Centerfield

I'm a moderate. Most of the commenters I read on blogs seem to be fairly conservative at least on the war. On the other hand, I don't read the left-wing blogs.

Posted by: MWS at May 24, 2004 10:16 AM

Define liberal, moderate, and conservative, and then maybe I could answer meaningfully. My answers would only relate to your definitions.

We use these words as familiar pigeonholing labels, but reality is much more complex, and the popular meanings of the terms have changed with time (and will no doubt continue to do so). JF Kennedy was a liberal in 1960. Today he'd be a moderate with conservative leanings.

Posted by: Tully at May 24, 2004 10:21 AM

I agree with Tully, the definitions are too limiting, especially in regards to moderates. I'm pro-Second Amendment, pro choice, anti death penalty, pro environment, pro gay marriage, but I think fiscal conservatism is extremely important. What does that make me? Glenn Reynolds?

Oh and I surveyed my readers and they are both liberal meaning that 100% of my readers are to the left of me.

Posted by: Scotch Drinker at May 24, 2004 10:35 AM

I'm a liberal in the "Rush hates me and thinks I'm evil" type.

I'm like Scotch Drinker only fiscally moderate (I think we should be funding the stuff we've promised to fund and not cut back on it) and pretty much a Libertarian on social issues.

I don't know what "pro-Second Amendment" really means to Scotch Drinker. I'm "pro-Bill of Rights", myself. But I'm for regulation of firearms and don't view that as outside of the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Carla at May 24, 2004 11:12 AM

I am a Radical Centrist, not a moderate.

***read the Radical Center by Ted Halstead and Michael Lind

Posted by: Mathew at May 24, 2004 11:39 AM

Am a Thinking Moderate very much against overbenefited govt. employees and who live off liberal spending of other people's "productive side" moneys. They are liberals not moderates to me.

Pro-choice;against gay marriages as civil unions satisfactory; pro free to carry a firearm as long as law abiding, etc. type citizen; against and resent judges and attorneys manipulations and power freek control of thinking decent citizens' lives. And, am against not factoring in ratios of reasobable ratioed compensation packages, excessive union packages, and excess phony produced profits for shareholders.
(for several reasons there are other more effective ways and not talking about ultraliberal approaches). A more basic tax restructuring away would assist in restoring fairness concept among citizens.

Posted by: Alex at May 24, 2004 03:28 PM

Carla,

Do you favor regulating speech as outside of the Bill of Rights?

Just wondering...

Posted by: Mathew at May 24, 2004 03:42 PM

Mathew:

I don't think we should regulate speech except that speech which directly endangers people (yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, being the most obvious example).

Does that answer your question?

Posted by: Carla at May 24, 2004 04:07 PM

Carla, I think Matt is juxtaposing free speech rights and the right to bear arms. I think it's a very useful exercise.

IMO, the right to bear arms should be subject to the same type of regulation as free speech's "crowded theater" regs. That is to say, both are subordinate goods and should rightly be subject to regulation in cases where complete free practice is demonstrably harmul to others.

IMO, (and I'm NOT talking specifically about you Carla) it's something of a disconnect to view oneself as a social libertarian if you are in favor of VERY restrictive gun laws. I don't own one myself, or really like the idea of having one around, but I totally respect the rights of my law-abiding fellow citizens to keep arms if it makes them feel safer and more at ease, or if it's just part of their culture. Gun regulations should center around limiting criminal access without infringing on the rights of the lawful.

Posted by: bk at May 24, 2004 04:25 PM

Since I didn't actually answer my question, I would say that I'm a moderate, but if forced to choose between liberal and conservative, I'm more of a conservative.

However, that comes from living in Massachusetts and being on the right side of the local political spectrum. If I lived in the South, I expect I would feel more liberal.

Posted by: rickheller at May 24, 2004 04:30 PM

Carla,

So you are saying that clear and present danger is a reason to regulate speech. In other words, if my words cause an action that would in turn hurt or even kill other people than those words in the context that I use them should be illegal.... I agree.

Now... here is where we are going to disagree (I think): If you support regulating firearms, like say the current assault weapons ban (which isn't really an assault weapons ban, but will get into that later), by using the same logic you do to regulate speech than what I think you would be saying is that the mere presence of firearms in society is harmful and dangerous and therefore the government has a right to regulate it... I disagree except in some instances. I hate to be so cliche: but guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Should a six year be allowed to carry a concealed weapon? Absolutely not, that is most definetely a situation that a good majority of the population would consider to be dangerous (although I have met a few that don't). Should a criminal be allowed to own a gun? No, if you break the law it is fair that society judge you as being dangerous if you are carrying a loaded weapon or even own an unloaded one, which is why by the way, we need to encourage smart-gun technology that will render stolen firearms useless.

I would even go further than most of my gun carrying NRA buddies and argue that you should not be able to by any gun right on the spot because it is quite possible that you are purchasing it after you had a fight with your spouse, which in my book is a clear and present danger. Waiting for five days for anything never killed anybody, I think the Brady Bill was appropriate not just for criminal background checks but because it is common sense public policy. I also support closing the gun show loop hole as I think it is an admirable goal to stop criminals from purchasing guns.

BUT!!!!! All this does not change the fact that at least 22,000 of the 23,000 (an educated guess at best) gun laws that are present in the Federal Government docket are completely and utterly ridiculous, counterproductive, and unconstitutional.

Contradictory to the beliefs of many soccer moms, a well trained, gun owning, productive member of society is not a clear and present danger. Telling that gun owner what kind of guns he can own, how many he can own, what he can own them for, whether or not to use a trigger lock, whether or not to keep it loaded, forcing him/or her to register them on a federal computer, or not allowing him/her to conceal that weapon while not on government or restrictive private property, nine times out of ten is infringing on that gun owners right to keep and bear arms, and therfore violating the constitution.

That is... if you apply the logic you did to the First Amendment.

Please understand I am making this argument based on your statement that you are a (1) liberal, and (2) supporter of firearm regulation, which leads me to believe that you support most handgun control measures supported by oh, say, Hillary Clinton. You may in fact support very limited firearm regulations in which case I apologize

Posted by: Mathew Pruitt at May 24, 2004 05:12 PM

It seems to me that typically people who are for regulating the right to bear arms are not really that sympathetic to people owning guns at all and in fact would be perfectly happy if we regulated guns to the point that no law abiding citizen could have one.

That said, there has to be a certain amount of regulation of any right, whether it be the right to bear arms or the right to vote. However, the current atmosphere of gun regulation far outstrips the regulation of any other right we have.

As an aside, there is no real gun-show loophole. If a federally licensed gun dealer is selling guns at a gun show, he has to perform the same background checks there that he would in his shop. If a person who is not a federally licensed gun seller is selling a gun at a gun show, he does not have to do a background check. This is intended so that people who are not actual dealers can still sell their property. The anti-gun lobby spins this as the "gun show loophole" but it's no different than if I decide to sell a gun by taking out an ad in the newspaper.

Posted by: Scotch Drinker at May 24, 2004 06:36 PM

Yeah SD... If a criminal can purchase a gun from a non-registered gun owner without having his background checked I would call that a large loophole. What is the point of a background check if you can find a gun owner who is note regisgered federally.

I agree with you totally on everything else, but I think if a gun owner wants to sell a gun, he/ or she has an obligation, that should be enforced by the law, to ensure that who he/or she is selling it to is not a criminal.

What is the point of having laws that stop criminals from having guns if you cannot support it? I just don't think that it would be very hard to have a system where a gun owner can sell his gun, and have a background check done. Is it inconvenient? Maybe, but is it an infringement? No...

Posted by: Mathew at May 24, 2004 06:57 PM

I meant enforce it, not "support it"

Posted by: Mathew at May 24, 2004 07:06 PM

Okay...so I guess what you want to know is what level of gun control do I support (or not).

I should preface this answer by saying that I grew up in a small town in Eastern Oregon. I was around hunting and fishing my entire formative years. I learned how to fire my dad's rifle when I was 12.

Basically I'm for background checks (at all venues and shops, including gun shows).I also think individuals who sell guns privately should have to complete a background check on the person they're selling to. If there's a fee for this it can be tacked on to the purchase of the weapon. I think short (3 days maximum) waiting periods are appropriate but only if it's necessary to completing a background check...not just for the sake of having them. I'm not for banning "assault weapons" because I think there's no clear definition for these weapons. However I think it's appropriate for certain weapons to be banned from the general public (such as tanks, surface to air missiles, nukes, etc).

Posted by: Carla at May 24, 2004 07:42 PM

Who pays for the check? Also, do you then have a check on people buying your car to make sure they don't have a suspended license? DWI? Vehicular manslaughter? It's not that it's inconvenient, it's that it doesn't make any sense. If I'm not a dealer, but want to sell a gun to my friend, I ought to be able to in the same way that if I want to sell my car to my friend, I should be able to.

The people who are exempt from performing background checks at gun shows typically aren't dealing. They are selling 1 or 2 guns that are their own personal property. I see no valid reason why they should have to perform background checks on people in those instances.

For the record, I'm ok with automatic weapons being banned, I'm mostly ok with short (3 day or less) waiting periods, but I'm not ok with governmental agencies tracking who does and does not own a gun and not ok with the assault weapons ban. But man, I wish I could have a tank. How cool would that be?

Posted by: Scotch Drinker at May 24, 2004 07:48 PM

The check is paid for by the person selling the weapon. They can tack it on to the price of selling the gun.

I think we can make it easier for background checks to be performed. A private individual could go to a gun shop and have the check performed by the gun shop dealer, for example.

Posted by: Carla at May 24, 2004 08:13 PM

I'm still not sure that answers the question of how is a gun different from a car? Why don't I have to perform background checks on the guy who purchases my car? If you are arguing that criminals shouldn't have anything that they aren't allowed to and that your everyday citizen has a duty to prevent that, then everyone should be bound to preventing cars from falling into the hands of those who aren't allowed to have them. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Posted by: Scotch Drinker at May 24, 2004 09:31 PM

People have to have car insurance in order to buy a car. You have to have proof of insurance. You can't get insurance if you've done things with your car (such as multiple DUI's, manslaughter, etc)

It's essentially the same thing as a background check for a gun. You can't get a gun without this check....you can't buy a car without insurance.

Posted by: Carla at May 25, 2004 01:54 AM