Liberals Supporting 2nd Amendment

[gaijinsamurai]

Gun Rally
Liberals and the NRA have found common cause in a pending supreme court case.
By Ben Adler | NEWSWEEK

Published Feb 26, 2010

From the magazine issue dated Mar 8, 2010

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.

When the constitutional accountability Center launched in 2008, it looked like just another liberal legal-advocacy group, dedicated to "fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution's text and history." The causes it has backed run the standard liberal gamut: among other things, the group supports California's efforts to regulate carbon emissions and pushes for "robust due-process protections for immigrant criminal defendants." So if you were told that the CAC had filed an amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago, a case about gun control to be argued before the Supreme Court this week, you might think it was siding with Chicago, whose restrictions on gun ownership are being challenged.


You would be wrong. For decades, liberals have opposed gun rights on the grounds that the Second Amendment is limited to the establishment of state militias. But some liberal dissenters from this view now say that is too narrow a reading of the Constitution. They contend that it fails to take into account the historical record and contradicts liberals' own reading of the Constitution's protection of individual rights.

CONTINUED HERE......

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234185

[gaijinsamurai]

Although I'm a registered Democrat, one of my biggest criticisms of the party is the outright stupidity and hypocracy of liberals/progressives when it comes to the issue of guns. When it's abortion, gay marriage, and often drug use, they act like libertarians, claiming people ought to be free to engage in whatever acts they want, but because of their fear of firearms, want to restrict the freedoms of those of us who choose to have them. And their claim that the National Guard is the militia does not hold water, especially when one reads the writings of the Founding Fathers and their obvious dislike for limitless government power over the citizenry.
Nice to know there are at least a few who don't follow this narrow minded thinking.

[11 Bravo]

I'd have to wager in any event that there is not enough of them in that party to give it much hope in regards to our 2nd amendment

[Geezah]

Gaij....mate,

You need to cross over to the dark side, there is nothing for you in the party that is not Democratric in anyway shape or formp-)

For one, you have far too many firearms.......

[California Joe]

I know several people, male and female, from Chicago that I'd consider quite "liberal" on social issues and they've all expressed to me that Daley is an idiot and the gun restrictions are completely wrong. You never know with people.

[msnger]

I agree with most Republicans on gun laws.

[JKD]

Most of my Democrat friends are gun owners.

[Blue_0]

I tend to lean heavly towards the democratic party, and I am as pro-2nd admendment as they come.

-- Bluelight

[gaijinsamurai]

Gaij....mate,

You need to cross over to the dark side, there is nothing for you in the party that is not Democratric in anyway shape or formp-)

For one, you have far too many firearms.......

I was originally a Republican, and believe me, I've strongly considered it in the last year.

[gaijinsamurai]

I'd have to wager in any event that there is not enough of them in that party to give it much hope in regards to our 2nd amendment


Sadly, you are probably correct, 11B. I would say that in my state, as well as others in the west, the gun hostility is not so strong, save for California. The most notable exception being Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Portland, who is a politically-correct idiot.

[Spaz]

Sadly, you are probably correct, 11B. I would say that in my state, as well as others in the west, the gun hostility is not so strong, save for California. The most notable exception being Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Portland, who is a politically-correct idiot.
Blumenauer is a dumb shmuck. Along with most of Portland.

While this is interesting, I don't see it gaining momentum quickly or in the long term.

[Hollis]

Sadly, you are probably correct, 11B. I would say that in my state, as well as others in the west, the gun hostility is not so strong, save for California. The most notable exception being Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Portland, who is a politically-correct idiot.


That is the problem with party politics. The heck with what is right, it has to conform to the party's position. If the opponents takes the position A, then we take the opposite of A. At least on appearances. How people vote once elected is another issue. What the electorate sees is the dog and pony show not what happens in the actual course of doing business. Elected officials gave up leading the people to polling what direction the people are heading then getting out in front and then proclaim they are leading the people.

Not much if any proactive gun rights action was done during the Bush's administration. Yet with the current administration, a lot more is being done. I am not saying Obama's administration is orchestrating it. The last year there has been a softening of the anti-2nd Amendment laws.

I see benefits to both parties. Fiscally I am conservative, socially I am liberal. Problem with being pragmatist.

[gaijinsamurai]

Agreed, Hollis. I suppose that part of the reason I haven't bothered to switch parties in recent years is that I don't see a very compelling reason to do so. I really dislike both.

[Geezah]

That is the problem with party politics. The heck with what is right, it has to conform to the party's position. If the opponents takes the position A, then we take the opposite of A. At least on appearances. How people vote once elected is another issue. What the electorate sees is the dog and pony show not what happens in the actual course of doing business. Elected officials gave up leading the people to polling what direction the people are heading then getting out in front and then proclaim they are leading the people.

Not much if any proactive gun rights action was done during the Bush's administration. Yet with the current administration, a lot more is being done. I am not saying Obama's administration is orchestrating it. The last year there has been a softening of the anti-2nd Amendment laws.

I see benefits to both parties. Fiscally I am conservative, socially I am liberal. Problem with being pragmatist.

I have to disagree with you on the highlighted part.

President Bush did not push for another AWB to be put on his desk, which was a major issue for the Left. Also, he placed two Judges to the SC who have helped reverse any crap the Libtards have done over the last 30yrs.
While we may not agree with everything he has done, alot of good was done under his watch. Now, Obama has done SFA, why, because I believe he knows it would kill any chance of sucess the Dems would have in this unpcoming election, so I see them biding their time.

[Hollis]

Even Clinton did not pursue the AWB. Bush could have pushed for better 2nd Amendment bills, but did not. Maybe that was because there was other things on Bush's plate that was more important for him. I don't think the 2nd Amendment was all that important to Bush.

[Geezah]

Even Clinton did not pursue the AWB. Bush could have pushed for better 2nd Amendment bills, but did not. Maybe that was because there was other things on Bush's plate that was more important for him. I don't think the 2nd Amendment was all that important to Bush.

The AWB was put in place while Clinton under his watch, but he also lost his majority rule shortly after, so that may have been a deciding factor, but there is also the fact that along with Ford, Carter and himself they sent a letter to President Bush asking that he not let it expire.
Link (http://feinstein.senate.gov/04Releases/040614-pres-ltr.pdf)

[California Joe]

The way I look at it is, take a Liberal to the range, hook them on shooting...you never know. People are not as rigid or one dimensional as political parties wish they were.

[budgie]

Just a question: could it be that liberal gun owners, while fond of the 2nd amendment, haven't much fear of the government at least imposing some checks, like registration, limited availabilty of automatics and so on?

Just a hypothesis: they may not necessarily feel it's a step toward losing the amendment altogether, whereas the conservative movement uses that fear as a rallying cry against the left.

[Kant]

Just a question from an Australian.

Why is the 2nd Amendment so important, and why does it seem to invoke an almost religous reverance for those on the right?
I know the history and meaning behind it the 2nd Amendment, but surely some people who support the owning of firearms (like me) would have to have some sort of problem with people being able to buy certain guns?

No flaming intended, just trying to see it from an American point of view.

[Hollis]

There are 10 basic amendments that form the Bill of Rights. That is like due process of law, freedom of speech, etc. All are considered to be very important. Also, I do not know any responsible gun owner that advocates irresponsible use of firearms and YES, some people should not own them. I don't know anyone who advocated that everyone should own firearms. There is nothing wrong with lawful ownership and lawful use.

[Kit]

This is a painting of the Battle of Lexington and Concord. A battle of armed colonists versus British trained infantry. This is why Americans are fanatical about gun ownership. It made our nation exist.
|
|
V
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9959/battle20of20lexington20.jpg
Imperial subjects who're armed are harder to rule than those who aren't. Anytime a population is armed, a government has to tread lightly. All totalitarian governments governed unarmed masses.

[gaijinsamurai]

Well said, Kit. Fvck, yeah!

[2495]

This is a painting of the Battle of Lexington and Concord. A battle of armed colonists versus British trained infantry. This is why Americans are fanatical about gun ownership. It made our nation exist.
|
|
V
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9959/battle20of20lexington20.jpg
Imperial subjects who're armed are harder to rule than those who aren't. Anytime a population is armed, a government has to tread lightly. All totalitarian governments governed unarmed masses.


Well said, Kit. Fvck, yeah!

I'm a Brit and I say 'Fvck yeah!' - Nothing wrong with an armed law abiding society - it actually in my experience makes it more polite and alot safer than a nation where only criminals have fire arms.

[gaijinsamurai]

We were all Brits back at The Battle of Lexington. Some of us just didn't see the sense in being ruled the way we were. My mother's father's ancestors were in Massachusetts at the time, and amongst the rebels. One of the regiments that King George III sent over were from my ancestors' old county, The Royal Welch Fusiliers. Perhaps my ancestors were fighting distant cousins.

[2495]

We were all Brits back at The Battle of Lexington. Some of us just didn't see the sense in being ruled the way we were. My mother's father's ancestors were in Massachusetts at the time, and amongst the rebels. One of the regiments that King George III sent over were from my ancestors' old county, The Royal Welch Fusiliers. Perhaps my ancestors were fighting distant cousins.


Sure as hell know which side I would of fought on - damn the Monarchy of the time, set our own rules thanks.

[gaijinsamurai]

The ironic thing is that George III seems like he was one of Britain's cooler monarchs, despite (or because of) his reported mental issues.

[el borracho]

I find it funny that when you speak to people who stereotypically tow their party's line, they seem to have the intent of the 2nd Amendment confused. For example, right-wing republicans who don't find anything wrong with things like The Patriot Act or government wire tapping and are pro-gun ownership. Or unwashed hippie liberals who despise the government and are very anti-gun. The 2nd Amendment was enacted so that citizens could protect themselves from an overbearing and intrusive government, so by that logic someone who disagrees heavily with gov't policies should want to arm themselves, whereas someone who is on board with gov't policy (therefore totally trusting of police and law enforcement) would not have a need to arm themselves.

Yes, I know I'm painting with broad strokes, but I'm just trying to make a point.

[Kant]

There are 10 basic amendments that form the Bill of Rights. That is like due process of law, freedom of speech, etc. All are considered to be very important. Also, I do not know any responsible gun owner that advocates irresponsible use of firearms and YES, some people should not own them. I don't know anyone who advocated that everyone should own firearms. There is nothing wrong with lawful ownership and lawful use.

I wasn't saying that all gun owners advocate that everyone should own firearms. I just don't understand why the 2nd Amendment has become such a polarising issue in the American political arena, and why a compromise hasn't been reached when the Bill of rights has been around for over 200 years.Many people argue that the Second Amendment implies the right to serve in the military, or the right to bear private arms. Then with the differences in syntax and grammar, people say that the 2nd Amendment implies that those members of the militia are those that have the right to bear arms. But that's not my point. My question was to Americans on this board, that why those on the right hand side of politics seem to hold the 2nd Amendment so dear. It just seems that they spend a lot of time and money arguing about it. Looking at the Second Amendment Foundation online, they have details of 14 different lawsuits that they and various other pro-gun associations have against State and federal governments, on subjects from carrying firearms in Parks, to legal residents and their right to bear arms.

From my position it just seems a bit of a fuss over something that should have been sorted out years ago.
I'm an Australian, so my ideas on the Second Amendment aren't important, but I find it interesting which is why I asked the question.

[gaijinsamurai]

I find it funny that when you speak to people who stereotypically tow their party's line, they seem to have the intent of the 2nd Amendment confused. For example, right-wing republicans who don't find anything wrong with things like The Patriot Act or government wire tapping and are pro-gun ownership. Or unwashed hippie liberals who despise the government and are very anti-gun. The 2nd Amendment was enacted so that citizens could protect themselves from an overbearing and intrusive government, so by that logic someone who disagrees heavily with gov't policies should want to arm themselves, whereas someone who is on board with gov't policy (therefore totally trusting of police and law enforcement) would not have a need to arm themselves.

Yes, I know I'm painting with broad strokes, but I'm just trying to make a point.

You made an excellent point, borracho. I found it to be highly hypocritical when a lot of right-wingers became seemingly "anti-government" all of a sudden, during the Clinton Administration, after decades of silence when government agencies had conducted controversial ops against left-wingers. Remember the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, and his "jackbooted government thugs" comment, that had GHW Bush resign his lifetime NRA membership?

Lefties like the ACLU are just as hypocritical, when they conveniently choose to interpret the Second Amendment as applying to the National Guard as "the militia", because they happen to have a personal dislike for firearms.

If one values freedom, they respect the fact that it requires tolerance for things we may take a personal dislike to.

[Hilbert]

I find it funny that when you speak to people who stereotypically tow their party's line, they seem to have the intent of the 2nd Amendment confused. For example, right-wing republicans who don't find anything wrong with things like The Patriot Act or government wire tapping and are pro-gun ownership. Or unwashed hippie liberals who despise the government and are very anti-gun. The 2nd Amendment was enacted so that citizens could protect themselves from an overbearing and intrusive government, so by that logic someone who disagrees heavily with gov't policies should want to arm themselves, whereas someone who is on board with gov't policy (therefore totally trusting of police and law enforcement) would not have a need to arm themselves.

Yes, I know I'm painting with broad strokes, but I'm just trying to make a point.

I couldn't agree with you more man, both the parties are so hypocritical. There's no consistency or actual beliefs, its whatever is convenient or they think will get them ahead in polls.


I wasn't saying that all gun owners advocate that everyone should own firearms. I just don't understand why the 2nd Amendment has become such a polarising issue in the American political arena, and why a compromise hasn't been reached when the Bill of rights has been around for over 200 years.Many people argue that the Second Amendment implies the right to serve in the military, or the right to bear private arms. Then with the differences in syntax and grammar, people say that the 2nd Amendment implies that those members of the militia are those that have the right to bear arms. But that's not my point. My question was to Americans on this board, that why those on the right hand side of politics seem to hold the 2nd Amendment so dear. It just seems that they spend a lot of time and money arguing about it. Looking at the Second Amendment Foundation online, they have details of 14 different lawsuits that they and various other pro-gun associations have against State and federal governments, on subjects from carrying firearms in Parks, to legal residents and their right to bear arms.

From my position it just seems a bit of a fuss over something that should have been sorted out years ago.
I'm an Australian, so my ideas on the Second Amendment aren't important, but I find it interesting which is why I asked the question.

To be honest, the only thing I can come up with is that many of our politicians simply don't like the idea of people being armed and try to mask this with pseudo-constitutional statements about how it was never an individual right or that we will be safer without it or what not.

The Second Amendment is clear and non-negotiable (as is the entire Bill of Rights). And if one takes into account the words of our founders on the matter, it's explicitly clear. I consider myself Libertarian and I support the 2nd Amendment because it (the individual right to keep and bear arms) is a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights.

[Hollis]

I wasn't saying that all gun owners advocate that everyone should own firearms. I just don't understand why the 2nd Amendment has become such a polarising issue in the American political arena,

Polarization is normal in a partisan political environment. It creates a them or us feeling. People tend to give more money when they are fearful or mad or both. Reasonableness tend to disappears.

A side note, federal parks can be very big, there can be creatures that can kill and eat humans. Part of understanding is lawful use. Most people are lawful. There are already punishment for unlawful activities. Why punish lawful owners for the actions of unlawful people.

Sorting it out, we are faced with the same kind of psychopaths and sociopaths today as there was back then. We have some pretty good LEOs, but they write reports more than they protect. Number one person who can protect you, is you. I don't fear our government, I just know there are some really evil people in our society.


BTW< look up Paxton Quigley. She was a co-founder of Handgun Control Inc. very anti gun. Now she is a spokes person for Smith and Wesson firearms. Her book might be a good read for you.

[Geezah]

Just a question from an Australian.

Why is the 2nd Amendment so important, and why does it seem to invoke an almost religous reverance for those on the right?
I know the history and meaning behind it the 2nd Amendment, but surely some people who support the owning of firearms (like me) would have to have some sort of problem with people being able to buy certain guns?

No flaming intended, just trying to see it from an American point of view.

The Bill of Rights is important, not just the 2nd, the whole thing was put together by a group of guys that understood human nature, as what they wrote then is as applicable today.

You might wantto read up on the Federalist Papers to help you get a better understanding of their train of thought, plus those Rights are God Given Rights, so it helps.

[California Joe]

I think a lot of people see issues like this in black and white. When it comes to politics, everything is political and perception is reality.

Politicians are chameleons if they're going to be any good at it. If you're a representative from a high crime inner city area where there are a lot of murders you're going to call for strict gun control. It won't do any good but it makes the uneducated in your district who may actually be victims of said crime feel better. The fault here lies with the voting public. If you're a representative from Montana or Alaska or Vermont you can always uphold the 2nd Amendment without fear of political repercussions. Vermont is a rather unique place with hippies, gay marriage, loggers, deer hunters and absolutely no gun laws.

[Geezah]

I think a lot of people see issues like this in black and white. When it comes to politics, everything is political and perception is reality.

Politicians are chameleons if they're going to be any good at it. If you're a representative from a high crime inner city area where there are a lot of murders you're going to call for strict gun control. It won't do any good but it makes the uneducated in your district who may actually be victims of said crime feel better. The fault here lies with the voting public. If you're a representative from Montana or Alaska or Vermont you can always uphold the 2nd Amendment without fear of political repercussions. Vermont is a rather unique place with hippies, gay marriage, loggers, deer hunters and absolutely no gun laws.

And very little gun crime?

[California Joe]

Almost none. A few hunting accidents, the occasional premeditated murder. Of course, there's only a half a million people in the entire state.

My point is that when you make people more comfortable around guns they stop being so freaked the f*ck out by them and actually listen. You scratch any guy that's my age even a "liberal" and you'll find that he watched all the same John Wayne movies we did, wanted to be James West, and would give his left nut for a Rat Patrol jeep.

[Geezah]

Almost none. A few hunting accidents, the occasional premeditated murder. Of course, there's only a half a million people in the entire state.

My point is that when you make people more comfortable around guns they stop being so freaked the f*ck out by them and actually listen. You scratch any guy that's my age even a "liberal" and you'll find that he watched all the same John Wayne movies we did, wanted to be James West, and would give his left nut for a Rat Patrol jeep.

I couldn't agree more.

I often offer to take members of the family out, even the Lesbians.....p-)

[Flagg]

Almost none. A few hunting accidents, the occasional premeditated murder. Of course, there's only a half a million people in the entire state.

My point is that when you make people more comfortable around guns they stop being so freaked the f*ck out by them and actually listen. You scratch any guy that's my age even a "liberal" and you'll find that he watched all the same John Wayne movies we did, wanted to be James West, and would give his left nut for a Rat Patrol jeep.

I know a bunch of folks who would probably be so far left it would make Minardinu look like Ronald Reagan in comparison while at the same time being approximately 2 MOA right of the NRA when it comes to gun rights.

Some people can't get beyond just overlysimplistic stereotypes and characterisations.

Rat Patrol was cool.......but I'd want one of those Chevy or Ford LRDG/Desert Scorpion wagons!

[Kant]

Polarization is normal in a partisan political environment. It creates a them or us feeling. People tend to give more money when they are fearful or mad or both. Reasonableness tend to disappears.

A side note, federal parks can be very big, there can be creatures that can kill and eat humans. Part of understanding is lawful use. Most people are lawful. There are already punishment for unlawful activities. Why punish lawful owners for the actions of unlawful people.

Sorting it out, we are faced with the same kind of psychopaths and sociopaths today as there was back then. We have some pretty good LEOs, but they write reports more than they protect. Number one person who can protect you, is you. I don't fear our government, I just know there are some really evil people in our society.


BTW< look up Paxton Quigley. She was a co-founder of Handgun Control Inc. very anti gun. Now she is a spokes person for Smith and Wesson firearms. Her book might be a good read for you.
Fair enough mate. I will, cheers.



The Bill of Rights is important, not just the 2nd, the whole thing was put together by a group of guys that understood human nature, as what they wrote then is as applicable today.

You might wantto read up on the Federalist Papers to help you get a better understanding of their train of thought, plus those Rights are God Given Rights, so it helps.

I have read some of the federalist papers, namely no.84. I found it pretty interesting that Hamilton considered the very idea of a bill of rights to be "not only unecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous".

Then again it seems to be working alright for you guys.

[ren0312]

I wasn't saying that all gun owners advocate that everyone should own firearms. I just don't understand why the 2nd Amendment has become such a polarising issue in the American political arena, and why a compromise hasn't been reached when the Bill of rights has been around for over 200 years.Many people argue that the Second Amendment implies the right to serve in the military, or the right to bear private arms. Then with the differences in syntax and grammar, people say that the 2nd Amendment implies that those members of the militia are those that have the right to bear arms. But that's not my point. My question was to Americans on this board, that why those on the right hand side of politics seem to hold the 2nd Amendment so dear. It just seems that they spend a lot of time and money arguing about it. Looking at the Second Amendment Foundation online, they have details of 14 different lawsuits that they and various other pro-gun associations have against State and federal governments, on subjects from carrying firearms in Parks, to legal residents and their right to bear arms.

From my position it just seems a bit of a fuss over something that should have been sorted out years ago.
I'm an Australian, so my ideas on the Second Amendment aren't important, but I find it interesting which is why I asked the question.

The difference lies in the way that Americans and Europeans view the nature of rights, Americans view rights as being inalienable and bestowed by Divine Providence, while continental Europeans view rights as social contracts between the government and the governed. And as for the American Revolution another way to view it is a struggle between truant tax payers and tax collectors, represention in the British Parliament was really of limited use to the colonies considering the distance between London and the East Coast.

[eskachig]

I, among many other self professed liberals don't have an issue with gun ownership. I do think that guns are more of a privilidge (kind of like a driver's license), than an unrestricted right, and the states should require education and testing. But those are just details really, point is I don't think guns are inherently bad or anything. I don't think people like me are that uncommon either.