I think I've figured out why Northern states are anti-gun

I think I've figured out why Northern states are anti-gun.

It has to do with history and the genetic pool. Northern states that historically attracted a lot of industry, logging, and to a lesser extent mining also attracted a certain caliber of population. This left an indelible imprint on the present-day genetic pool in these areas.

These are persons who did not have the self-control or prudent temperament to successfully run a farm. If you look back in history, there are all sorts of accounts of the populations in these areas getting drunk or rowdy.

I think the reason the people in these places are anti-gun is they know they cannot trust themselves.

There is an inherent human tendency to assume everyone else is just like ourselves. This is actually an error, in some situations, and I think this might be one of them.

So now I will name the areas. Western Washington state, where there was a lot of logging, the Northern California coast, where there was a lot of logging. Northern Minnesota, where it was mostly logging and a little bit of mining, farming was too difficult in the north. And also anywhere that was a traditional port, but wasn't very wealthy. Michigan, where there was a lot of industry. Big city areas in Eastern Pennsylvania, particularly Pittsburgh, which lies in the so-called Rust Belt, and had a long period of industry in the past.

There are some exceptions. For example, Vermont was conservative in the past, but turned very progressive because so many people moved there from the New York City area and Massachusetts. New Hampshire used to be full of gun-loving rednecks (well, as close to redneck as it's possible for a New England state to get) but in recent years has finally tipped progressive, for the same reason.

 

I don't really follow except for the last two lines, with which I agree. Anecdotally, of all the people I know who support strict (UK/AUS style) gun control that effectively anull the 2A, all but one have emotional problems that present as a general lack of impulse control, and some of them have flat out told me they would end up shooting someone out of anger if they had a gun. To their credit, they do not have guns. I guess they're afraid they might not be able to prevent themselves from going and getting one some day unless we make it illegal to do so...? Not sure.

The other one has lots of guns and thinks it should be illegal to own guns. I've never heard him explain his logic on that. But he also still has a 'Hillary 2016' sign in his yard, so maybe there simply isn't any...

 

Also to add, a lot of hippies moved up to Western WA state from CA in the 70s, as part of the "Back to the Earth" movement, so that didn't help.

It is interesting, some parts of the country both lean anti-gun, but at the same time their "Wild West" mentality (wanting individual freedom) is just enough to cancel that out.

These areas include WA state, to a small extent; Las Vegas in Nevada, and Colorado, although the political situation in Colorado has changed in the last decade (finally things tipped after lots of people moved there from California, wealthy East Coasters came, and a rising Hispanic population from illegal immigration).

 

You should read Black Rednecks and White Liberals. This book contrasts the dysfunctional redneck culture of the South with the civilized Yankee culture of the North.

 

Modern gun rights ideology originates from the South as historian Saul Cornell explains:

"Slavery, 'honor,' and their associated violence spawned a unique weapons culture. One of its defining features was a permissive view of white citizens’ right to carry weapons in public.

"As early as 1840, antebellum historian Richard Hildreth observed that violence was frequently employed in the South both to subordinate slaves and to intimidate abolitionists. In the South, violence also was an approved way to avenge perceived insults to manhood and personal status. According to Hildreth, duels 'appear but once an age' in the North, but 'are of frequent and almost daily occurrence at the South.' Southern men thus carried weapons both 'as a protection against the slaves' and also to be prepared for 'quarrels between freemen.' "
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...arry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/

 

The position and opinions of Saul Cornell has been discussed at length in previous discussions, and each time he has been found to be factually deficient and incorrect. There is no historical evidence to prove the second amendment was ratified or even drafted for the sake of quelling slave rebellions and/or uprisings. It is nothing more than his personally biases opinion, devoid of anything in the way of factual evidence.

 

1840 post-dates ratification of the Bill of Rights by almost half a century.

 

Don't forget they never let facts get in the way of their anti-gun agenda, because lies are the backbone of the anti-gunners narrative.

 

So why does modern gun rights ideology originate from that era rather than 50 years earlier?

 

It does not. Unless one is willing to admit that all firearm-related restrictions in the united states ultimately stem from efforts at legally preventing freed slaves and other blacks and/or minorities from owning firearms in a legal manner. Which ultimately means it is racist to support firearm-related restrictions in the modern day and age.

Since firearm-related restrictions are supported on the part of yourself, by extension that ultimately means you are a racist as a result, since it is impossible to separate the standards of racism and firearm-related restrictions from one another.

 

The first laws restricting firearms targetted blacks specifically. Most of the laws restricting firearms since were made in response to blacks arming themselves and/or made it more harder for blacks to exercise their 2A than anyone else. The fastest growing 2A rights organization today is the National African American Gun Association that has over 40000 payed memberships, 93% of which are black folks.

 

I do love psychology. Perhaps they were not breast fed and their insecurity is comforted by having the government replace the parent they never had. They do tend to support having a big government teet to suckle!

I believe support for gun control is a combination of good intentions and willingness to ignore results.

 

Factually incorrect.

"In reality, a variety of gun regulations were on the books when individual states adopted their arms-bearing provisions and when the Second Amendment was adopted. In the years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, the individual states adopted even more stringent types of regulations....

"During the American Revolution, several states passed laws providing for the confiscation of weapons owned by persons refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to the state or the United States....

"Some of the most common regulations of firearms in the eighteenth century are the laws regulating a state's militia. The laws defined who was part of the militia, who was excused from duty, and what weaponry the citizens were required to procure to meet this obligation....

"By the close of the eighteenth century, there was already a tradition of statutes regulating the storage and transport of gunpowder. These laws were oftentimes enacted to protect the growing population centers, such as Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City....

"In the antebellum period, several states had laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons....

"An 1821 Tennessee statute prohibited the 'shoot[ing] at a mark within the bounds of any town, or within two hundred yards of any public road of the first or second class within [the] state.' In contrast to modern law where many states have pre-empted the right of localities to restrict firearms, local regulation was quite common in pre-Civil War America.

"These statutes all demonstrate the ample power of the state to regulate and restrict firearm usage and ownership to achieve the goal of creating a well regulated society. A wide range of gun regulations, including safe storage laws; time, place, and manner restrictions; and even prohibitions on certain classes of weapons have deep roots in American history stretching back before the American Revolution and extending forward in time long after the Second Amendment was adopted."
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr

Plenty of gun control existed two centuries ago. Gun control is needed now even more. Guns have become a significantly greater threat to public safety due to technological advancements.

 

You do realize that the Bill of Rights wasn't incorporated against the states until the 14th Amendment, right? You do realize that post-McDonald in 2010, the powers of the states to impose gun control were restricted, right?

 

The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination not gun control: Everyone should be treated equally. If black people are disarmed then white people should be disarmed too.

 

The 14th has multiple components, one of which is incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states. It's in the very first section:

" No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Neither Black people nor White people should be disarmed.

 

The second amendment of the united states constitution was never intended to restrict the actions of city and state governments, only the federal government. The founding fathers intended to let the states sort out what worked best for them.

If not for the racist actions of individual states refusing to do away with their standards of slavery practices and outright racism, there would have been no need for ratification of the fourteenth amendment for the purpose of extending those same federal protections against the states and cities.

Even if what is being claimed on the part of yourself were indeed factually correct, such no longer applies in the current era after the Heller and McDonald eras. All previously existing precedent relating to firearms has been thrown right out the window, metaphorically speaking. The firearm-related restrictions of then would never pass constitutional muster now, therefore they are not worth discussing as if they were valid, as they are not.

 

Or alternatively, government should cease looking for reasons to disarm individuals who have committed no crime against others.

 

Kentucky, your argument is invalid.

 

You want to come here talking about factual inaccuracies and you're telling me you don't understand incorporation?

 

I don't think it's so much they can't trust themselves, I just think people not familiar with how to handle a firearm tend to be intimidated and therefore have no interest and as a result think no one else should either. I also think they believe they are doing society good by trying to make it more difficult for people to obtain guns or banning certain guns and for some outright banning all guns. I believe they feel no guns would equal a much more peaceful society....which WE all know is misguided.

 

Except for the fact that it is not misguided. It is outright ignorance of the entire history of the human species, which has been trying to wipe itself out of existence since the very first day. It will not stop until it succeeds at doing just that.

 

You must be a lot of laughs at parties.

 

I think liberal and progressive folk believe in the permissive state, but are afraid of it at the same time, so instead of personally controlling themselves and exercising personal responsibility, they demand that government do it for them. The flip side of this is that those who control the weak find support in these same folks because it allows them to implement their tyranny broadly. The rest of us have to clean up their mess.

 

LOL... the gun rights ideology is derivative of the English and european crowns using their right to retain arms and keep the people subjugated. Simple as that. It is the recognition that if government can, they will de-arm the people so that there is no competition for power. This BS in the above quoted post is just some mindless pedantic exercise in virtue signaling....