How did gun control become part of the Liberal platform anyway?

[MechAg94]

Why are we discussing this in isolation?  The term "liberal" has come to describe a whole host of positions that are not liberal at all, nor progressive, unless the progress is in the wrong direction.  Oppressive taxation, bizarre levels of gov regulation, gun control, and the list goes on.  I will refrain from naming some of the more controversial issues.  Gun control didn't just happen to fall into the "liberal" camp; it fits with the larger mindset that views the citizenry as a resource to be managed and herded. 

Nitrogen, I definitely agree with your view, and it explains why many conservatives don't get the gun issue, either.  But BigJake is more or less correct, as well.  Liberal has become a euphemism for "making all things right through government." 

I think Nitrogen's view is probably the main reason why most rank and file people think gun control is important.  I think fistful's description is closer to reality for the real hard core leftists who push the issue as well as the rich elitist class types.

[mek42]

There are many good and truthful observations above.

I would add that there also are many middle-class and upper-middle-class liberals who are absolutely terrified of blue-collar workers and blue-collar culture. For them, the blue-collar are not that much different from the rapist yokels in the movie Deliverance - capable of all sorts of crime, cruelty, and depravity. These people live in upscale communities, drink wine instead of beer, and live very sheltered lives. Their perception of the "common folk" is decidedly negative, the way one would view a semi-necessary but repulsive inconvenience. The idea that "those people" can be legally armed to the teeth is beyond reprehensible to such elitists. It is not even social. It is cultural.

Then how did the Democratic Party, labor unions and the modern American Liberal party come to be so entwined?

[The Annoyed Man]

Digressing for the moment:  There is "classical liberalism" of such men as Hume and Locke and then there is modern-American "liberals".

The first philosophy gave us our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The latter label was pretty much invented in the late 1920s by the Socialists, since that term had become quite unpopular.  It was a deliberate effort to twist a word around to a different meaning.  "Progressive" is commonly substituted where "Liberal" is unpopular, in the same sort of effort.  As many have noted, "Liberals" do not fit the dictionary definition of the word insofar as respect for the ideas and rights of others.

Art

I have used that same image for years to illustrate the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality of the typical boob in Congress.

[roo_ster]

There are many good and truthful observations above.

I would add that there also are many middle-class and upper-middle-class liberals who are absolutely terrified of blue-collar workers and blue-collar culture. For them, the blue-collar are not that much different from the rapist yokels in the movie Deliverance - capable of all sorts of crime, cruelty, and depravity. These people live in upscale communities, drink wine instead of beer, and live very sheltered lives. Their perception of the "common folk" is decidedly negative, the way one would view a semi-necessary but repulsive inconvenience. The idea that "those people" can be legally armed to the teeth is beyond reprehensible to such elitists. It is not even social. It is cultural.

Then how did the Democratic Party, labor unions and the modern American Liberal party come to be so entwined?

The workers & unwashed need a revolutionary vanguard to lead them to Obamaland the promised land.  Or, the revolutionary vanguard needs somebody to lead.

And most middle class folks are too damned independent to fall in line and be cannon fodder.

Scratch a leftist and you'll uncover a totalitarian.