Home > Community Lounge > Politics > Why liberals should love the 2nd Amendment

Why liberals should love the 2nd Amendment

  1. A very interesting and accurate article. I have never understood why liberals always tried to interpret the second amendment the way that they did. Often times they would say that it applies to the National Guard, even though the Supreme Court previously ruled that the National Guard was not the Militia.

    In fact since the National Guard comes under the control of the president whenever he decides to nationalize it, it cannot serve as a check on an oppressive federal government. In order for the second amendment to serve as a check on a potentially oppressive federal government (which the founders feared), the second amendment would either allow private individuals to keep and bear arms, or it would allow the states to create their own independent Militias.

    If the states were allowed to create their own Militias could they have their own infantry and armored forces? Could Texas establish its own air force? Could states like California and Florida have naval forces? It seems that because the liberal arguments regarding the 2nd amendment were just designed to justify eliminating private gun ownership, they were never really thought out. The 2nd amendment had to mean something and since it applied as a right against the powers of the federal govt...it would have to apply to the people as individuals or collectively at the state level.

    In their decision, the Supreme court made what was clearly the most logical and reasonable conclusion, especially since there are already 300 million guns in the United States. At least 40 state constitutions recognize an individual right to bear arms, and many of them such as the one in my state of Michigan do not mention a militia. Most liberals would have been horrified if the Supreme court would have ruled that the 2nd amendment only applied to state Militias and in subsequent years many western and southern states began to actually create Militias.
     
  2. Perhaps a better question is, Why are gun nuts at odds with the rest of the civilized world?
     
  3. It's 2010, the people who advocate guns are the degenerates, ya know, the red state retards.
     
  4. Jewish liberals are not against gun ownership. They know what happened after Hitler disarmed German individuals...
     
  5. is there a contest somewhere for making the most obnoxious posts? Does this moron get paid by the word to try to get us to suspend reason?
     
  6. I live in California (hardly a red state), and I've been a competitive shooter for over 20 years. I've shot with thousands of men and women at more tournaments than I can count, and at least 30% of my fellow competitors are liberal democrats. One of leading gun rights forums (www.calguns.net) has many members who are liberal democrats and who will be supporting the very liberal Jerry Brown for governor of California. Jerry Brown is himself a gun owner and gun rights advocate who has stated unequivocally that "Gun ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution."


     
  7. When the 2nd amendment was written, the government was only using muskets so the people having muskets actually stood a chance of overthrowing the government if they got out of hand. Today the government has daisy cutters, JDAMs, apache longbows, and a host of other weapons that citizens have no access to. Kind of an unfair advantage nowadays, no matter how much unrestricted access you give the people to weapons.
     
  8. "When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts.""

    Gayfly1 checklist:

    1) Check rational thought at the door...Done

    2)Dismiss gun owners as "gun nuts"...Done

    3)Spew liberal bullshit like a robot...Done

    4)Look ridiculous arguing over the US second amendment while residing in Canada... Done

    (you may want to actually READ the article Gabby)http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment


    On a more positive note I ran across a video of Gayfly and his buddies when he was in college. You go girl!

    <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lt9iIe3LaRY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lt9iIe3LaRY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
     
  9. That's right, and in several months it will be 2011 and you'll still be a dumb fuck shit for brains liberal moron.
     
  10. Yea, but it came from YOUR inventory not his. ????





    :D
     
  11. Youtube is my inventory??

    Some more liberal "logic" I presume.
     
  12. There are 700 accidental deaths in the US due to guns, most of them are children.

    Almost 200,000 non-fatal injuries due to guns, many of them requiring ER trauma visits.

    guns for hunting should be kept in hunting lodges or shooting ranges, not in homes.
     
  13. There are an average of almost 34,000 deaths per year in auto accidents and over 3 MILLION injuries many of them requiring ER visits.

    Obviously automobiles should be kept in the garage.
     
  14. What you say is true, but the founding fathers also considered gun ownership to be imperative for personal protection. Thomas Jefferson said, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

    Esteemed liberal Consitutional law professor Sanford Levinson (who has degrees from Yale, Harvard and Stanford and is personally against gun ownership) argues that the founders clearly wrote the Constitution with the intent to give individuals the right to keep and bear arms. He wrote, "The structure of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights proves that the right to bear arms is an individual right, rather than a collective one. The collective rights idea that the Second Amendment can only be viewed in terms of state or federal power ignores the implication that might be drawn from the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: the citizenry itself can be viewed as an important third component of republican governance as far as it stands ready to defend republican liberty against the depredations of the other two structures, however futile that might appear as a practical matter." Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 YALE L.J. 637, 651 (1989).



     
  15. Over 13,000 people died falling and over 3,000 died drowning (341 in bathtubs).

    http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

    Over 500 people a year in the US get hit by lighting, and about 50 get killed. The solution to that problem was given to us by the great professional golfer, Lee Trevino, who was himself hit by lightning. He said that if there's lightning just hold up a 1-iron... "Because not even God can hit a 1-iron."

     
  16. +1
     
  17. Over 1 million people die in the US every year from cardiovascular disease or heart disease.

    Obviously red meat should be illegal.
     
  18. Funny how the blue state retards have the highest murder rates in the country.


     
  19. I think you and I both know these are silly arguments about red meat and cars. We do have very strict laws protecting children in autos. Children can't sit in the front seat and all states require child seats. Yet there are No laws that protect children in homes where parents decide to keep guns. I have great memories of going hunting with my father, but as a 7 year old kid sure enough I found his hunting rifles and would pretend play. Thank goodness I never found the cartridges. Every year 700 people, mostly children die of gun shot wounds and thousands others are seriously injuried. Guns don't belong in homes.
     
  20. If my guns aren't in my home, then I can't protect myself or my family, can I? Even though we live in what most people would call an "upscale" area, gang activity is on the increase and gang-related crimes are now occuring on our streets, especially at night as gangs become more brazen. Less than a year ago an elderly couple was taken hostage during a break-in and the man was killed. This happened less than six blocks from our house.

    It's unfortunate that some parents are irresponsible with their guns, but many parents are also irresponsible with children in cars, around swimming pools, etc. resulting in thousands of deaths each year. I recently saw an article about a child that fell out of an open window and died. What next? Do we ban windows? Or do we allow windows, but make it illegal to open them? The problem is irresponsible parents, not cars, pools, windows or guns.

    My wife and I have two children. At our home we have guns, cars, a swimming pool and windows that open. It's our responsibility to make sure that our children are safe.



     
  21. (Year 2000 numbers)
    Over 2000 children die from abuse of parents and care givers every year. Apparently parents don't belong in the home either.

    Over 1000 children die from drowning every year, obviously pools don't belong in or near homes.

    Roughly 2000 children die from fire each year. Obviously matches, lighters and space heaters don't belong in homes.

    "Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional deaths to children. In the United States in 2000, 6,466 children were killed in motor vehicle crashes."
    Despite the strict laws already on the books.


    And you're worried about 700 deaths from firearms?
    You may want to rethink your priorities.
     
  22. Your dad is an idiot for not locking his guns up with kids around and you grew up to be a liberal asshole. How about I worry about my house and you worry about your own fucking house.
     
  23. When I see you guys crossing over to help out on the First Amendment (the ground-zero mosque being case number one; only Ron Paul, as usual, has shown any courage on this question) I'll consider crossing over to help out on the Second, which is after all, a secondary priority, considering the order in the Bill of Rights, eh?
    Until then, fuck off.
     
  24. I'm over. I believe the Muslim's have a constitutionally protected right to build their mosque two blocks from ground zero. I think it's a bad idea to build it there because it causes additional suffering to people who have already suffered greatly, but their right to do it is unquestionable to me. I put it in the same category as the church that's going to burn Korans on September 11th. I think they have every right to do it as a matter of freedom of expression, but I think it's a bad idea to stereotype and intentionally insult an entire group of people because of their religion.

    Almost all my shooting buddies feel exactly the same way I do. Now, how about you hop in and help protect my constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?


     
  25. Bearmountain...if you allow the actions of irresponsible people or criminals to determine which rights that responsible and law abiding citizens have then eventually you will have willing accepted authoritarian rule. Would you allow the internet to be shut down in order to protect children from child predators? I am a responsible gun owner without a criminal record or intent, but under your thinking I cannot have a gun in my home for self defense...even though I do not have children? That right is denied me because of the actions of others? Take a moment, seriously, and think about where policies like that lead.
     
  26. Quite honestly, prior to joining this place I sounded just like that guy on the Daily Kos. But seeing the drooling idiocy down here in P&R, which occasionally gets displayed up in the Economics forum, combined with my real-life encounters with flesh&blood conservatives, has seriously put me off.
    Some amazing number thinks Obama wasn't born here; some other amazing number thinks he's a Moslem; the list goes on and on.
    Liberty to a typical right-winger consists of two things: the right to bear arms, and the right to make money while paying no taxes on any of it. If you don't believe me, just look around here on P&R, and tell me I'm wrong.
    I know, and can tell you exactly where it's laid out in the Federalist Papers, why that amendment is in there, and what the Founders defined as a militia, so I know exactly what that writer is talking about.
    I also know that right-wingers get exercised all the time when the ACLU attempts to hold back the constant attempts on the part of the government to infringe some freedom or other, and then turn around and yell about government intrusion as soon as it applies to firearms or explosives.
    If all your buddies really do feel that way about the mosque, by the way, why are the right-wing politicians almost universally arguing so hard against it? They must be seeing something in their constituency. What could that be?
     
  27. I don't know of a single person (conservative or otherwise) who's arguing against the mosque on constitutional grounds. I know many people who think it's a bad idea because of the pain it causes. Those are two very different things.


     
  28. 80 Million gun owners is a very very formidable check on tyranny...do not kid yourself. I know that the govt has JDAMs and armored forces and attack helicopters...etc, but that is not enough against the people as a whole. I am not talking about 2000 militia men...I mean the american people as a whole. There just are not enough soldiers sailors and marines to face off against and hold sooo many armed citizens. Take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if the govt used massive amounts of airpower they would rule over rubble.

    The second amendment is not meant as a means of people attacking the govt, it is meant as an ultimate check against the govt even attempting to rule the american people by force. The cost would be sooo high and the damage so extensive, that it would just be too impractical to even attempt such a foolish thing. This is the same sort of logic that kept the USA and the USSR from attacking each other and their close allies for 50 years. We all lived under MADD and although no one wants to admit it...it did prevent World War III.
     
  29. The ACLU argued for the right of the Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood, regardless of the pain that might cause.
    Liberty isn't something you get to divide up, and it's no one's business but NYC's and the folks building it where that mosque goes.
    Like I said, when I see you guys realizing this kind of thing, I'll speak up. Not before then.
     
  30. So you're saying that Muslims can exercise their first ammendment right to build their mosque two blocks from ground zero; but those that oppose it must sit silently and have no first ammendment right to say that it's causing great pain to the families of the 9/11 victims.

     
  31. They can say whatever they want. Show me where I said they couldn't.
    I am saying this, and this only: the First Amendment comes first. Not only that, within the First Amendment, religious freedom is the very first thing mentioned, and all of the rights enumerated in the First Amendment are enumerated without condition of any sort.
    So, they can say the Earth is flat, they can espouse Nazism, Communism, or any other ism they feel like. Just don't come back and tell me that these same people are somehow lovers of liberty, when their words show that they're not.
     
  32. Please give the name of one person who has said that Muslims have no constitutional right to build the mosque. I have been unable to find a single person making that argument.

    What I see is two sides exercising their First Ammendment rights, and I believe that both sides rights should be fully and equally protected.


     
  33. You obviously didn't read my reply. That entire post is made of burning straw.
    Go back and read what I wrote.
     
  34. I'm trying to have a respectful discussion about protecting both sides in this Constitutional debate. Protecting both sides is the foundation of liberty.

    If you don't want to talk about it anymore, that's fine; but "burning straw" insults are unnecessary.


     
  35. No, it's an accurate characterization: it's one thing to say someone has a right to be against that mosque. I've never and would never argue that point, but you keep raising it as if I've somehow argued it. That's a strawman.
    What I am arguing, and what you are either deliberately missing or not is this: it's typical of the right that they would argue against the mosque, because freedoms outside of the right to make money and bear arms are freedoms they're not interested in.
    You can easily infer this from the behavior of the politicians who represent the right, almost all of whom have taken a strong position against the mosque.
    The Second Amendment is there to protect what's in the First Amendment. It becomes useless to argue vehemently for the Second if you find any exercise of the liberties guaranteed in the First to be offensive. That makes the Second an empty shell.
    If that's not clear, I can't help you.
     
  36. So why dont you kindly point me to the legislation which has taken away muslims right to practice their religion.... Oh yeah i forgot you cant find any......

    So because its "typical of the right" to say something perhaps it should not be said, is this what you are implying? Is there any less meaning in what right wingers say because they stand up for certain values? Perhaps because the left stands up repeatedly for certain values we shoulde strip them of their constitutional rights.... Would this make you happy? I could find all kinds of situations where the left has shattered the constitution, and it would not just be through their thoughts/words it would be through actual legislation.

    Maybe we should change the dialogue to something you would find more suitable.... Perhaps when we all tow your line we would be properly following the "constitution."

    Tinfoil is a dumbass.
     
  37. That's a libtard red herring like the race card is for disagreeing with Obama's policies. So you fuck off.
     
  38. Did you even read the article? Apparently not.
     
  39. +1 :)
     
  40. While the insults to my above post were thick and numerous, it seems no one was able to answer the question, which was not rhetorical.
     
  41. Because we're not liberal pansy sheep like you, Gayfly. If supporting OUR Constitution makes us "gun nuts" and "at odds" with you or anyone else, fuck you and fuck them.
     
  42. Leave it up to an egomaniac to quote his own post and wonder why no one wants anything to do with him.......
     
  43. You guys can't connect the dots in your own posts, and you wonder why I quoted my post from the first page of this thread to remind you that it remained unanswered? Although it was insulted to no end, the question in my post did, after all, remain unanswered. You should be thankful that I tried to cut through your haze and confusion by placing the matter in front of your face and ringing a bell.
     
  44. There are many things that make America great. But people like you, and the Second Amendement are not among them. People like you are a virus that impedes potential. The Second Amendment has all the present day applicability of a buggy whip but with much more serious and far reaching consequences.
     
  45. More haughty arrogance from the former bank teller that just won't mind his own GD business.
     
  46. It's possible the toughguy, chest-drumming of some gun owners is what turns off many. It's nonsense. Anyone can shoot a gun. The louder they crow about how tough they are, and how "pansy" others are, the more they reinforce the sense that they themselves are the insecure.

    Anyway, as to the larger argument, it's a waste of time. The guns are out there. There is no practical way to get them back, except using means that would reveal why it's important for them to be out there in the first place.

    I'm not happy with the contradiction that guns should be legal for anyone (lawful entities), if they're not crazy, and that we don't know they're crazy until they shoot up a school or restaurant. But my unease doesn't change the fact the guns are out there already.
     
  47. Precisely. The problem with wide scale gun ownership is that idiots can get their hands on gund and legally own them. And not just ordinary guns, but guns on steroids. There cannot be preemptive action. Therefore, the authorities must wait until a tragedy occurs before they can act. Preventative measures currently in place are largely laughable. Why is the idiot contingent so enamored of guns? Because an idiot with a gun suddenly feels smarter, more powerful and important. Always a good combo, eh?
     
  48. All those guns that you speak of do a good job of keeping the marxist-leftist types from subjegating the rest of us.

    Those guns are a guarantee of Freedom.
     
  49. Reminds me a lot of a flaming liberal with a useless liberal arts degree.
     
  50. Indeed. I suggest you sleep under your bed with your gun at your side.
     
  51. The same could be said about guys who put hydraulics or rims on a car, does that mean we should outlaw them? I dont own a gun nore do i ever intend to own one, but i dont want to take away someone elses right to own one because it is largely an ego thing for some gun owners.

     
  52. MBA '84. Thanks for asking. Tell me about your degree. I don't usually talk about education, but you are the one who brought it up.
     
  53. LOL!!!!!!!! :)
     
  54. To be clear, I myself am not against gun ownership. I don't even support registration. I merely point out a couple of contradictions.
     
  55. The funny thing about hearing libtards weigh in on guns, is their failure to acknowledge that the vast, vast per capita majority of gun crime in the U.S. (and the U.K.) is committed by minorities.

    American whites commit murder at no higher "rate" than whites in Canada, Australia, Germany etc.

    By the same token, gun laws are used to selectively prosecute minorities at a far greater degree than they're employed to lock up white folks. If Placido Burress were a white, female nurse who was carrying a gun for protection, do any of us think he (she) would be serving a two year term in prison?
     
  56. Based on this, it would follow then, that wherever in time and space that we look at the data for a "white" group, they will be found to have a lower per capita crime rate than the majority population they live amongst. Would that be your belief?
     
  57. Could you re-state your question? "Time and space"? Sorry but I don't have crime data going back to the origins of human activity in Sumeria or Mesopotamia.
    :)
     
  58. Would we find that per capita crime rates for "whites" are the same in, say Switzerland, as they are for "whites" in the US, today?
     
  59. To answer your question, yes. Btw: Switzerland isn't the best example for us 2nd amendment folks. While it has the epitome of lax gun laws-ownership for males is almost compulsory, Switzerland also has a fairly high homicide rate.

    Keep in mind, accurately figuring out "white" crime rates in the U.S. is difficult data to crunch. The FBI only classifies "race" as white, black and Asian. Hence, most Latino's, i.e. Mexican gangs in Los Angeles, are classified as "white."

    Also, comparing black vs. white becomes difficult because the statistics only deal with arrests. 99.9% of whites who kill their wife or schoolmates are apprehended. Not so, for black gang killings in Chicago where only a bit more than a third of murders are "solved." Which means that those 2/3rds "unsolved", that were certainly committed by blacks, will not be accounted for because no arrest was made.
     
  60. You're a sorry excuse for a Canadian so WTF would you know about what makes America great, thunderpussy?
    Potential for what, a socialist welfare state? Goddamn right I'll impede that!
    Did you even read the article in the OP before spewing your verbal diarrhea? Apparently not.
     
  61. I read the article. I also read the Federalist Papers.
    Do you have a point, or are you just stroking yourself?
     
  62. Then you should have known that the Second Amendment exists for a lot more than protecting the First Amendment. You must have missed it because you were stroking yourself (thanks for the insight on why your posts are so stupid BTW).
     
  63. You can hiss and spit all you want. I am a free citizen. You are a subject.

    Without guns you liberal assholes would have the rest of us in camps for reeducation.
     
  64. That's the nice thing about owning a firearm Gabby, you don't need to hide under the bed.