A liberal's case for the 2A

[Chee-to]

Clearly, you must be labeled. And since you cannot be labeled within the C vs. L dualism, you must be whatever EVIL label the Cs confine you into.

Actually, the L's label themselves, you vote in gun grabbers, you win the label .....

Democratic Party on Gun Control
Party Platform
Democratic Party on Gun Control

Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation
We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole
We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.18 , Jul 10, 2004

Strengthen gun control to reduce violence
Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun. We support more federal gun prosecutors and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime

.

 

[Kevatc]

The one thing I liked was at the start the author stated "the 2nd admentment did not create the right but was created to recognize the right" which means it is a God given right.

What if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[DMax]

What if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

God still gives you the rights No matter what you believe or like to criticize

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

God still gives you the rights No matter what you believe or like to criticize

Actually, I think it is more like a free society gives you the right to believe in whatever magical creatures you choose to believe in without persecution.

 

[Kelzebubba]

Actually, I think it is more like a free society gives you the right to believe in whatever magical creatures you choose to believe in without persecution.

I didn't find one I like in this book...

 

[Kelzebubba]

Actually, the L's label themselves, you vote in gun grabbers, you win the label .....

.

So does that mean everyone who voted for Romney is an "L"... considering of all the candidates he is the only one who has actually signed legislation prohibiting the 2nd amendment?

 

[DMax]

Actually, I think it is more like a free society gives you the right to believe in whatever magical creatures you choose to believe in without persecution.

I guess this had nothing to do with a Free Society and yet you can still believe what you want or nothing at all. Does not change how this country was founded which give you the rights to believe or make crap up without persecution.

The concept of "certain unalienable rights" is evidence that the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in God and for the most part we're strongly religious men with strong beliefs in entitlements bestowed by God upon men, and that these entitlements were so important that no earthly power can rightfully deny them. Therefore, no Government can deny these rights.

The whole of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence sheds more light on this phrasing:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

 

[Chee-to]

So does that mean everyone who voted for Romney is an "L"... considering of all the candidates he is the only one who has actually signed legislation prohibiting the 2nd amendment?

Ah, a tweet from one of them there "winners"..........

 

[deen_ad]

So does that mean everyone who voted for Romney is an "L"... considering of all the candidates he is the only one who has actually signed legislation prohibiting the 2nd amendment?

Actually the legislation Romney signed LOOSENED the laws his predecessor put in to effect.

 

[Kelzebubba]

The concept of "certain unalienable rights" is evidence that the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in God and for the most part we're strongly religious men with strong beliefs in entitlements bestowed by God upon men, and that these entitlements were so important that no earthly power can rightfully deny them. Therefore, no Government can deny these rights.

Yeah, even though Romans 13 in the bible states that the government is the agent of God in more or less words, our founding fathers fought the war with England for religious reasons only, just as the Civil War was about freeing the slaves solely (though the last registered slave in the US was in Connecticut, a northern state I do believe). Taxation was being enforced because we were being asked to pay for the French and Indian war... We didn't pay the taxes, then our honourable founding fathers were smuggling goods to avoid taxes on them, they were defying the government, which is the direct opposite of Romans 13. Oh well, I guess the Bible Buffet is way older than what I thought it was.

 

[Kelzebubba]

Ah, a tweet from one of them there "winners"..........

I voted anti-incumbent all the way down, I put my party blinders on. Ask yourself, are you happy with the way things are? I am not, so I made the decision to change everything, sadly, not everyone felt the same.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. - Einstein

Voting for the same people/party over and over and expecting change, that is the definition of stupidity. - Kelzebubba

 

[DMax]

Yeah, even though Romans 13 in the bible states that the government is the agent of God in more or less words, our founding fathers fought the war with England for religious reasons only, just as the Civil War was about freeing the slaves solely (though the last registered slave in the US was in Connecticut, a northern state I do believe). Taxation was being enforced because we were being asked to pay for the French and Indian war... We didn't pay the taxes, then our honourable founding fathers were smuggling goods to avoid taxes on them, they were defying the government, which is the direct opposite of Romans 13. Oh well, I guess the Bible Buffet is way older than what I thought it was.

As so many on here continue to point out The bible is NOT the the law of the land. The constitution IS. Apparently even back then the gov was overreaching with taxation which is gov greed and taking from the producers. The democrats have made an industry out of taking from the producers. If Connecticut was the last regisered slave state which is a democratic state that really explains it as it was Democrats that did not want to give up the slavery thing.

Nobody cheers for tyranny more that those that are enslaved by it

NOW can we get back to 2A

 

[Jamie6.5]

Keep hollering about mythical creatures and such if you like. Continue mocking the founders' vision at your peril.

Keep in mind that the phrase "Endowed by Their Creator" is the foundation of/for all the "rights" that follow.

It is one thing to not believe as the faithful do.
It's another to mock their faith, while thumping your chest over your "right" to do so, considering that your right to do so is predicated on there being a creator.

My my my, what better way to destroy a structure than to erode away, or take a sledgehammer to, its foundation. It follows that if there is no creator, then there are no rights, other than what the rulers bestow.

Is that REALLY the way you want to proceed in negotiations with those that would strip away your rights to speak freely and/or defend yourself? With a gun?
That there is no "creator," and that therefore there are no rights, as currently written?

Be careful what you wish for, vote for, and/or argue against!
Or is this the "mall ninja" mentality that thinks they can argue "consent of the governed" with a tyrannical government prepared to use democracy against you?

The founders went with a "republic" and "their creator" for a reason.
Will we surrender their vision to the mob rule of a godless democracy?

When I read some of the posts here, I get the distinct impression that there are some that don't realize how tenuous our rights become under those ideals.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Keep hollering about mythical creatures and such if you like. Continue mocking the founders' vision at your peril.

Keep in mind that the phrase "Endowed by Their Creator" is the foundation of/for all the "rights" that follow.

It is one thing to not believe as the faithful do.
It's another to mock their faith, while thumping your chest over your "right" to do so, considering that your right to do so is predicated on there being a creator.

My my my, what better way to destroy a structure than to erode away, or take a sledgehammer to, its foundation. It follows that if there is no creator, then there are no rights, other than what the rulers bestow.

Is that REALLY the way you want to proceed in negotiations with those that would strip away your rights to speak freely and/or defend yourself? With a gun?
That there is no "creator," and that therefore there are no rights, as currently written?

Be careful what you wish for, vote for, and/or argue against!
Or is this the "mall ninja" mentality that thinks they can argue "consent of the governed" with a tyrannical government prepared to use democracy against you?

The founders went with a "republic" and "their creator" for a reason.
Will we surrender their vision to the mob rule of a godless democracy?

When I read some of the posts here, I get the distinct impression that there are some that don't realize how tenuous our rights become under those ideals.

Many of the founders expressed a disbelief in divinity. They wrote what they did because it was the wordage and the acceptable message of their time. It appears that even back then politicians knew how to manipulate the uneducated. They were, after all, trying to sell a very unpopular idea of rebellion and a free nation.

 

[Grunwald]

We should pass a law making all Democrats (or anyone in government for that matter) go to the middle east , Israel or any Hot-zone and serve a tour in a combat unit protecting our rights & country and see what they think when they get back!

How exactly is someone serving a tour of duty in Israel protecting OUR rights and country?
I don't know about you, but I sure as Hades do not consider myself an Israeli.

 

[Chee-to]

I voted anti-incumbent all the way down, I put my party blinders on. Ask yourself, are you happy with the way things are? I am not, so I made the decision to change everything, sadly, not everyone felt the same.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. - Einstein

Voting for the same people/party over and over and expecting change, that is the definition of stupidity. - Kelzebubba

Sorry, you helped to put Obama and the antigunners in office with your non-vote, and that makes you a......

 

[Chee-to]

What if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I don't know who that is ? In the spirit of the season, may God bless you, and all Atheists......

 

[Horses are delicious]

I presume that you mean Elk season? Liberal and atheist are apparently bad words. I have yet to see anyone identify as either here. Admittedly, I do not pour over all of the posts looking for viewpoints opposing to my own. You know what, forget I said anything. I'm going to keep my posts and activity here limited to conversations regarding firearms themselves, not political or religious matters.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

No, to be precise some had leanings towards Deism, and therefore questioned the divinity (specifically) of Jesus Christ. Deism, or "the religion of nature" was a form of rational theology that emerged among "freethinking" Europeans in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Nonetheless, they still believed in what Kevtac calls, "the spaghetti monster". They, were not atheists.
"Many" Founders?

Even if you ignore the many examples from the founders questioning a supreme power, Deists believed in the supremacy of human reason over faith and revelation, and disdained the supernatural. You don't get much more supernatural than an all-powerful wizard living in the clouds.

Really? Please provide a reference to this statement. These, we are referring to, did in fact believe in a "Creator" just not necessarily in Christ's divinity.

Nice job of imposing your own narrow mindset on their own personal writings and beliefs. Too bad reality does not support your opinions...but I guess one of tenants of religion is the acceptance of faith over fact.

No, they believed in the inalienable rights endowed by their "Creator".
Some were Deists, not atheists. There is a dramatic difference. "Origins Of Deism" - De Veritate (On Truth, as it is Distinguished from Revelation, the Probable, the Possible, and the False) Lord Edward Herbert, 1624.
These men believed in a Creator.
"For Deists God was/is a benevolent, if distant, creator whose revelation was nature and human reason. Applying reason to nature taught most deists that God organized the world to promote human happiness and our greatest religious duty was to further that end by the practice of morality.- Darren Staloff
Professor of History at the City College of New York and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

Actually, if you bother to study history instead of bible verse you will find there is a great deal of private writings and written evidence that deism was actually an incremental attempt by educated people who did not believe in the existence of a supernatural power to ween society from it's primitive beliefs.

 

[Chee-to]

I presume that you mean Elk season?

Yup, yup, thats what I meant, I sure wouldn't want to offend anyone here by mentioning Hanukkah or Christmas............