Why Liberals Should Love the 2nd Amendment

[unregistered]

 

[Liar]

My grand dad had a prized set of handmade chisels and woodworking planes...was he sick too?

What's the designed purpose of a set of chisels and woodworking planes?

If I construct a child boiler - an elegantly designed, impeccably crafted and beautifully ornamented machine, meant to boil human children alive in - is it a fine piece of engineering, or a sick fucking abomination?


A weapon is a nessecary evil. But an evil none the less.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why??

Any law that makes reviving the draft easier is a law that ought to go.

 

[KingOrfeo]

And when the amendment uses the term "the right of the people..." it states the belief the right precedes the Constitution itself.

A "natural law" argument is always bullshit.

 

[Morwen]

On most forums, hijacking a serious discussion thread by using one line shite posts with no thought, no originality, no creativity - with nothing but the totally unwarranted egotism of your own vastly overrated crippled brains, is pretty bad form.

Of course here, anything goes. But readers should be warned - you are clowns who contribute nothing, incapable of coherent thought or cogent argument, you vomit up whatever you heard on TV yesterday.

You are the very definition of cattle, rounded up and herded by your mental masters, bleating out your catchphrases when whipped and spurred.

 

[Weird Harold]

Any law that makes reviving the draft easier is a law that ought to go.

Why??

That particular wording apparently dates from 1903, but closely parallels the wording from 1792. All it really does is define what is required of able-bodied citizens or those seeking citizenship for the privilege of being citizens.

I take it you believe that citizenship should confer benefits but not responsibilities?

 

[Slowlane]

Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment
(submitted for your perusal... ~B.)


by Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse
Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:00:03 AM PDT

Great article. Haven't read it 100% yet but I will

 

[TurdFergeson]

The literal definition of political liberalism is a belief in individual rights.

Therefore, of course any true liberals should be for the right to bear arms...responsibly.

 

[Slowlane]

Oh, calm the hell down.

I was an ACLU member, myself, until, one day, a got a letter asking me to send them money for an anti-gun campaign.

That was when I thought... "Is this organization really about freedom?"


Sincerely, Byron

Interesting. The ACLU normally doesn't get involved in gun rights. There stance has always been that they don't care (more or less). That was enough to turm me against them.

All the other things they do to turn me against them are just bonuses.

 

[statsultan]

Not all us liberals...

There are a few of us liberals that don't have such an illogical view of the 2nd Amendment, including the aforementioned Lawrence Tribe.

I am a liberal. I hate guns. And I think there is far too much violence in our society, including the glorification of violence in our entertainment (I read a few years ago that more murders happen in NYC each year on TV than in real life ... though maybe some would see that as progress).

But as much as I wish we could get rid of guns, the plain meaning of the Second Amendment states that the people have the right to own not just guns, but arms. There's just no way around that. To get rid of guns, we need to first amend the Constitution, and there's just no way that's ever going to happen. The thing is, though, that even the plain meaning and original design of the Second Amendment is ignored, and has been since shortly after our country's founding.

The purpose of reserving the people's right of ownership, to effectively raise a militia, means that the people have the right to own whatever arms can be deployed by our nation's army. A group of citizens was supposed to be able to form up as a militia in a very short period of time to drive off whatever threat there was, be it from outside invaders, rampaging "injuns", or an oppressive and tyrannical government. So citizens could, if they could afford it, have the latest and greatest of weaponry available. Sure some might think the guy with a cannon in his barn was a little loony, but they sure weren't going to argue with him about it.

Of course nobody, not even the most hawkish on the right, is willing to abide by that plain meaning today. They think a 'reasonableness' limitation should apply. And thus no private citizen has the right to own a nuclear weapon. Trust of the people only goes so far. So they'll go along with limiting the arms people can own by type and degree of lethality. You can own a regular shotgun but not a sawed-off or short-barreled shotgun. You can own a semi-automatic rifle but not a fully automatic rifle. When really, the Constitution should have been amended to include those limitations. But no gun toting citizen should be willing to even approach amending the Constitution to limit the Second Amendment, because then the country might just get rid of it altogether. So instead we'll "interpret" the Second Amendment the way we wish it really read, instead of the way it actually reads.

 

[eyer]

The identifier "liberal" has totally lost its American Revolution political meaning.

The uniquely 1776 flavor of that word was instantly bastardized and polluted grievously all the way up to today by the socialist French, whose carnage of revolution was founded upon the "reason" of man, not on divine providence.

Creator? We don't need no stinking creator! It is man who determines his own destiny! Viva Madame Reason!

That's the start of the explanation why today the political term "liberal" is simply redundant of socialist, and has lost entirely all its original American meaning. But it hangs irrelevantly anyway to the delight of the wannabe and to the misery of the patriot. And it's clearly exhibited in this thread by a few posters:

[paraphrasing]: "I "agree" with the 2nd Amendment ("liberal"), BUT, obviously, even though it infers citizens can possess any weapons the militia has, surely we can all agree that today that's just silly" (socialist) or, "yeah, I'm all for folks having guns, after all that is what the Constitution says ("liberal"), BUT, only if they're properly trained and licensed by the state. We can't have folks out there acting like the Lone Ranger". (socialist)

If a socialist today truly has a change of conscience, or just can't any longer lie their way by the Constitution, they'll be on their way to realizing that INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY is what the Constitution guarantees against any/every government that may obtain power of these United States.

Unfortunately, America today is chock-full of "liberal" "yeah, buts" and "liberal" ignoramuses, who "feel" public opinion and polls and Oprah and majority rule and popularity and democracy have anything to do with the Constitution of the United States of America.

They're nothing but socialists hiding in "liberal" red, white, and blue clothing...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I don't know if they love the First Amendment all that much.

There's Tipper Gore, for one. Their love and respect for "The Fairness Doctrine."

There's Barack Obama saying you can't trust Fox, trust "The Huffington Post..."



__________________
With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and Playstations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.
Barack Hussein Obama

 

[kbate]

There are a few of us liberals that don't have such an illogical view of the 2nd Amendment, including the aforementioned Lawrence Tribe.

I am a liberal. I hate guns. And I think there is far too much violence in our society, including the glorification of violence in our entertainment (I read a few years ago that more murders happen in NYC each year on TV than in real life ... though maybe some would see that as progress)..

Why do you hate guns? Guns are merely a tool to extend the will of a human. Do you not hate the hand that wields them for that violence?

Liberalism blames the tool - not the criminal. And time and time, they have been proven wrong about every statistic concerning guns and violence. Criminals cause crime, armed criminals cause violent crime. Guns cause nothing. Do you blame the fast car for speeding? People cause speeding - because people are generally disobedient and difficult to control.

That word defines the liberal hatred of guns - Control. It is all about removing the power of revolution from the people so that their progressive will may be forced on the nation. Every other excuse is just smoke to cover the true reason the liberal progressive wants a disarmed nation. Even the Liberal Press made a mistake this year, when they used the word, "Rule" when speaking of the current White House and Congress. (washington Post editorials)

Liberals want to rule, and you cannot rule an armed populace - you can only govern them.

 

[statsultan]

The identifier "liberal" has totally lost its American Revolution political meaning.

The uniquely 1776 flavor of that word was instantly bastardized and polluted grievously all the way up to today by the socialist French, whose carnage of revolution was founded upon the "reason" of man, not on divine providence.

Creator? We don't need no stinking creator! It is man who determines his own destiny! Viva Madame Reason!

That's the start of the explanation why today the political term "liberal" is simply redundant of socialist, and has lost entirely all its original American meaning. But it hangs irrelevantly anyway to the delight of the wannabe and to the misery of the patriot. And it's clearly exhibited in this thread by a few posters:

[paraphrasing]: "I "agree" with the 2nd Amendment ("liberal"), BUT, obviously, even though it infers citizens can possess any weapons the militia has, surely we can all agree that today that's just silly" (socialist) or, "yeah, I'm all for folks having guns, after all that is what the Constitution says ("liberal"), BUT, only if they're properly trained and licensed by the state. We can't have folks out there acting like the Lone Ranger". (socialist)

If a socialist today truly has a change of conscience, or just can't any longer lie their way by the Constitution, they'll be on their way to realizing that INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY is what the Constitution guarantees against any/every government that may obtain power of these United States.

Unfortunately, America today is chock-full of "liberal" "yeah, buts" and "liberal" ignoramuses, who "feel" public opinion and polls and Oprah and majority rule and popularity and democracy have anything to do with the Constitution of the United States of America.

They're nothing but socialists hiding in "liberal" red, white, and blue clothing...

The two statements you assign to "socialist" are universally held by "law and order" Republicans.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

[voice=firespin]

Yeah, you know, I have to agree that the Constitution makes it legal to own the guns, but can't we find common ground with our fellow Americans and note that it says not one damned thing about the right to own ammunition?

[/voice]





Love ya long time there 'spin...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The two statements you assign to "socialist" are universally held by "law and order" Republicans.

Fully half of the Republican Party is socialist too; the "smart" socialists...




You see that when they defend the progressive income tax.



Right 'spin?

 

[statsultan]

Why do you hate guns? Guns are merely a tool to extend the will of a human. Do you not hate the hand that wields them for that violence?

Liberalism blames the tool - not the criminal. And time and time, they have been proven wrong about every statistic concerning guns and violence. Criminals cause crime, armed criminals cause violent crime. Guns cause nothing. Do you blame the fast car for speeding? People cause speeding - because people are generally disobedient and difficult to control.

That word defines the liberal hatred of guns - Control. It is all about removing the power of revolution from the people so that their progressive will may be forced on the nation. Every other excuse is just smoke to cover the true reason the liberal progressive wants a disarmed nation. Even the Liberal Press made a mistake this year, when they used the word, "Rule" when speaking of the current White House and Congress. (washington Post editorials)

Liberals want to rule, and you cannot rule an armed populace - you can only govern them.

Supporters of the Second Amendment make all kinds of aspersions towards the idea that gun ownership is a protection against a tyrannical government. In today's day and age, that's ridiculous. No citizens militia armed with legally obtained weapons is going to form up and succeed in overthrowing a government backed by the most powerful military in the world. The limitations that our society has already accepted on the ownership of arms has guaranteed that already. So the aspersion is either a complete falsehood or a delusion.

So if you've already accepted that this is a falsehood, that we've already denuded the Second Amendment beyond our Founders' intent, then is it so much of a push to argue that gun ownership isn't needed in our society? In the 18th and 19th centuries gun ownership was necessary on the frontier for self-protection. Today? We live in a highly regulated and highly policed society. Gun ownership is no longer necessary, nor can it protect against a tyrannical government. So what's left is personal pleasure in having that kind of power in your hands versus the risk of death or serious bodily injury from accidents and hotheads. I think the risk isn't worth it. There have been a spate of murder-suicides in my area lately. Every one just makes me sick.

 

[statsultan]

[voice=firespin]

Yeah, you know, I have to agree that the Constitution makes it legal to own the guns, but can't we find common ground with our fellow Americans and note that it says not one damned thing about the right to own ammunition?

[/voice]





Love ya long time there 'spin...

I love how so many people were convinced that was going to take place and wasted hundreds if not thousands of dollars to create their personal stockpiles regardless of there being no action in Congress to make a single affirmative step in that direction. Bunch of paranoid, ignorant wackos. Yeah, I feel so safe knowing that these are the types of people who own lots of guns.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

One question for you...



Where the hell do you think the soldiers of the most powerful government in the world come from?



Beware the Praetorian Guard...

 

[Saint Peter]

The poorest 20% of the world's most powerful government's citizens!

 

[rosco rathbone]

The poorest 20% of the world's most powerful government's citizens!

ahaha

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Bullshit Petey.

If that were true, Obama would not have announced his huge cuts in military personnel...

Why would he hurt his peeps; the people who are too stupid to get a job or too desperate because they can't find one? Remember how the Democrats characterized them during the Bush years?



I KNOW!

Let's recruit MEXICANS! Give them half the wage and a promise of citizenship! It's how the Romans kept their army stocked and the Germans under their thumb!

 

[Wat_Tyler]

If the most powerful military in the world can subdue any ragtag band of armed citizens at will, why are we still in Afghanistan and Iraq???

 

[Saint Peter]

Hold the phone. Are you talking about the typical soldier that carries a bunch of gear and follows orders, or were you talking about rich playboys like George Bush that show up now and then to fly cool planes and shit before vacationing in the Bahamas?

Bullshit Petey.

If that were true, Obama would not have announced his huge cuts in military personnel...

Why would he hurt his peeps; the people who are too stupid to get a job or too desperate because they can't find one? Remember how the Democrats characterized them during the Bush years?



I KNOW!

Let's recruit MEXICANS! Give them half the wage and a promise of citizenship! It's how the Romans kept their army stocked and the Germans under their thumb!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

If the most powerful military in the world can subdue any ragtag band of armed citizens at will, why are we still in Afghanistan and Iraq???

Same reason most of America thought we lost Tet...

... and then LBJ (like Obama) nixed Westmoreland's request for enough troops to administer the coup de grâce...



We have to defeat the intellectuals to have a chance with their fellow fanatics...

Good to see you. Wat's up?