Thoughts of a Gun-Toting Liberal

     In light of our recent elections and the President-elect's views on gun control, I thought I'd tackle something that has been weighing on my mind for a while, something that has me thoroughly confused: why do so many liberals hate guns? Or rather, why are liberal gun owners so dismally represented in today's politics?

     I know it sounds laughable that a vegetarian hippie socialist like myself would want to own guns. But I'm part of a growing minority of people that does not identify with the fundamentalist image of most gun owners. I have my reasons for owning guns--none of which involve killing animals or harming people--and I believe in upholding personal rights and promoting equality. I don't really see these various beliefs as incongruous with my lifestyle and ideology.

     So why must I be forced to compromise one of my very important freedoms in order to protect others that I hold equally dear? I'm speaking of course about voting for liberal Democrats because they promote my interests in many other areas like economic and social programs and on issues like abortion and the environment. By supporting Democrats, I'm faced with voting against one very important issue or voting against several. In that sense, I suppose it seems like a small price to pay, but I don't understand why people see the issue itself as so black and white, and why liberals must make the gun-ownership issue one of their major targets.

     The issue itself is a hotbed of debate that has raged for time immemorial. The objections of the anti-gun sector revolve around cutting down on crime, through the banning of certain types of guns and the strengthening of laws to decrease criminals' access to guns. Their pro-gun opposition argues that responsibility is the key, not banning, and that banning will not decrease crime. Both sides produce statistics supporting their own view, and they debate on and on about which side uses the right numbers.

     The arguments boil down to two good reasons to address gun control: preventing accidental deaths/injuries, mainly of children, and preventing criminal ownership. But child safety is the responsibility of the parent, full stop. Parents should educate their children in gun safety and responsible handling, and parents proved to be negligent of their guns and their children's well being should be prosecuted. So ultimately, the only solid argument for gun control is the issue of criminals with guns. This factor needs to be addressed above all else, through tightening gun-sale requirements and enforcing gun crime laws. This is where government and activist groups need to focus their efforts, not in taking guns out of the hands of responsible citizens. It's an old cliché, but it makes sense even despite the confusing statistics that anti-gun camps throw out to counter the logic: if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

     So what's the point? I haven't come here to argue the merits of gun control--believe me, I'm a definite advocate for stricter regulation. But "regulation" does not mean "banning," and that's the idea that I wish liberals would champion. I am a law-abiding citizen, and I should have the right to purchase any kind of firearm I feel necessary, provided I submit to controls like background checks and gun registration. This is an issue where compromise can be reached, one simultaneously of freedom of choice and containment of violence. And once this middle ground is established, I can finally vote liberal Democrat without a bad taste in my mouth.

The Next Step.

     Even before last Tuesday's historic (and apparently, highly predictable) election, Republicans were doing some soul-searching regarding the fate of their party. Although many ultra-conservatives had all but jumped ship on the announcement of Sen. McCain as the 2008 candidate, by the time election week had rolled around, many GOP diehards were wondering if the party didn't take a wrong turn sometime before that. My classmate's article "Where to From Here?" examines the GOP's recent stock-taking and reassessment of their goals for the 2008 elections. He explores all the seats of power that the Republicans stood to lose besides just the much-focused-on presidency, and he makes a convincing argument that the GOP really needs a priority check.

     Seeing as his audience is our diverse little group of students, Mr. Lazarski takes a very reasonable approach to his commentary, neither inflammatory nor weak, which seems to fit his self-described moderate views. Avoiding the high emotions that surround the Bush administration, he takes a calm look at the fact that President Bush's ratings have dropped drastically over his final term. As much as some conservatives would like to deny it (my Fox News-devoted uncle claims that Mr. Bush will later be recognized as one of the greatest presidents in our history), the simple truth is that even many who supported Mr. Bush is 2000 and in 2004 are weary of his policies and missteps. Mr. Lazarski uses this dissolution as the basis of his argument that the Republican party started changing their focus long before Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin stepped on the scene.

     Mr. Lazarski is asking a question that many conservatives have been asking for a long time. In hindsight, his points about the Congressional races were fairly prescient, showing that the polls were spot on (or that Democrats won so overwhelmingly as to negate any margin of error). However, even before this transfer of power, his argument was correct. Even without this election and the resulting stark evidence of the waning influence of the GOP, Mr. Lazarski's call for reevaluation carries much validity.

     Concerning the implications of this argument, I am less certain. This realignment shows the failed mentality of the GOP in recent years, but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right? In light of this recent moderate stance of Republicans like Mr. McCain, will the GOP backlash and revert to its super-conservative, evangelical views of the 80s? And a Democratic monopoly is equally prey to the stagnating effects of incumbent power; will we be saying the same things about them in 4 to 8 years? Whether or not the Republicans recognize it, continual examination of priorities is a good thing--to keep the party on track and in line with the views of its constituents. Of course, I do still fear the results of this priority check within GOP ranks. One can only wonder if the 2012 ticket will be Palin/Joe the Plumber, spreading their real-America, religious, free-market values across our land. Until that time, I'll hold my breath and hope that President-elect Obama does not do to the Democrats what President Bush has done to the GOP. Good luck, President-elect.