Why do rural, conservative states with lots of gun owners have bad gun laws?

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

So ama-gi, can we be friends now.

Click to expand...

Sure, we're "bff"

Click to expand...

I am sure you never get in one of those moods, but today... well any way.....

My link to this forum is set to bring up all recent posts.

I was not following you around, it just happened that my interest was peeked by the topics you were posting in. There was nothing personal.

I ran across an old HankT post and spent some time reading a lot of posts.

With that fresh on my mimd one of your posts reminded me of that and suddenly you were guilty by association.

35 years ago in graduate school my thesis chairman used to jump on me for shooting from the hip.
(expressing my opinion before I really thought about it) Some old habits die hard.

We may not always agree, but we can be friendly about it.

imported post

Nebraska isn't confusing to me given all the comments I have read about the liberal bent of the eastern part of the state where a lot of the population resides. It seems to fit into that typical midwest mode I mentioned above about a few large liberal urban areas having nearly the population of the rest of the more conservative rural areas.

Texas though, that confuses me. Although it could be a similar effect with just more urban centers, namely Austin, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, due to the huge size of the state, being much more liberal than the rest of the state.

As I said earlier (and will leave out the snarkiness this time ), I think this is more a rural vs urban issue rather than a red vs blue issue. Urban living has constant indoctrination into the government or someone else taking care of you. People live in apartments or condos where if something breaks they call the complex maintenance office to fix it. They have noise, crime, congestion, they look to government to fix it. The mindset is entirely different. This has become more apparent to me lately as my fiancee, and all but one of her closest friends were born, raised and have always lived in an urban area. While most of them are republicans, they were all anti-gun or neutral when I met them. Now these are people who live in a region with multitudes higher rates of crime in every category than where I live but saw no purpose in carrying a firearm. They are much more likely to need a firearm in their lifetimes than I am, yet the concept of just taking care of themselves instead of calling 911 is totally alien.

So there is one simple example of an urban area, in a typically red state, with a lot of people who would generally be considered conservatives and who generally vote republican who's mindset is not pro-2A.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Nebraska isn't confusing to me given all the comments I have read about the liberal bent of the eastern part of the state where a lot of the population resides. It seems to fit into that typical midwest mode I mentioned above about a few large liberal urban areas having nearly the population of the rest of the more conservative rural areas.

Texas though, that confuses me. Although it could be a similar effect with just more urban centers, namely Austin, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, due to the huge size of the state, being much more liberal than the rest of the state........

Click to expand...

I really think you are right about Nebraska. Omaha is so big as compared to the rest of the state that they really set the standard.

Texas on the other hand, has been very progressive on gun laws except for open carry. My question is when did it become illegal.

It is part of the south and I know most gun control laws came about to control the blacks and keep guns out of their hands.

If I have a little time I might research that issue.

imported post

Sa45auto wrote:

I really think you are right about Nebraska. Omaha is so big as compared to the rest of the state that they really set the standard.

Texas on the other hand, has been very progressive on gun laws except for open carry. My question is when did it become illegal.

It is part of the south and I know most gun control laws came about to control the blacks and keep guns out of their hands.

If I have a little time I might research that issue.

Click to expand...

http://www.vcdl.org/new/racist.htm

might be a good start

imported post

hsmith wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

I really think you are right about Nebraska. Omaha is so big as compared to the rest of the state that they really set the standard.

Texas on the other hand, has been very progressive on gun laws except for open carry. My question is when did it become illegal.

It is part of the south and I know most gun control laws came about to control the blacks and keep guns out of their hands.

If I have a little time I might research that issue.

Click to expand...

http://www.vcdl.org/new/racist.htm

might be a good start

Click to expand...

Good call.

Here is an excerptfrom your linkthat refers to Texas gun laws;



"In Cockrum v. State (1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas Bill of Rights. The outer limit of the state's authority (in this case, attempting to discourage the carrying of Bowie knives), was that it could provide an enhanced penalty for manslaughters committed with Bowie knives.[30] Yet, by 1872, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions -- and made no attempt to explain or justify why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid.[31]

What caused the dramatic change? The following excerpt from that same decision -- so offensive that no one would dare make such an argument today -- sheds some light on the racism that apparently caused the sudden perspective change:


The law under consideration has been attacked upon the ground that it was contrary to public policy, and deprived the people of the necessary means of self- defense; that it was an innovation upon the customs and habits of the people, to which they would not peaceably submit... We will not say to what extent the early customs and habits of the people of this state should be respected and accommodated, where they may come in conflict with the ideas of intelligent and well-meaning legislators. A portion of our system of laws, as well as our public morality, is derived from a people the most peculiar perhaps of any other in the history and derivation of its own system. Spain, at different periods of the world, was dominated over by the Carthagenians, the Romans, the Vandals, the Snovi, the Allani, the Visigoths, and Arabs; and to this day there are found in the Spanish codes traces of the laws and customs of each of these nations blended together in a system by no means to be compared with the sound philosophy and pure morality of the common law.[32] [emphasis added] "

imported post

I'm gonna have to go with deepdiver in that it's more of a rural/urban issue, not red/blue. Pennsylvania is generally a blue state when it comes to some elections, but only because Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are blue, while the rest of the state is solidly red. We'd probably have two GOP senators now if there wasn't a large contingent of Republican voters (I was one of them) who felt that Santorum was devoted more to oppressing gays than to serving his state and country. Fortunately here the rural voters are vocal enough to balance out most of the urban influence.

Then there's also the defintion of what constitutes "great" gun laws. IMO, states that put strict limitations on places where one many carry, or that require training in order to get a license, have bad gun laws. In most states, though, it's a mix of gun-related laws that can't really be defined as "good" or "bad" overall, especially when taking into account self-defense laws.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

I'm gonna have to go with deepdiver in that it's more of a rural/urban issue, not red/blue........

Click to expand...

My thoughts would be to agree with you with the following addition...rural/urban/racial

imported post

Sa45auto wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

I'm gonna have to go with deepdiver in that it's more of a rural/urban issue, not red/blue........

Click to expand...

My thoughts would be to agree with you with the following addition...rural/urban/racial

Click to expand...

I don't think race plays into it much beyond the urban/rural demographics.

Can you please expand upon your thoughts. I may be too narrowly construing your point.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

I'm gonna have to go with deepdiver in that it's more of a rural/urban issue, not red/blue........

Click to expand...

My thoughts would be to agree with you with the following addition...rural/urban/racial

Click to expand...

I don't think race plays into it much beyond the urban/rural demographics.

Can you please expand upon your thoughts. I may be too narrowly construing your point.

Click to expand...

Sure;

Following the Civil War, much of the south passed one law after another to try and continue to control the black population.

If they could keep them from arming themselves, then it was easier to control them.

I was truly shocked when I moved to Texas in the early 1970's as to the still prevalent bigotry and racial hatred that still existed.

These first gun control laws were like the poll taxes and literacy requirements in that they were not so subtle attempts at control.

This fairly well outlined in papers such as ;

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

[align=center]Clayton E. Cramer
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm[/align]

[align=left]These laws followed the blacks out of the south into the industrialized North East as they left the rural life looking for a chance to feed their families. [/align]

[align=left]There are those who truly want to keep others oppressed and it is hard to do if they are armed. It was true then and it is still now.[/align]

[align=left]I think there are still strong urban/rural conflicts, and these played right into the hands of the bigots and racists.[/align]

[align=left]If I hadn't lived in the south among southerners and heard and seen what I did, I might no be so ready to believe Mr. Cramer and others on their thoughts on gun control and some of its roots.[/align]

imported post

Sa45auto wrote: of its roots.

deepdiver wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

I'm gonna have to go with deepdiver in that it's more of a rural/urban issue, not red/blue........

Click to expand...

My thoughts would be to agree with you with the following addition...rural/urban/racial

Click to expand...

I don't think race plays into it much beyond the urban/rural demographics.

Can you please expand upon your thoughts. I may be too narrowly construing your point.

Click to expand...

Sure;

*SNIP*

Click to expand...

Gotcha! I was taking that as your saying that certain races were more opposed/supportive of gun control than others independent of rural/urban areas. I was nearly 180° off what you were saying.

I get what you are saying and see your point. Still, I'm not sure how well it tracks. I"m going to have to think about that a bit.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Sa45auto wrote: of its roots.

deepdiver wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

I'm gonna have to go with deepdiver in that it's more of a rural/urban issue, not red/blue........

Click to expand...

My thoughts would be to agree with you with the following addition...rural/urban/racial

Click to expand...

I don't think race plays into it much beyond the urban/rural demographics.

Can you please expand upon your thoughts. I may be too narrowly construing your point.

Click to expand...

Sure;

*SNIP*

Click to expand...

Gotcha! I was taking that as your saying that certain races were more opposed/supportive of gun control than others independent of rural/urban areas. I was nearly 180° off what you were saying.

I get what you are saying and see your point. Still, I'm not sure how well it tracks. I"m going to have to think about that a bit.

Click to expand...

In some areas I think it is all a variation on the rural/ urban as the race issue, as in controlling the Blacks/Hispanics or what ever, does not really apply, but in others it is at the heart.

It could be simply put as them/us......and you could insert what ever group you want as them or us, with the us being the ones who are trying to control them, or multiple thems.

I really think we are seeing the same thing just looking at it at different levels.