Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment

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.

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..........

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.

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.

Here's the rub as i see it. The second amendment states this:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."

It appears, at least to me, that the second amendment refers to "militia", not necessaily all individuals. Everyone screams about their constitutional right to pack heat in their waistband or stowed away in the glove compartment of their car providing a feeling of safety while driving through "shady" neighborhoods, while citing the second amendment, which just may be a gross misinterpretation.

jeffbr wrote:

People need to go back to the writings of the founders to understand what the founders were talking about. The 2nd amendment declares that individuals have the right to bear arms, just as the other amendments in the bill of rights declare other individual rights unless they specifically talk about the state. The supremes upheld this notion with their recent ruling. There have been no rulings from the supremes backing the notion that the right to bear arms is only granted to government forces. That would be completely counter to original intent. Go back to the bill of rights and read about "right of the people", "right of the people", "consent of the owner", "right of the people", "no person", "rights of the accused". Chock full of declarations of individual rights, rounded out with the 9th saying that rights not enumerated were still retained by the people, and the 10th stating that the powers not delegated are reserved to the states, or the people.

The gross misinterpretation is made by people who want to deny individual liberty and cede that liberty to the state.

...
Yes... but going back to Colonial Times when we were colonies under English Rule, we were not granted the right to arm ourselves according to the King of England. The English said their Army was our security over here and used their Army to enforce English Law.
The Second Amendment, as stated:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
could easily be interperted as the creation of an Army of American citizens to enforce the newly created laws of the United States of America. The basic premise was, the government was to be comprised of American Citizens... elected by American Citizen (albeit, in the 1700s it was white landowners that were all created equal)... so, the government was a governing body of the people, for the people and selected by the people of this nation.
...
It is similar to the First Amendment's creation regarding the supression of the press in this land... because the English wanted us to only hear what England had to say... and the freedom of Religion... during a time when the Church of England played a great part of English government. We wanted the right of the press to question our government and the freedom to choose which Religion we wished to believe in.
There is a reason WHY those arethe first two Amendments.
...
Add... why was the freedom to refuse the quartering of troops in your home drafted as the Third Amendment?
Because the English Army would regularly takeover landowner's property to house their troops, commendering resources such as food, water and horses that belonged to the Colonists. That's why it is ranked so high.

Collin wrote:

Actually, it's quite sad.

Why, pray tell? I wonder what assumption you might be jumping to...

jeffbr wrote:

A belief in rule of law rather than rule of will. We're not big on kings decreeing things. So we have law. That law is created based on a framework laid out in the constitution that was created by the founders. So when we try to understand the constitution it is often helpful to look at the original intent of the founders to understand the meaning. We are free to change the constitution, but there is a process involved which should be more complicated than just allowing king gw bush & congress to create things like the Patriot Act. This sort of act went completely counter to what the founders envisioned, so that's why you heard a lot of discussion about the constitutionality of the gov't wiretapping its citizens which appeared to be a direct violation of the 4th amendment. Same thing with people who want to ban a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. If we don't want citizens having access to guns, there's a way to do it - amend the constitution. But don't try to change the meaning of the consitution through semantics and expect people to thank you for taking their liberties away.

Look, I understand the need to preserve and protect the constitution. What I don't understand is the obsession some people seem to have with the founding fathers and what these people might have wanted. That doesn't seem necessary at all. We're rational people, I don't need to know what the founding fathers thought about guns 200 years ago, I'd say their opinion doesn't mean much today. They lived over 200 years ago.

A person who lived 200 years ago cannot understand today's world, they couldn't have guessed what would come. Why fall back on their archaic opinions and use that as a sort of basis. Why not discuss things rationally with these core principles in mind.

Didn't the original constitution says black people were property? I mean, things change, more intelligent people come along...

If it's about all about these core principles, which I believe it is otherwise it's even more absurd and insane than I thought, why not mention these principles and act upon them and use those as guidelines rather than suggesting what these fossils might have wanted?