Why Liberals Should Love the 2nd Amendment

[unregistered]

 

[statsultan]

Here speaks a "city kid" who probably lives in a gated and guarded community with a police substation next door.

Fortunately, "highly regulated and highly policed" isn't the state of affairs in most of the country and if that were the case, it would be the kind of situation the Founders intended american citizens be able to resist -- whether by the power of the press or the power of the gun.

As to the first point, hardly. But if you need to mischaracterize rather than confront my arguments there's not much we can debate.

And "highly regulated and highly policed" was a description of our society relative to the 18th and 19th centuries' frontier areas. Or do you really think present day Idaho is comparable to Idaho of 1850? Also, Eastern states even in the 19th century were filled with laws and regulations, and would be deemed "highly regulated and policed" by any reasonable standard.. Just go read some Thoreau.

 

[Weird Harold]

As to the first point, hardly. But if you need to mischaracterize rather than confront my arguments there's not much we can debate.

And "highly regulated and highly policed" was a description of our society relative to the 18th and 19th centuries' frontier areas. Or do you really think present day Idaho is comparable to Idaho of 1850? Also, Eastern states even in the 19th century were filled with laws and regulations, and would be deemed "highly regulated and policed" by any reasonable standard.. Just go read some Thoreau.

You personally may not be a "city kid" but the argument that "the police can protect us so we don't need guns" is only valid for a city environment -- and one with a heavy police presence at that.

I happen to live in a "gated and guarded community" but that doesn't do stop the burglaries and violent crime because the armed security is understaffed and the police are understaffed as well.

About six-months ago, we had someone shooting from the complex into an adjacent vacant lot; it was security's night off and it took the police nearly an hour to respond. Eight police cars responded, but the gunman and whoever/whatever he was shooting at were long gone.

The right to keep and bear arms isn't just about preserving the ability for an armed insurrection, it is also about preserving the right to provide your own security when there aren't enough police and security guards to go around.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I'll bet the true list is highly classified.

Ok Lovelynice..

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

You don't think the Southerners circa 1860 viewed the Federal Government as "Tyrranical"? Really?

The only difference between a civil war and an armed insurrection is the number of people involved.

if you think the only difference between a civil war and an armed insurrection against a tyrannical government is the number of people involved your more ignorant and in dire need of a history book than I had previously thought. No wonder you are against the basic right to defend one's family, property and self.

As to the first point, hardly. But if you need to mischaracterize rather than confront my arguments there's not much we can debate.

And "highly regulated and highly policed" was a description of our society relative to the 18th and 19th centuries' frontier areas. Or do you really think present day Idaho is comparable to Idaho of 1850? Also, Eastern states even in the 19th century were filled with laws and regulations, and would be deemed "highly regulated and policed" by any reasonable standard.. Just go read some Thoreau.

Yes but "highly regulated and highly policed" dose NOT ensure that you, your family or your property are safe from assault or vandalism. Therefore it is every persons responsibility to ensure their own personal security, not the governments.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

I'll bet the true list is highly classified.

no doubt. I'm also sure that list is broken down into sublist for "need to know" reasons to keep the left hand from knowing what the right hand is doing. I'm sure the number of people with acess to a master list is very very small.

 

[statsultan]

if you think the only difference between a civil war and an armed insurrection against a tyrannical government is the number of people involved your more ignorant and in dire need of a history book than I had previously thought. No wonder you are against the basic right to defend one's family, property and self.

A) I'm not against the basic right to defend one's family, property or self, I just think that if no one had guns then there would be less need to defend oneself, and fewer people would end up dead as a result of such confrontations.

and B) Please, enlighten me on the difference. Perhaps we are using different definitions, but in my mind a Civil War means the outcome is in doubt, whereas an armed insurrection is going to be put down by the overwhelming power of the state in short order, with lots of violence done to those who dare raise arms against their homeland.

Though C) inherent in your responses is the idea that a Civil War is bad but an armed insurrection is good. While you say you know several people who right now would be willing to exercise their right to overthrow the government through force of arms, to me that means you know several traitors. I doubt any of them could state a convincing argument why the political process has failed and thus armed rebellion is currently necessary.

Yes but "highly regulated and highly policed" dose NOT ensure that you, your family or your property are safe from assault or vandalism. Therefore it is every persons responsibility to ensure their own personal security, not the governments.

Ah, so you're saying that people who don't own guns and are willing to use them against others, either for personal, religious, philosophical, or any other reasons, are irresponsible. Interesting. And here I thought our government's primary purpose (aka responsibility) was to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. In my mind, that means taking steps to protect from and to punish those who dare attempt to harm my family and/or my property. But if you have an argument to the contrary I'd enjoy reading it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

My Son finally got his CCW Permit today. Every 18 year old should have one.

 

[y=mx+b]

but I do love the 2nd Amendment.

I was jus thinking the other day how I; as a liberal, am thankful to all you conservatives for being all bat-shit crazy for the 2nd Amendment. I likes me guns.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

A) I'm not against the basic right to defend one's family, property or self, I just think that if no one had guns then there would be less need to defend oneself, and fewer people would end up dead as a result of such confrontations.

and B) Please, enlighten me on the difference. Perhaps we are using different definitions, but in my mind a Civil War means the outcome is in doubt, whereas an armed insurrection is going to be put down by the overwhelming power of the state in short order, with lots of violence done to those who dare raise arms against their homeland.

Though C) inherent in your responses is the idea that a Civil War is bad but an armed insurrection is good. While you say you know several people who right now would be willing to exercise their right to overthrow the government through force of arms, to me that means you know several traitors. I doubt any of them could state a convincing argument why the political process has failed and thus armed rebellion is currently necessary.




Ah, so you're saying that people who don't own guns and are willing to use them against others, either for personal, religious, philosophical, or any other reasons, are irresponsible. Interesting. And here I thought our government's primary purpose (aka responsibility) was to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. In my mind, that means taking steps to protect from and to punish those who dare attempt to harm my family and/or my property. But if you have an argument to the contrary I'd enjoy reading it.

.A) That’s just it, you cant ever get rid of all the guns, sharp and blunt objects, and anything that could be used as a deadly weapon. Won't ever happen which is why the 2a is what it is, every one has the right to arm themselves against harm. Me? I prefer high caliber pistols, a variety of assault rifles and a shotty for close encounters.

B) Civil war was fought over money, and still to this date (if you count both sides) spilled more American blood than any other war. Even though the south fought like bad ass's (it took the union over 2x the troops and 3x the funds to suppress the south) the whole thing was about money, political posturing, and carried/fueled by cultural differences that still exist today. An armed insurrection/rebellion/revolution is usually motivated out of a sense of injustice or inherent wrongdoing, like a lack of basic human rights. They usually are a small radical group, the American Revolution was fought by 3% of the colonial population and had fewer than loss's than the current war on terror and they WON against the worlds most powerful military. Today that would be like 9,900,000 armed Americans engaging in hit and run operations against the gov. that has a military with less than 200k combat troops. Do you remember the DC sniper? That was an untrained retard with a shitty .30 cal rifle and I don’t even think he had a scope. Could you imagine if a couple of ex SEAL/SF/Ranger/Marine/Grunt's with sniper training were stalking our officials with a Barret 50 shooting API rounds and a nice chunk of glass? Ex EOD guys teaching people how to make IED’s to fight a police state? ohhhhh man...all hell would break loose once those guys found out their up armored limo's and SUV were no longer effective.

C) Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison etc. all dared to raise arms against their homeland. One mans traitor/terrorist is another mans patriot/freedom fighter. All the people I know who if the time came would be willing to fight to uphold the constitution are all upstanding citizens of the US, several of whom have earned high level military/LEO awards for valor while serving their country, state and community.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

As far as this little bit “Ah, so you're saying that people who don't own guns and are willing to use them against others, either for personal, religious, philosophical, or any other reasons, are irresponsible. Interesting.” where did you get that? I never said to go on a shooting rampage for shit’s and giggles I said it is every persons responsibility to ensure their own safety, not the governments. The police do not have to save you, if you believe that then you are naive because they can try and if they can they will. But they are NOT obligated to prevent a violent crime. So it is YOUR responsibility to lock your doors, have a plan if shit goes down, and if you feel comfy with it arm yourself so that in the event that someone dose break in with a knife and rapes your wife/daughter you don’t have to wait 30 min for the cops to show up and take a report after it happens. You can just grab your weapon and waste the fuckker on the spot.

 

[eyer]

.C) Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison etc. all dared to raise arms against their homeland.

Theoretically, ok... but technically? Washington did combat - Franklin, Jefferson, Madison did not.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Theoretically, ok... but technically? Washington did combat - Franklin, Jefferson, Madison did not.

yea....technically the big W was the only guy who actually put foot to ass...the rest of them did put their siggy down on the big "dear king of england, blow it out your ass" document.

 

[eyer]

"the big "dear king of england, blow it out your ass" document."

 

[kbate]

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.

So, you toss out a statement, "No citizen militia is going to succeed..." in paragraph one, and then assuming that statement is a universal truth - proceed to use it to validate your theory that Gun Ownership is unnecessary?

We live in a highly policed state. *your para 2* --- in which the police are not required to protect the citizens (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)).

So, That being proven (by law) and obviously true (unlike your circular logic argument against gun ownership). Who is to protect the citizens if not themselves?

You also state that a militia cannot hope to overthrow a state with the most powerful military...

Perhaps you should think about the obvious untruth of that statement as well. And look to your own liberal friend's arguments over the last 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq. Look to the weapons pouring in from other states to assist the rebels (terrorists) who are fighting the Great Satan. Don't you think, perhaps, maybe that Iran might ship some weapons here too, if it might bring down the U.S.? Don't you think 100 million gun owners here in revolt can stop nearly all shipment of food to New York City? I wonder if the chief Engineer operating Hoover Dam's generation plant is an NRA member? Perhaps the Commandant of the Marine Corps also? Hmmm?

 

[Byron In Exile]

A weapon is a nessecary evil.

Okay, that's too much.

It's nec and esse.

Hence, "necessary."

 

[Byron In Exile]

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.

They hadn't, to my knowledge, before that. I would send them $25 or $50 sometimes, when I thought what they were doing had merit. Suddenly, I got that letter, and I was floored.

After I sent them that response, a got a sort of form letter which was obviously crafted by some damage-control committee.

And I never got another solicitation from them after that.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I am a liberal. I hate guns.

I am an American. And I hate staple-guns.

 

[Byron In Exile]

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

Ain't that a daisy?

 

[Byron In Exile]

So, you toss out a statement, "No citizen militia is going to succeed..." in paragraph one, and then assuming that statement is a universal truth - proceed to use it to validate your theory that Gun Ownership is unnecessary?

We live in a highly policed state. *your para 2* --- in which the police are not required to protect the citizens (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)).

So, That being proven (by law) and obviously true (unlike your circular logic argument against gun ownership). Who is to protect the citizens if not themselves?

You also state that a militia cannot hope to overthrow a state with the most powerful military...

Perhaps you should think about the obvious untruth of that statement as well. And look to your own liberal friend's arguments over the last 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq. Look to the weapons pouring in from other states to assist the rebels (terrorists) who are fighting the Great Satan. Don't you think, perhaps, maybe that Iran might ship some weapons here too, if it might bring down the U.S.? Don't you think 100 million gun owners here in revolt can stop nearly all shipment of food to New York City? I wonder if the chief Engineer operating Hoover Dam's generation plant is an NRA member? Perhaps the Commandant of the Marine Corps also? Hmmm?

It's amusing, but you're a cat playing with a punctured lizard, now.

You pretend not to notice it, hoping it will try to escape, so you can puncture it again.

 

[Liar]

Okay, that's too much.

It's nec and esse.

Hence, "necessary."

Me lazy. Me browser has no spelcheque.

And you apparently understood what I was trying to say anyway.

 

[Liar]

I am an American. And I hate staple-guns.

That's pretty much a global sentiment.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Me lazy. Me browser has no spelcheque.

And you apparently understood what I was trying to say anyway.

Me don't use spell-check.

 

[Byron In Exile]

That's pretty much a global sentiment.

Ban nails.

 

[Liar]

Me don't use spell-check.

Me foreigner. English is second language.

How gud is your French or whatever?