblog.com/denial-palooza-where-are-all-scientists-deniers-love-talk-about

Edit, found the a link about Ted and Rush.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895

[SteveM]

79. So, more "word games?"

"Let me know if I'm giving you too much credit."

I guess you don't call it "snarky," right?

Now get my point, which your series of just shocking revelations amply supports: Self-fulfilling prophecies, even circularity, within MSM. You know this is the case. MSM set about its moral crusade against the Second Amendment and thought they could get a cheap "victory," coming as it were on the tail end of the "civil rights" movement. They didn't get it, even with complete hegemony of anti-2A opinion, and even standard "news coverage." So to point out that MSM has no "liberals" or "progressives" advocating for 2A is to complete a meaningless but predictable circle. I would also point out a dearth of coverage within MSM -- conservative or liberal -- about the wisdom of starting a war with Iraq, but I'm sure you know that as well. I think you are trying to make so great eye-winking point, here, and are frustrated that few are really taking it seriously.

I don't find your approach to these arguments very genuine or meaningful; but as you say, it provides an opportunity to be snarky.

[DanTex]

80. Looks like I got my answer. At some point maybe you'll want to respond...

...to my point that the MSM has plenty of pro-gun voices, just that they are all right-wingers. To be sure, it would get in the way of your fantasy of "self-fulfilling prophecies", "circularity", and some sort of broad conspiratorial bias against guns.

As for the Iraq war, that is a truly horrible example, given that a large fraction of prominent liberals were opposed, and the further left you went, the more opposition you found. A much better comparison, which I brought up and you ignored, is global warming. Nothing you have said about guns could not be also said about climate (in fact, most of your arguments have been made by right-wingers about global warming coverage in the "liberal media").

Or you can just ignore all that and just continue with the monologue.

[SteveM]

87. Favorite hand-wringing mea culpa sport by MSM was over Iraq...

Maybe you forgot, but there were very few MSM outlets which gave warnings about Iraq. Yeah, there were some libs who complained, mostly folks like me who complained in the street, but I guess we weren't very "prominent."

You were answered previously. That was why I quoted Time's "form letter." If that doesn't explain self-fulfilling prophecy, I don't know what does. And to capitalize on that is intellectually dishonest. No conspiracy, since such requires a modicum of stealth and subtlety. Time was merely expressing the cultural zeitgeist of MSM in those heady days of reform by editorial page.
They just got stupidly suckered into a pop-up issue that sprang up about the time Credence Clear Water Revival was getting started.

"Time for opinions...is long since gone," don't you know?

[Starboard Tack]

76. Damn, I had it wrong all the time

I thought a magazine was something you read when waiting for a haircut and a clip was what the hairdresser put in your hair.
Back to the library now.

[LAGC]

12. Russ Feingold anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold#Gun_issues

[DanTex]

14. Yes, but another politician.

As I mentioned above, I'm more looking for an opinion piece taking the pro-gun side of some of the issues that get debated here. All the pro-gun opinion pieces I've read seem to be written by right-wingers. I'm hoping someone can find one that isn't.

Moreover, it looks like Finegold actually supports closing the gun show loophole, and also mandatory trigger locks.

On the other hand, he has consistently voted in favor of bills to require background checks for firearms purchases at gun shows, and to require that handguns be sold with trigger locks.

This would put him on the pro-control side of this particular board.

[LAGC]

18. You seem to be looking for members of the "Professional Left."

With few exceptions, most all of them are urban-dwellers who tend to support urban policy, by default.

The battle over gun rights vs. gun control often courses along rural-urban lines much more so than political party affiliation, so its really no surprise that most city-dwellers tend to back stricter gun control as a knee-jerk reaction to the gang violence that manifests itself in those places. What most city folks hear about guns is only the bad -- criminals misusing them. Whereas once you move beyond the belt-ways, all the more legitimate uses for guns are more common: hunting, recreational target shooting, etc.

People tend to base their views on their anecdotal experiences. As more big cities find their gun laws overturned by the courts and state legislatures, more law-abiding folks will be able to carry and more opportunities will arise for guns to be seen in a more positive light. The long-term trend is definitely moving in the more liberal (tolerant) direction in this country.

[DanTex]

19. I'm actually just looking for a well-written opinion piece by a liberal...

...that takes the pro-gun side of some of the arguments that come up on this board. I mentioned in the OP that I wouldn't be a stickler about "liberal".

I actually disagree that the battle over gun rights is more urban-rural than left-right -- polls show a greater liberal/conservative rift than urban/rural:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf

But that's a different discussion.

[Atypical Liberal]

39. So not politicians, but Progressive *press*.

Sounds like you are looking for Progressive members of the PRESS that write pro-firearm pieces.

I can't think of any.

[Xela]

86. The late Robert F. Williams

You may have heard of him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams

Documentary:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/

Books:
http://www.amazon.com/Negroes-Guns-African-American-Life/dp/0814327141
http://www.amazon.com/Radio-Free-Dixie-Robert-Williams/dp/0807849235

Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U3spArjhUA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZk5FYhtV3I

Xela

[virginia mountainman]

16. Of the top of my head.. (that have not already been mentioned)

Brian Switzer, Gov of Montana
Mark Warner, Senator and former Gov of VA
Harry Reid, NV Senator
Joe Manchin, WV Senator

[Starboard Tack]

78. Look where they come from. All rural states

These guys wouldn't get elected if they didn't pander to their NRA constituents

[Kennah]

22. Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) is a former NRA BOD member

[tortoise1956]

24. Here are a couple that might fit your definition...

Dr. Lawrence Tribe - although he has issues with uncontrolled gun rights, he did come to the conclusion that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Sanford Levinson - see the links below:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanford-levinson/dc-v-heller-a-dismaying-p_b_109472.html

Please let me know what you think of these.

[DanTex]

34. A liberal constitutional scholar.

Yes, a liberal constitutional scholar who believes that 2A guarantees an individual right to gun ownership. And there are others.

Thanks for the links.

[tortoise1956]

40. The interesting point is

that both of these scholars are troubled by the prevalence of guns in our society, and would like to change that. However, they recognize the need to amend the Constitution in order to bring that about.

BTW, thanks for the answer.

[SteveM]

52. Try Akhil Amar (Yale). Or Alan Dershowitz who reportedly hates guns...

Dershowitz had this to say about the Second:

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard...They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." Dan Gifford quoted this in his "The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason," 62 Tennessee Law Review, 750,789 (1995).

You may be interested in that remark about "safety hazard."

[iverglas]

53. your powers of distinguishment need recharging

Is there anything in what Dershowitz said about any actual firearms control measures?

I see a load of gun militants on internet sites quoting that passage (which one did you get it from, eh? original research, maybe?) as if it meant he is a huge fan of unlimited carrying of concealed firearms or some damned thing. I'm not seeing that, myself.

One funny thing. With all the chatter here about how boycotts are legitimate pressure tactics, Dershowitz just isn't at all happy about boycotts of Israeli goods. Of course, he threatens to boycott the boycotters ...

http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2011/08/dershowitz-disses-park-slope-compares-to-san-fran/
I have a particular interest in Brooklyn, because that’s where I’m from, and I will be there to make sure that the people who start this will pay a heavy price. We can’t allow good and decent people to think this is the right thing. ...Cheeses, how civil libertarian of him. I always try to find opinion sources that are kind of consistent, myself.

This one's easy for me. I'm not a liberal, and I have little respect for Dershowitz regardless of his quotable quotes about firearms / your constitution.

Doesn't mean I don't agree with him on some things. In fact, Dershowitz and Tribe have apparently both said the same thing about Roe v. Wade that I've been saying for years. I can agree with someone about something and totally reject some other position they hold -- like Dershowitz's bizarre blind Zionism and soft on anti-terrorism stances.

I gather Dershowitz is persuaded by slippery slope arguments, that regulating firearms possession will lead to confiscation or some damned thing. Well, like I said, I'm not a liberal, and I'm not persuaded by "liberal" paranoia about government.

Anyhow. Got any specifics for us?

[SteveM]

55. Hey, he wanted some commentators, for what it's worth. And it ain't much.

[Kennah]

26. Don Kates, Jr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates

[Kennah]

27. Alan Dershowitz isn't exactly a pro-gunner, but ...

... read what he has said about the Second Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz#Second_Amendment_and_the_U.S._Constitution

[iverglas]

54. just to summarize

Are you claiming that the interpretation of your second amendment as referring to an individual right is the exclusive purview of the gun militant brigade?

If not, and I think not, the quotation now offered for the second time in this thread is just pablum.

What your link actually says is:

Dershowitz is strongly opposed to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment, and supports repealing the amendment ...

I'm failing to see how this supports the agenda.

[Kennah]

28. Jonathan Turley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley#Politics

[Kennah]

31. Gary Kleck

http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html
http://criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

[Kennah]

32. Paul Hackett

[Kennah]

33. Governor Brian Schweitzer (D-MT)

[RSillsbee]

36. Jpak? NT

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

69. OP asks for people that *agree* with RKBA sentiments... not people who greatly help the RKBA cause.

[DanTex]

43. Recap.

OK, so it looks like the answer is basically, no, there are no prominent liberal commentators that would come down on the pro-gun side of the this board.

What we have found are
1) Liberal constitutional scholars who believe 2A guarantees an individual right. Although, as pointed out, a lot of these actually support gun control, but feel that 2A poses an impediment.
2) Democratic politicians who support gun rights to varying degrees. However, some of these would actually be labelled "anti" if they showed up in the gungeon (e.g. Russ Feingold voting to close the gun show loophole).
3) Some liberals (Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow) who either own or shoot guns. But again, their opinions would place them squarely on the pro-control side of the debates we have here (criticizing the NRA, high-capacity magazines, etc.).

In terms of a modern progressive voice that echoes the sentiments we see voiced here (examples I've mentioned: don't close the gun show loophole, London riots would have turned out better with more guns, etc.), it looks like there just aren't any. I suppose this is the reason that the editorials and opinion pieces posted here by pro-gun people seem to always come from right-wingers.

[Paladin]

44. Nicely Summarized, DanTex. (n/t)

[RSillsbee]

45. Sounds about right to me

we need to get some of the respected progressive commentators on the right side of this argument and take this issue back from the pugs

[spin]

46. Harry Reid is a strong supporter of gun rights ...

and he has been rated as one of the 10 most liberal members of Congress. He also has a lifetime B rating from the NRA.

New Report Ranks 'Most Liberal', 'Most Conservative' Members of Congress
February 25, 2011, 9:40AM

***snip***

Most Liberal

Senate (tied for first place)

Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/nine-dems-tie-for-most-liberal-senator-eight-gopers-for-most-conservative.php

Harry Reid on Gun Control

Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Rated B by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Aug 2010)
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/harry_reid.htm#Gun_Control

I don't know if he qualifies as a strong liberal voice, but he is prominent and powerful. He may well be the most important friend gun owners have in Congress as he holds the position of Senate Majority Leader.

[DanTex]

49. Yes he is.

I don't necessarily object to calling Harry Reid a liberal, but again he is a politician, not a commentator. Also, I think that, along with several of the others mentioned, he might actually come down more on the pro-control side of the dividing line here on DU Guns.

The examples I've been using as "litmus tests" here have been the gun show loophole, and whether the London riots would have turned out better with more guns around. No reason I picked those two in particular, just that they've been discussed recently.

As far as the gun show loophole, Reid voted to close it, whereas the pro-gun consensus on this board seems to be that there is no such thing as a gun show loophole and requiring IBCs at gun shows is an unjustifiable burden on the rights of gun owners. He hasn't made any statement about the London riots that I know of, but I would be pretty surprised if he would use the London riots as an example of the need for looser gun laws -- whereas the view that the London riots would have turned out better with more guns seems to be an almost unanimous view among pro-gun people here. And it goes on. I doubt that Reid would ever refer to gun control advocates such as Brady as "bigots", a very common sentiment among pro-gun crowd.

So, yes, Reid is a modestly pro-gun Democrat, but he doesn't come anywhere near the views of most pro-gun people on this board.

[spin]

50. I support closing the "gun show loophole." ...

But I would go much further.

I would like to see all sales of personal firearms to require that the buyer pass an NICS background check just as he would have to in order to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer. This would probably require a journey to a dealer to accomplish the background check and obviously the dealer could require a REASONABLE fee to run the check and handle the paperwork.

I personally will not sell one of my firearms to a person that I do not personally know and he/she has to have a valid concealed carry permit. Obviously, I do not sell many firearms. The last time I did, I sold several to a co-worker with a carry permit. He also got the chance to fire them at the range before he bought them. That was five years ago just before I retired and was preparing to leave the Tampa Bay area of Florida.

I sold these firearms because I had others in my collection that I personally liked better. Since I rarely shot the firearms I sold, I felt they would be more beneficial to my co-worker than they would be to me sitting in my gun safe.

There are considerations to this idea and one fear many gun owners have is that it would require gun registration but the NICS system is not designed to do that.

Privacy and Security of NICS Information

The privacy and security of the information in the NICS is of great importance. In October 1998, the Attorney General published regulations on the privacy and security of NICS information, including the proper and official use of this information. These regulations are available on the NICS website. Data stored in the NICS is documented federal data and access to that information is restricted to agencies authorized by the FBI. Extensive measures are taken to ensure the security and integrity of the system information and agency use. The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations. Current destruction of NICS records became effective when a final rule was published by the Department of Justice in The Federal Register, outlining the following changes. Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day. If a potential purchaser is delayed or denied a firearm and successfully appeals the decision, the NICS Section cannot retain a record of the overturned appeal. If the record is not able to be updated, the purchaser continues to be denied or delayed, and if that individual appeals the decision, the documentation must be resubmitted on every subsequent purchase. For this reason, the Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) has been established. This process permits applicants to request that the NICS maintain information about themselves in the VAF to prevent future denials or extended delays of a firearm transfer. (See VAF Section below.)emphasis added
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

It is unfortunate that the chances of such a requirement passing are extremely slim.

To me it is very important to do everything we can to insure that we stop the sales of firearms to people with violent criminal records or who have adjudged as having a serious metal issue that would disqualify them from owning a firearm.

Every time a firearm is misused, it makes honest and responsible gun owners look bad. It only makes sense to me to work to improve current laws in a manner that protects the rights of honest and sane citizens.

I would also like to see better enforcement of the current laws against the straw purchase of firearms and the smuggling of firearms into the inner cities of our nation and to foreign nations such as Mexico and Canada. This should also involve stiffer penalties for those caught engaging in such activities.

I wouldn't even be opposed to requiring completion of a gun safety course before an individual could buy a firearm or ammunition.

My views make me unpopular with many gun owners but I don't march in anyone's parade. I'm a gun owning liberal with a concealed weapons permit but oddly enough I hold many progressive views.

[gejohnston]

56. Right on,

the hard part is doing it without violating the commerce clause or having a registration scheme. Anything I sold was consigned through a FFL.

[aikoaiko]

48. Slackmaster!!!

:applause:

[jpak]

57. Anne Coulter

:evilgrin:

[gejohnston]

61. Compared to Franko or Mussolini maybe

the thought of her :puke: :puke: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[iverglas]

63. where's she been hiding?

I hate to divert the thread, but I miss her informed commentary on Canada. ;)

Ann Coulter demontrates how dumb she is on CBC show Fifth Estate

It's a hoot. And good grief, 5 years later, it's still getting comments, and people are still trying to say that Canada sent troops to Vietnam ...

[SteveM]

66. Wait.... wait.... Lawrence O'Donnell. yeah. him.

;-)

[iverglas]

67. just ran across something you might find amusing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x3413

:rofl:

I wonder where the line is drawn???

[Irish Infidel]

81. I'm sure there are many who don't consider Christopher Hitchens

a leftist anymore considering his positions on Iraq and Afghanistan, but I think I still do.

Here's a video where he says he very much supports the right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OySCS2RkmJc

[Xela]

82. Good to know. thanks.

I'm just re-discovering Hitchens. I don't agree with his Iraq/Afghanistan positions. But this certainly helps me to put him under a different light.

kind regards,

Xela

[DanTex]

84. Interesting, didn't know that.

Yes, I'd still consider him a liberal, or at least liberal enough for the sake of this OP.

[iverglas]

90. well, you have low standards

or just haven't been paying attention.

I think "alcoholic egotist" is probably the best summary.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

and then turn on his former colleagues. Now, Hitchens is considered a neocon who supported the US war of aggression against Iraq, and even travelled to Iraq as an embedded journalist to cheer on the US troops. He now writes mostly for Vanity Fair and Slate.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "putatively", myself.

[Xela]

83. How 'bout Paxton Quigley - a prominent RKBA lady who happens to be a liberal, Democrat

Her publisher posted this note in several internet sources when they were promoting her book "Stayin' Alive" (2005).

"Paxton Quigley, both a liberal Democrat and advocate of women’s gun rights, says in her new book, Stayin’ Alive: Armed and Female in an Unsafe World (Merril Press, 2005), women who take their guns out of their homes and legally carry them concealed reduce violent crimes, rape, and death. Yet only twenty-seven percent of American women keep a gun in their home."

http://shootmgzine.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_archive.html

http://davekopel.org/2a/Newsletter/SAP2005/2005-October-25.htm


Xela

[iverglas]

88. I missed something here

Restarted Firefox when it crashed, found open tabs I'd forgotten about.

It's Paxton Quigley again!

My chance to get an answer to the unanswered questions??

a prominent RKBA lady who happens to be a liberal, Democrat

Leaving aside the gag-making "lady" crap: SEZ WHO?

How many years is it since I asked you that question and got no answer?


2006 ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=130413&mesg_id=130776

2005 ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=115229&mesg_id=115229

[gejohnston]

91. sez her publisher's press release according to the post above, that said

I have no clue what her politics are. I can't find a real indication either way. I am guessing she is on a specific mission and will go to whomever will give her a microphone be it Pacifica or Faux or anyone else in between. If I get a chance to meet and talk to her, I'll let you know what my impressions are then.

[iverglas]

94. uh, yeah

And a publisher's press release is, like, gospel.

My question is for our Xela, who has evaded it for what, 6 years now.

[iverglas]

95. Hey DanTex, if you look back in

Do ask our Xela about this crud, will you?

I seem to be a target of the childish game of "ignore".

As is obvious here, of course, playing that game just leaves one looking like someone who can't back up anything they say ...

[Xela]

85. Mark K. Benenson, former Chairman of Amnesty International USA

I've followed him for a while.

Some of his thoughts appear on "Restricting Handguns: The LIberal Skeptics Speak Out"
http://www.amazon.com/Restricting-Handguns-Liberal-Skeptics-Speak/dp/0884270335

Sample of his work:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Benenson1.htm

Up until very recently, he was very active in the collectors community:
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php

Xela

[iverglas]

89. those "thoughts" of his ...

Evidently, one of them was "After a Handgun Ban, the Death Rate Will Soar."

http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/handgun-ban/recent/4

Ah, here we are, the original item:

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-03-23/opinion/op-5916_1_handgun-ban

There's Mark, relying on the "research" of Kates and Kleck. That's some bright and admirable guy, that Mark K. Berenson.

:eyes:

Real progressive guy ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/10/opinion/l-don-t-cry-for-elian-castro-will-go-someday-704091.html

Things get nutty in the US, don't they? I can tell you no national Amnesty in any other country would have touched this one with the proverbial ten-footer. Amnesty International originated in Britain and its founders would find his gun crap abhorrent.

Here's Mark waxing nostaligic about the NRA and spewing the usual ugly lies about gun control advocates ... and appealing to his "fellow liberals" ...

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950519&slug=2121752

"Mark K. Benenson is a New York attorney who has represented anti-gun-control organizations. He has been general secretary and chairman of the U.S. branch of Amnesty International."

But where is Mark actually BEING or even sounding like a liberal??

Interestingly, the and only thing he actually seems to be remembered for is his gunheadedness.


Why are we supposed to take the self-serving statements of all these "liberals" about their liberality with no evidence ever?

[gejohnston]

92. Interesting

you should mention Kleck and Kates. They are hardly conservatives. Kleck is hardly a pro gun person, he is simply a criminologist who started a research project. His results were the opposite of his hypothesis. He did not receive grants from the NRA or anyone else. The fact that you don't like his results is not my problem. He personally supports regulations the NRA does not. So does Kates. Kates bad mouths the NRA as much as he does the Brady Campaign. Not as extreme as you, but more than many are comfortable with around here.

Hemenway and crew on the other hand, are shills paid for by the Joyce Foundation echo chamber.
Benenson matches my experience of US anti gun militants. May be different with Canadian ones.

Who are you do judge his or my "liberalness" based one subject?

[iverglas]

93. oh, give it up

Christ, the party line is just boring.

Brawk.