Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment

69charger

Who knew such a good read could come from such a heinous website

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/19133/5152/392/496931

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally. In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of "gun nuts"? Why do they complain about the "radical extremist agenda of the NRA"? Why do they argue for greater restrictions?

Why do they start performing mental gymnastics worthy of a position in Bush's Department of Justice to rationalize what they consider "reasonable" infringement of one of our most basic, fundamental, and revolutionary -- that's right, revolutionary -- civil liberties?

Why do they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote Democrat? Why are they so dismissive of approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns?

And why is their approach to the Second Amendment so different from their approach to all the others?

Well, if conversations on this blog about the issue of guns are in any way indicative of the way other liberals feel, maybe this stems from a basic misunderstanding.

So, allow me to attempt to explain the Second Amendment in a way that liberals should be able to endorse. [CONTINUED...]

SweetAndLow

no

Smellyman2

I can buy things made to kill other people or animals, but can't buy a joint.


America is fucked up in so many ways.

Open

Smellyman wrote:

I can buy things made to kill other people or animals, but can't buy a joint.


America is fucked up in so many ways.

We need guns b/c we dont have an army.

eyedclaar

I am a liberal who supports gun control while owning a lot of guns. I also support birth control while owning a dick. Go figure...

LikeAnOcean

Well I'm a liberal who is pro-guns. Pro-drug legalization, pro-choice.. I guess that makes me more libertarian.

SpinMyWorldToBlack

Smellyman wrote:

I can buy things made to kill other people or animals, but can't buy a joint.


America is fucked up in so many ways.

I can buy things to protect my home or myself if someone wants to harm me or my family, but I can't buy a joint that makes me stupid and alters my thinking and perceptions.

I think America has got this right.

jeffbr

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Well I'm a liberal who is pro-guns. Pro-drug legalization, pro-choice.. I guess that makes me more libertarian.

Yup. I'm pro-choice about everything from guns to drugs to reproductive rights to marriage to adults entering into mutually beneficial contracts for whatever they want to do, etc... Conservatives who focus on the 2nd Amendment and try to ignore the 4th Amendment are as silly as liberals who focus on the 1st and/or 4th Amendments and try to downplay the 2nd Amendment.

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

Yup. I'm pro-choice about everything from guns to drugs to reproductive rights to marriage to adults entering into mutually beneficial contracts for whatever they want to do, etc... Conservatives who focus on the 2nd Amendment and try to ignore the 4th Amendment are as silly as liberals who focus on the 1st and/or 4th Amendments and try to downplay the 2nd Amendment.

I have a question for you jeffbr. I'm asking, because I see my own views heading much more in the direction of yours, or farfromglorified's views...and yet I think there are differences....

Let's use abortion as an example (unless you'd prefer something else).

It sounds like you are pro-choice with abortion, then. Do you personally believe in abortion for yourself (or loved ones)?

jeffbr

angelica wrote:

I have a question for you jeffbr. I'm asking, because I see my own views heading much more in the direction of yours, or farfromglorified's views...and yet I think there are differences....

Let's use abortion as an example (unless you'd prefer something else).

It sounds like you are pro-choice with abortion, then. Do you personally believe in abortion for yourself (or loved ones)?

Abortion is a tough issue. I have no idea if I would be able to decide to abort a fetus (if I was given the option). I've got 2 great kids, and I can't imagine having terminated a pregnancy. On the other hand, if my almost 18 year old daughter came home and said she was pregnant, I would certainly have her consider her options, including abortion. She's about to head to college in Fall, and having a child would completely and permanently alter her life. I would support whatever decision she made. I don't believe that the government should be involved in that very personal and important choice.

On the opposite end of life I also believe the government should not be involved in the very personal and important decision to terminate ones own life. If quality of life is gone, and everyone around me is being burndend by my existence, or if I was in unbearable terminal pain, I would like to have the option of ending it and letting everyone move on. So I'm pro-choice at that end as well.

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

Abortion is a tough issue. I have no idea if I would be able to decide to abort a fetus (if I was given the option). I've got 2 great kids, and I can't imagine having terminated a pregnancy. On the other hand, if my almost 18 year old daughter came home and said she was pregnant, I would certainly have her consider her options, including abortion. She's about to head to college in Fall, and having a child would completely and permanently alter her life. I would support whatever decision she made. I don't believe that the government should be involved in that very personal and important choice.

On the opposite end of life I also believe the government should not be involved in the very personal and important decision to terminate ones own life. If quality of life is gone, and everyone around me is being burndend by my existence, or if I was in unbearable terminal pain, I would like to have the option of ending it and letting everyone move on. So I'm pro-choice at that end as well.

I agree with you on the options. I agree, in theory in pro-choice on all subjects. Because, really, we all have choice. And our manmade systems can be pretty unrealistic.

I also agree about having all options, and their causes/effects presented in order to facilitate true healthy decision-making.

My issue, is in being practical. I'm of the Ron Paul school of abortion-thought. And it works the same with me for guns, drugs, etc...I support choice. However, I can't personally condone any one of them. That doesn't ethically work for me. Therefore, I can't use my personal power to condone/support or play a part in people using drugs, having abortions or using guns. I feel to do so makes me an accessory. So myself, and millions of others can't bring these changes into effect.

This would be different if the laws magically changed on their own, without my subjective input. And people were free to live as they see fit.

(to me, that's different than presenting someone with their options, such as abortion)

So, how do you feel with the personally condoning part? Are you willing to contribute to the abortion, or drugs, or guns, knowing what you may become somewhat accountable for?

jeffbr

angelica wrote:

So, how do you feel with the personally condoning part? Are you willing to contribute to the abortion, or drugs, or guns, knowing what you may become somewhat accountable for?

I would feel badly for condoning or contributing to the decision of someone having an abortion if that decision negatively affected their life. If it didn't negatively affect their life I would not be happy either way, but I guess would rationalize that the decision to have an abortion led to other positive things happening in her life (work, school, relationships, whatever).

As far as condoning drug use, I don't necessarily (except for responsible alcohol use). I enjoy a glass of wine or two with dinner, or coctails with friends. If someone wants to smoke pot, I don't care (as long as it isn't in my home or car). I wouldn't encourage someone to smoke a bowl (except euphemistically -- trying to get them to relax). But I wouldn't pass legislation that punishes them for sitting at home smoking.

I condone the responsible and lawful use of guns for self-defense, collecting, and sport. I am not a hunter, and not much of a shooter anymore. I haven't fired a handgun or rifle in a few years. But I am a proponent of people using them responsibly, and I am opposed to the notion that the government has the ability to deny law-abiding citizens a consitutionally protected right.

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

I would feel badly for condoning or contributing to the decision of someone having an abortion if that decision negatively affected their life. If it didn't negatively affect their life I would not be happy either way, but I guess would rationalize that the decision to have an abortion led to other positive things happening in her life (work, school, relationships, whatever).

As far as condoning drug use, I don't necessarily (except for responsible alcohol use). I enjoy a glass of wine or two with dinner, or coctails with friends. If someone wants to smoke pot, I don't care (as long as it isn't in my home or car). I wouldn't encourage someone to smoke a bowl (except euphemistically -- trying to get them to relax). But I wouldn't pass legislation that punishes them for sitting at home smoking.

I condone the responsible and lawful use of guns for self-defense, collecting, and sport. I am not a hunter, and not much of a shooter anymore. I haven't fired a handgun or rifle in a few years. But I am a proponent of people using them responsibly, and I am opposed to the notion that the government has the ability to deny law-abiding citizens a consitutionally protected right.

I agree with you about not wanting to legislate people's choices, and being unwilling to play a part in that. To me it's specifically about the opposite. So you would be willing to get rid of laws that limit choices, even though it will undoubtedly lead to poor consequences?

jeffbr

angelica wrote:

I agree with you about not wanting to legislate people's choices, and being unwilling to play a part in that. To me it's specifically about the opposite. So you would be willing to get rid of laws that limit choices, even though it will undoubtedly lead to poor consequences?

I would be willing to get rid of limiting laws. I think specifically about alcohol. It was made illegal for a time, and people who chose to use it became criminals. The legislation was created by people for what probably seemed like a good reason - to keep people from becoming addicted, or doing stupid things under the influence. The removal of the laws prohibiting the use and sale of alcohol have probably lead to many poor consequences. But many more people can and do enjoy alcohol responsibly and can do so without being criminals. I see smoking pot to be equivalent to drinking alcohol. It can be done responsibly and can be both entertaining and/or theraputic for the user. But right now people are criminals for using it. If it were legalized, you'd certainly see some negative consequences. But you'd also see that many of us wouldn't use it even though it is legal (lots of people don't drink or smoke cigarettes either), and it would remove both the criminal element of the growers/dealers, and the excitement of doing something illegal or countercultural. So go bring this back around, I'm not willing to sacrifice personal liberties for a little bit of temporary safety and the notion that we're avoiding negative consequences. If negative consequences were the driving factor for decisions, we wouldn't let people ride motorcycles or build swimming pools.

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

I would be willing to get rid of limiting laws. I think specifically about alcohol. It was made illegal for a time, and people who chose to use it became criminals. The legislation was created by people for what probably seemed like a good reason - to keep people from becoming addicted, or doing stupid things under the influence. The removal of the laws prohibiting the use and sale of alcohol have probably lead to many poor consequences. But many more people can and do enjoy alcohol responsibly and can do so without being criminals. I see smoking pot to be equivalent to drinking alcohol. It can be done responsibly and can be both entertaining and/or theraputic for the user. But right now people are criminals for using it. If it were legalized, you'd certainly see some negative consequences. But you'd also see that many of us wouldn't use it even though it is legal (lots of people don't drink or smoke cigarettes either), and it would remove both the criminal element of the growers/dealers, and the excitement of doing something illegal or countercultural. So go bring this back around, I'm not willing to sacrifice personal liberties for a little bit of temporary safety and the notion that we're avoiding negative consequences. If negative consequences were the driving factor for decisions, we wouldn't let people ride motorcycles or build swimming pools.

I agree with this all. And I'm still allowing my morality to unfold and continue revealing itself to me as we speak...

Cosmo

The problem here is not with people's opposition or support of guns... it's your labeling people 'Liberal' or 'Conservative'. That is why America is divided. America is divided because people view politics as sports... pick a team and defeat the other team.
Guess what? America loses.

rebornFixer

jeffbr wrote:

Yup. I'm pro-choice about everything from guns to drugs to reproductive rights to marriage to adults entering into mutually beneficial contracts for whatever they want to do, etc... Conservatives who focus on the 2nd Amendment and try to ignore the 4th Amendment are as silly as liberals who focus on the 1st and/or 4th Amendments and try to downplay the 2nd Amendment.

Ditto.

Cosmo

When it comes to guns... most people are not asking that all guns be collected. Just better regulations to make them tougher to get in certain parts of the country.
Example... A Wal-Mart selling guns in Somplace, Nebraska is completely different than a Wal-Mart selling guns in Compton, California. If those of us who live relatively close to Compton want to limit the availability of guns... let us decide. We are not trying to restrict guns in Nebraska... so you Nebraska NRA members... don't come to California to protest us... let us decide what we want.
It isn't taking away our Civil Rights, as the article implies... it's giving us the right for us to choose, collectively, what is best for the majority of us.

angelica

Cosmo wrote:

If those of us who live relatively close to Compton want to limit the availability of guns... let us decide.

I am totally with you on this! There is not an objective solution. It's about what works for individuals, or certain groups/areas.

69charger

eyedclaar wrote:

I am a liberal who supports gun control while owning a lot of guns. I also support birth control while owning a dick. Go figure...

If you're irresponsible with the use of either your gun or your dick you have to be responsible for the consequences. Why the need for "restrictions"?

Should the government regulate penis size, ejaculate flow rate, or testicular capacity?

69charger

angelica wrote:

I am totally with you on this! There is not an objective solution. It's about what works for individuals, or certain groups/areas.

Then why have a federal government at all? We are all Americans living in America. We should be bound be the same core values. Like it or not, our constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms just as it gives us the right to say whatever we want. There are consequences for abusing both rights. There should be a restriction on neither.

angelica

69charger wrote:

Then why have a federal government at all? We are all Americans living in America. We should be bound be the same core values. Like it or not, our constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms just as it gives us the right to say whatever we want. There are consequences for abusing both rights. There should be a restriction on neither.

If it were up to me, there wouldn't be...

National mindsets are serving purposes for the majority at this time...and yet they are on their way out.

jeffbr

Cosmo wrote:

It isn't taking away our Civil Rights, as the article implies... it's giving us the right for us to choose, collectively, what is best for the majority of us.

What if the majority of Christians in Compton outlaw or severely restrict the practice of Islam, then, since it should be about what's best for the majority?

Much of the protections of liberty have to do with fighting the tyranny of the majority.

As far as tightening up regulations, which regulations, not currently on the books would you add? In many cases, enforcing existing laws would probably solve most of your issues. But for some reason, people prefer to cede additional liberties to the government instead of figuring out how to efficiently and effectively make our current laws work.

69charger

angelica wrote:

If it were up to me, there wouldn't be...

National mindsets are serving purposes for the majority at this time...and yet they are on their way out.

Good luck with that.

If you're refeering to the upcoming election I'll refer you to a familiar quote...

"Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!"

angelica

69charger wrote:

Good luck with that.

If you're refeering to the upcoming election I'll refer you to a familiar quote...

"Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!"

I'm totally with you....it's the same dude alright...


What I mean is that evolutionarily, the non working systems are falling away as we speak. What this means is that those who continue to maladapt will live the consequences. The 'new' systems are all around us, for when people start to wake up, or for those who are adaptive right now.

Hint: new, adaptive systems are not about majority rules at the expense of the minority.

writersu

69charger wrote:

Who knew such a good read could come from such a heinous website

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/19133/5152/392/496931

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally. In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of "gun nuts"? Why do they complain about the "radical extremist agenda of the NRA"? Why do they argue for greater restrictions?

Why do they start performing mental gymnastics worthy of a position in Bush's Department of Justice to rationalize what they consider "reasonable" infringement of one of our most basic, fundamental, and revolutionary -- that's right, revolutionary -- civil liberties?

Why do they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote Democrat? Why are they so dismissive of approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns?

And why is their approach to the Second Amendment so different from their approach to all the others?

Well, if conversations on this blog about the issue of guns are in any way indicative of the way other liberals feel, maybe this stems from a basic misunderstanding.

So, allow me to attempt to explain the Second Amendment in a way that liberals should be able to endorse. [CONTINUED...]

Because I have found most liberals to be more close minded than Republicans.

Yeah, (sorry) but it's all "freedom of speech" .... until I mention I like Bush....

it's all "freedom of religion" .... until I mention I am a Christian

it's all "freedom of choice" ....until I mention my choice is pro death penalty for certain criminals

it's all "freedom of sex"....until I mention that I don't think sex is free..........

writersu

eyedclaar wrote:

I am a liberal who supports gun control while owning a lot of guns. I also support birth control while owning a dick. Go figure...

That is hilarious!!

Good for you on the ownership thing.

writersu

jeffbr wrote:

Abortion is a tough issue. I have no idea if I would be able to decide to abort a fetus (if I was given the option). I've got 2 great kids, and I can't imagine having terminated a pregnancy. On the other hand, if my almost 18 year old daughter came home and said she was pregnant, I would certainly have her consider her options, including abortion. She's about to head to college in Fall, and having a child would completely and permanently alter her life. I would support whatever decision she made. I don't believe that the government should be involved in that very personal and important choice.

On the opposite end of life I also believe the government should not be involved in the very personal and important decision to terminate ones own life. If quality of life is gone, and everyone around me is being burndend by my existence, or if I was in unbearable terminal pain, I would like to have the option of ending it and letting everyone move on. So I'm pro-choice at that end as well.

I so agree.

like I have said as well, I am for the war, but now I have a 17 year old son, a 16 yr old son.....and 14......

so in terms of them in the war......

totally different spin.

Cosmo

jeffbr wrote:

What if the majority of Christians in Compton outlaw or severely restrict the practice of Islam, then, since it should be about what's best for the majority?

Much of the protections of liberty have to do with fighting the tyranny of the majority.

As far as tightening up regulations, which regulations, not currently on the books would you add? In many cases, enforcing existing laws would probably solve most of your issues. But for some reason, people prefer to cede additional liberties to the government instead of figuring out how to efficiently and effectively make our current laws work.

...
When people practicing Islam (or any other religion) in their mosques in Compton results in deaths on the streets of Los Angeles, we'll address that issue.
And I do support the enforcement of current laws on the books. One of those laws is it is illegal to posess an unregistered firearm. Use of a firearm, including firing it within city limits, should result in jail time. Add to the sentence if the gun is deemed illegal... and more time if injury or death results.
California wants to restrict the types of firearms allowed for sale... and county and city governments want to place even greater limits on availability. Los Angeles is probably a lot different from Redmond. No one here wants to restrict your rights in Redmond. And if you decide to move to Los Angeles, you should obey the laws and restrictions we have in place here... like them or not.
For example, in Tennessee, you can bring a gun into a bar. That works in Tennessee, but we don't want Tennessee law to apply to Los Angeles. If you want to carry a gun into a bar in Tennessee... go to Tennessee.

Cosmo

writersu wrote:

Because I have found most liberals to be more close minded than Republicans.

Yeah, (sorry) but it's all "freedom of speech" .... until I mention I like Bush....

it's all "freedom of religion" .... until I mention I am a Christian

it's all "freedom of choice" ....until I mention my choice is pro death penalty for certain criminals

it's all "freedom of sex"....until I mention that I don't think sex is free..........

...
No one says you cannot express your rights to support president Bush. You do so at your own risk. People will argue points on why they don't like President Bush... but, no one is forcing you to not like him.
...
You can practice Christianity (or any other religion). That is your personal choice and no oneis out to restrict you from practicing it. But when you try to pass legislation that forces me to obey Christian (or any other religion) belief, then it imposes a restriction on my Constitutional rights. Also, there is a difference between reading the Bible and shouting out Biblical passages through a bullhorn. If I were on the street, I would expect the police to stop me if I was singing, 'Porch' at the top of my horrible singing voice or shouting out the book of 'Leviticus' through a bullhorn. It's not what I'm saying... it's the fact that I am disturbing the peace.
...
And it is your right to support the death penalty. I oppose the Death Penalty because I do not believe the justice system is perfect.
...
And freedom of sex? I don't pay for sex.

Cosmo

writersu wrote:

I so agree.

like I have said as well, I am for the war, but now I have a 17 year old son, a 16 yr old son.....and 14......

so in terms of them in the war......

totally different spin.

...
But when your sons were 12, 11 and 9... it was okay to put someone else's kids in that situation?
I am not anti-War. I am anti-THIS War. We should put our sons and daughters at risk out of necessity, such as Afghanistan... not of our choosing, as with Iraq.