2A Empowerment

[simon99]

Source ( learnarms.com) Why Liberals Hate the Second Amendment


Why Liberals Hate the Second Amendment

Liberals have long held the belief that this country has outgrown the need for individual citizens to have the right and responsibility to arm and defend themselves as laid out in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Liberal politicians and activists will cite many studies, personal stories, and other anecdotal evidence to try to convince the American public that the right to bear arms is not only not necessary but also dangerous. This comes from the very real a philosophy that fears self-reliance and independence.

The second amendment allows people to defend themselves and empowers people. It does not create a society of victims. Liberals thrive in a society of victims looking to a big centralized government to provide protection and assistance. This protection is never free, it requires surrendering additional freedoms, but Liberals seeking to help victims rarely discuss that price. Those victims, who see no alternatives, surrender more and more personal freedoms in exchange for promised protection from criminals. When no protection is available, citizens are told suffering is natural in a society. There is no discussion that there are alternatives to becoming a crime victim.

Liberals hate the second amendment because it is an amendment. While they have been successful in changing many laws in this country that create more victims and leave people feeling powerless over their fate, the Supreme Court has continuously upheld the right to bear arms. Liberals continue to rage against the words well armed militia. They use a variety of arguments to indicate that the Constitution only protects the states from a powerful federal government. They have failed to get the backing of the High Court to institute their opinion as law as has happened on so many other issues. Success has made them arrogant in assuming this issue should easily disappear.

Lastly, Liberals hate the Second Amendment because they cannot understand the desire to own weapons. While liberals preach tolerance and understanding of other's views when they agree on an issue, they lack tolerance when they oppose an issue. Liberals argue guns kill people. Gun owners argue guns are incapable of killing people when people are responsible for their actions. They also discuss the issue often left off the table by Liberals, legal ownership.

Liberals hate to discuss that despite all the laws put in place regarding the sale and ownership of guns, the vast majority of crimes are not committed by citizen's who are responsibly following the law and wish to retain their rights under the Second Amendment. Liberals cannot refute these arguments and it only makes them hate the Constitutional right even more.

Read More

 

[Caveman Jim]

Progressives are the real 2A haters, yes liberals too, but the progressives are wolves in sheep clothing brothers. Our supposed leaders (Dems for now) who think that Our Constitution is and evolving document and they can make changes willie nillie to it should be locked up for Tyranny!!!!.

Now as far as being a liberal AND a 2A proponent seems a bit of an oxy-moron. How can you support the opposition (Dems) and think you can actually support the Constitution? Once they start coming to confiscate weapons, you will be on their list too. So please explain your ideology here.___________________________

 

[U201491]

They are also deceivers and chameleons.

 

[Audrey]

I am curious why my comments were deleted from here. They were descending but on-topic. If a mod could PM so I could make sure to avoid posting in a manner that does not adhere to forum rules it'd be greatly appreciated.

 

[3MTA3]

Liberals who support the second amendment do so for the same reason conservatives do: they fear oppression from the other political ideology and want to make sure, as the Second Amendment was intended, that We the People could keep our government in check. Not all liberals want a big brother government, and I suspect that most (sorry to generalize) are socially liberal and fiscally moderate. I would argue that Progressives are the greater danger, and where gun control legislation usually begins. Check out this site if you don't believe that some liberals support the Second Amendment: Liberals With Guns - The Right to Bear Arms Responsibly :Liberals With Guns

I'm making this point, as a Libertarian and Constitutional Conservative because we need ALL the help we can get and that we need hold off on bashing potential allies and pushing their help away. By the way, much of what you will read on the we site I linked is hand in hand with the majority of conservative belief. The has been an incredible amount of history revision with key issues like civil rights (most people are surprised that Republicans championed civil rights and that it was southern Democrats who provided the opposition), which I believe is designed to fragment us and keep us divided so we can be better controlled.

As the saying goes, united we stand and divided we fall. The Enemy is counting on it.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Here it is, the caveat "Liberals with guns, the right to bear arms responsibly... Like conservatives and libertarians are not bearing arms responsibly?
Are they saying that they would allow certain common sense gun control legislation?

I am just trying to get a read on why they would elect gun-control legislators and say that they want to keep their guns.

Any one? crickets chirping....

 

[U201491]

The fact is, regardless of what anyone calls themself,
is anyone that is willing to infringe
on the 2nd Amendment in any way is the enemy.
Pretty cut and dry.
Anyone doing anything to damage this country, the constitution,
or the economy is the Enemy.
Anyone promoting Socialism, Marxism or Communism is the Enemy.

 

[Caveman Jim]

The fact is, regardless of what anyone calls themself,
is anyone that is willing to infringe
on the 2nd Amendment is the enemy.
Pretty cut and dry.

That it is my friend and we will meet them on the battlefield one day.

 

[BoonDocks36]

Caveman Jim... Them Folks are like this: they wanna Ride a real Motorcycle, but they also want training wheels & a Seatbelt on it....

I heard Lars Larson today saying "Gun Control is keeping all the rounds in the 10 Ring" I almost gave him a High Five, over the Radio!!!!!

being responsable means one thing to a Conservative, and Quite another, to a liberal... That is why they really are not PRO-2 they ~might talk the talk~ But I say Walk the Talk.

When they take the training wheels off their Harley, and the seat belt... They can ride it like a Grown Up. And I was shooting that way, when I was Twelve Years Old... Meh. I was buying my own clothes, with Money I earned working 8 hours a day in Farm Labor at 12 years old...

That, Is Responsibility.

philip

 

[tiggers97]

In general, I do believe the left has been successfully hijacked by extremists who call themselves progressives and liberals. I don't think, politically at least, there are a lot of moderates left who actually hold positions of power. So I do believe there are liberals out there who are strong supporters of the 2A. And it only helps the 2A cause as a whole. Remember, never let the other side play divide and conqueror with us.

That said, this thread reminds me of a great post from (flame shields up) the daily kos. I kid you not, a liberal makes the case for the 2A. It's a little dated, internet wise, but still a good read.

Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

 

[3MTA3]

Here it is, the caveat "Liberals with guns, the right to bear arms responsibly... Like conservatives and libertarians are not bearing arms responsibly?
Are they saying that they would allow certain common sense gun control legislation?

In this particular case I think responsibility is exactly what you and I would think of as responsible. Consider the first two sentences on the web page:

"By standing up against tyranny in any form we Americans are speaking to our own Federal Government that tyranny will not be stood for. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is pure and simple; armed people can secure and maintain their freedom. "​

This could have been written by any of us on the conservative side.

I am just trying to get a read on why they would elect gun-control legislators and say that they want to keep their guns.

Any one? crickets chirping....

That's a good question. While there are liberals who oppose any infringement on the Second (or any other) Amendment, the vast majority of gun control legislation comes from the Democrat party, which leans far to the left of the Republicans.

 

[U201491]

That it is my friend and we will meet them on the battlefield one day.

Yep, but added a couple things.

 

[BoonDocks36]

So I visited the website, and its header has a quote by "Eugene V. Debs". I went and looked the fellow up

Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926) was an American labor leader, Socialist politician and candidate for president in five elections 1900-1920; his strongest showing was in 1912.

He led the Pullman Strike in 1894 and was imprisoned for disobeying a federal court order to desist. He was imprisoned again in World War I for encouraging men to avoid the draft, and ran for president in 1920 from his prison cell.

Debs was a consensus figure in the deeply split socialist movement, moderating the radicals of the IWW and inspiring the "gas and water" socialists concerned with municipal reform. His tireless campaigning and passionate oratory made audiences had a quasi-religious tone that emphasized guilt feelings.

Not an original thinker, Debs believed capitalism, with all its works, was evil, and Socialism, with all its promises, a true panacea.

He briefly belonged to the IWW, which called for a violent overthrow of capitalism, but drew back from such an extreme position.

Eugene V. Debs - Conservapedia

Now, I happen to enjoy history... So I already Knew what the IWW was... But for thems that do not know... More from Conservapedia:

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), nicknamed the "Wobblies" is a far-left revolutionary[1] labor union in the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Germany, and the UK.

It was founded in 1905 by radical labor leaders including "Big Bill" Haywood, an avowed atheist and later Communist. Its goals are to create "one big union" and destroycapitalism.

It practices dual unionism, which challenges the established unions like the AFL unions.

In the past, the AFL and the Communist Party worked to destroy the IWW

Not a group leader I would want to be quoting from, to show that "Our Group" is pro 2a !!!

philip,
(underneath those kind words*... Lies a lie).

*at the website... :d

 

[3MTA3]

The hook was well baited, and I bit hard. Looks like I'm a sucker for velveeta and WD-40. Thanks for the history lesson. I mean it.

 

[41Slinger]

The hook was well baited, and I bit hard. Looks like I'm a sucker for velveeta and WD-40. Thanks for the history lesson. I mean it.

Hey 3MTA3, don't feel bad, I'm learning new stuff every day, that's what I'm in this forum for. I got all wordy the other day and Blitz fixed me and I learned. There is only one way to go, support the 2A and the constitution or KISS OFF. No compromise, nothing, and I base that statement on 25,000 firearms laws that aren't being enforced now.

 

[FortRock]

Source ( learnarms.com) Why Liberals Hate the Second Amendment


Why Liberals Hate the Second Amendment

Liberals have long held the belief that this country has outgrown the need for individual citizens to have the right and responsibility to arm and defend themselves as laid out in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Liberal politicians and activists will cite many studies, personal stories, and other anecdotal evidence to try to convince the American public that the right to bear arms is not only not necessary but also dangerous. This comes from the very real a philosophy that fears self-reliance and independence.

The second amendment allows people to defend themselves and empowers people. It does not create a society of victims. Liberals thrive in a society of victims looking to a big centralized government to provide protection and assistance. This protection is never free, it requires surrendering additional freedoms, but Liberals seeking to help victims rarely discuss that price. Those victims, who see no alternatives, surrender more and more personal freedoms in exchange for promised protection from criminals. When no protection is available, citizens are told suffering is natural in a society. There is no discussion that there are alternatives to becoming a crime victim.

Liberals hate the second amendment because it is an amendment. While they have been successful in changing many laws in this country that create more victims and leave people feeling powerless over their fate, the Supreme Court has continuously upheld the right to bear arms. Liberals continue to rage against the words well armed militia. They use a variety of arguments to indicate that the Constitution only protects the states from a powerful federal government. They have failed to get the backing of the High Court to institute their opinion as law as has happened on so many other issues. Success has made them arrogant in assuming this issue should easily disappear.

Lastly, Liberals hate the Second Amendment because they cannot understand the desire to own weapons. While liberals preach tolerance and understanding of other's views when they agree on an issue, they lack tolerance when they oppose an issue. Liberals argue guns kill people. Gun owners argue guns are incapable of killing people when people are responsible for their actions. They also discuss the issue often left off the table by Liberals, legal ownership.

Liberals hate to discuss that despite all the laws put in place regarding the sale and ownership of guns, the vast majority of crimes are not committed by citizen's who are responsibly following the law and wish to retain their rights under the Second Amendment. Liberals cannot refute these arguments and it only makes them hate the Constitutional right even more.

2A doesn't say "well armed militia"....it says "a well regulated militia" and only serious research reveals what the framers notion of "well regulated" meant. Interesting stuff.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I guess I'll never understand it but I have an open mind and can sift through the BS...

 

[tiggers97]

Wow. good catch. I didn't see that. I guess someone just liked the quote without knowing who the author was.

 

[Dunerunner]

2A doesn't say "well armed militia"....it says "a well regulated militia" and only serious research reveals what the framers notion of "well regulated" meant. Interesting stuff.

At the time, the Militia was as well armed as the nation's army. In fact, many reported with their own firearms. Should that happen today in the modern military, I'm afraid many of the "Militia's" weapons would be deemed unacceptable.

From my perspective, the citizens of this country should be able to own the same conventional weapons as the military.

 

[8ball]

2A doesn't say "well armed militia"....it says "a well regulated militia" and only serious research reveals what the framers notion of "well regulated" meant. Interesting stuff.

That's not the only sentence in that article that doesn't make sense. The triple negative in the last paragraph is a bit of a bender.

And the Supreme Court has not always upheld the Second Amendment in the way we view it today. If that was even somewhat true, Heller and Macdonald wouldn't have been so important. In fact, anyone who thinks SCOTUS has upheld the 2A as a right for the individual to bear arms hasn't researched earlier than the 1980s.