Why Liberals should love the Second Amendment

[Andy]

Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

It's a few years old, but still pertinent. I will admit I am more liberal than conservative (and neither a D or an R), but I have never understood how anyone (Liberals) can argue against the Second Amendments meaning. This article did a fantastic job of explaining why.

 

[DMax]

I think this points out quite clear that gun control is not about guns but another agenda. More like a march toward Tyranny. As the article states look at the Windy City and DC.

 

[Just Me]

That is an awesome article. I am sharing on my FB. Thanks!

 

[JimmyS1985]

I think this points out quite clear that gun control is not about guns but another agenda. More like a march toward Tyranny. As the article states look at the Windy City and DC.

View attachment 53880

Thats how I feel about the social conservatves and all their insane proposals on banning abortion, prayer in public schools, teaching creationism in Biology classes (this is akin to teaching Alchemy or turning lead into gold in Chemistry classes) keeping gays from loving each other, treating them as 2nd class citizens and keep gays and women from serving in the military due to some very loose 'unit cohesion argument' (exact same argument was used when Truman integrated military units with black and white soldiers), oh and their opposition to contraception which ironically reduces the very same abortions that they are opposed to women getting in the first place (seems like they want to punish sex, rather than any care about the fetus).

I love the 2nd amendment. Hear is one garbage argument I take issue with coming from anti-gun liberals is "Well when the founders wrote, they were talking about flint lock pistols and muskets as to the type of arms that the people could bear" Thats a bs argument, that would be like not having an FAA because the founding fathers didn't know about Airplanes back at the turn of the 19th century.

The military, and the Police which are very similar to the military in that they focus on civilian matters, have access to all kinds of high powered weaponry, full-auto true assault rifles, helicopter gunships, Armored personnel carriers, way better training for them and vastly superior numbers to any current threat. Civilians should have access to that kind of hardware, just because thats the standard for agents of our federal government, without it, it leaves the populace as a whole incapable of keeping a tyrannical over-reaching government in check.

The article had some good points in it. But seriously, Republicans should kick the social conservatives out of their party if they really want that "smaller government" moniker to mean something.

edit: One last thought, yes maybe some people might get killed due to the wrong people having access to the kind of hardware I was talking about, but in order to form a great nation, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

 

[jrprich]

I note from reading many firearms forums that it it popular to call liberals all sorts of nasty names which makes be a bit reluctant to say that...........I am more liberal than conservative on many issues, but I love guns and own several and have since I was about 10. I also love all our amendments and have a CC permit and carried for years.
America is about the power of the individual and we are more than a party label or a position on someone's left to right scale. Judge people by their character, not their politics.

 

[Just Me]

Thats how I feel about the social conservatves and all their insane proposals on banning abortion, prayer in public schools, teaching creationism in Biology classes (this is akin to teaching Alchemy or turning lead into gold in Chemistry classes) keeping gays from loving each other, treating them as 2nd class citizens and keep gays and women from serving in the military due to some very loose 'unit cohesion argument' (exact same argument was used when Truman integrated military units with black and white soldiers), oh and their opposition to contraception which ironically reduces the very same abortions that they are opposed to women getting in the first place (seems like they want to punish sex, rather than any care about the fetus).
....

The article had some good points in it. But seriously, Republicans should kick the social conservatives out of their party if they really want that "smaller government" moniker to mean something.

I don't see what your rant about these points have to do with the article.

 

[DireWolf]

Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

It's a few years old, but still pertinent. I will admit I am more liberal than conservative (and neither a D or an R), but I have never understood how anyone (Liberals) can argue against the Second Amendments meaning. This article did a fantastic job of explaining why.

Good article.

Some here will not get it though. "Liberal" is a reviled thing in many circles, and no matter what a person says, there will be derision directed towards them when it comes to this subject. Doesn't bother me, other than the Us vs. Them crap simply divides and conquers. If the plutocrats can keep the people fighting amongst themselves, the paople are too occupied to realize the enemy is not their neighbor, regardless of their politics.

 

[JimmyS1985]

I don't see what your rant about these points have to do with the article.

It was the follow up response in which someone compared gun control to a march towards tyranny and proof of a hidden agenda from the leftists. I get the exact same feeling with the social conservatives on the Right, in some tyrannical march towards some theocratic vision for America, for all American's to live in. Where the leftists want to control guns, the social conservatives want to control a whole bunch of aspects of our lives, everywhere from the womb, to even having the right to die if we have terminal cancer, or we're a brain dead vegetable in a hospital bed on permanent life support.

I still remember vividly from the Newtown shooting, a pastor and Mike Huckabee immediately tried blaming the shooting on getting rid of prayer in public schools. I found that statement pretty offensive, that God murdered, or failed to protect, 20 children, to show us that we are wrong in our ways of being accepting of people who aren't Christians into public schools, such as myself. I don't think their automatic exploitation of a massive school shooting to try to get prayer back in public schools was a good PR move or a good way to get people to all of a sudden love and fear Mike Huckabee's god.

 

[DMax]

There is no comparing gun control to Tyranny. Gun control is the first step to Tyranny. If that is confusing to you then look at history start with the Nazi. A large majority of countries that started with Gun Contol like being thrown at us currently ends in its citizens genocide. Look it up. Its black and white.

 

[dmancornell]

Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

It's a few years old, but still pertinent. I will admit I am more liberal than conservative (and neither a D or an R), but I have never understood how anyone (Liberals) can argue against the Second Amendments meaning. This article did a fantastic job of explaining why.

Go read the comments on that DK article and you'll understand exactly why Liberals (big L) want gun control. Their entire rationale for gun control is to keep those stupid rednecks and hicks under control so they'll just pliantly go along with whatever theft/murder scheme the state has planned.

The article was talking about little-l liberals, who are pretty much banished from both major parties.

Big-L Liberalism revolves around elitism and top-down management of people. That is why they want gun control.

 

[JimmyS1985]

Liberals want gun control because they tend to live in the big cities, where police response time is usually around 5 minutes or so. Rednecks don't like gun control because police response time can be an hour or more. Hence it makes perfect sense to be against gun control when you live in the country. GUn control in the city? Well Chicago is still a pretty violent city despite all the insta-felon gun control laws they have passed in the People's Republik of Illinois (What Illinois is to Missouri on gun laws, California is to Oregon and Washington).

Usually the people in big gun control cities find whatever they want to kill others with, there was that video of those guys hitting each other with giant 2x4's because somebody took the last banana, and a Chicago Police officer two years ago or so because one of the Chicago residents wrestled his gun away from him and shot him. I like Marion Barry's quote, since Washington D.C. had some strict gun control laws "The crime rate is actually pretty low if you don't count all the murders"


If you want a prime example of the opposite of gun control and a very low violent crime rate, and gun crime rate, look up Kennesaw Georgia. They require heads of households to own at least one gun, and they have less than half the average crime rate in their town.

 

[DMax]

Lets make all big cities gun free zones the liberal population will be under control in no time.

The redneck

 

[pyromancer]

I hate the term "liberal" I know who you are all talking about, but I am a libertarian. To sum up my philosophy if it doesn't hurt anyone else I don't give a crap what you do and no one else should be able to tell you, you cant do it. This means I also think the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible.

I'm not the only person I know who is bugged by this either, in fact most of the libertarians I know are very pro 2A and hate people saying "liberals" are anti 2A. Again we know who you mean but we are all for liberty without being one of those tools.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I would probably qualify as a libertarian, but instead of pointing fingers because someone is a liberal or republican or whatever, we should focus on what we all have in common: Guns.
There are a LOT of people in positions of power trying to curtail the second amendment so we need to be united and focused on standing up for THAT right, regardless of whatever your views are on other issues. Sun Tzu! The art of war! Divide and conquer. There is no room for infighting on this front. And our opponents are playing by those rules. Single out this genre on guns, or that one. Eventually no group had enough power to fight them on it's own.
Stick together.

First they came for the assault rifles…

But I didn’t resist, because I didn’t need an assault rifle.

Then they came for guns with multiple round capacity…

But I didn’t resist because I could get by without.

Then they required registration and increased restriction to insane levels…

But I didn’t resist because, well, they have their reasons.

Then they came for all guns…

So I gave mine up because I’ve been conditioned and society will be safer, right?

Then they came to shoot me…

Because they knew I wasn’t armed.

plagerized from First they came for the assault rifles?

 

[JimmyS1985]

I hate the term "liberal" I know who you are all talking about, but I am a libertarian. To sum up my philosophy if it doesn't hurt anyone else I don't give a crap what you do and no one else should be able to tell you, you cant do it. This means I also think the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible.

I'm not the only person I know who is bugged by this either, in fact most of the libertarians I know are very pro 2A and hate people saying "liberals" are anti 2A. Again I know who you mean but I am all for liberty without being one of those tools.

There are like 2 types of Libertarians. The Tea Party Libertarians, are Libertarian on economic and government assistance issue's, but they are total and complete theocratic, possibly fascist, when it comes to social issues, such as the issues I listed in an above post. A lot of social conservatives identify with the Tea Party movement, even though they are the exact opposite of libertarianism on specific issues. If you want to look up the closest to a "true" Libertarian that we have had in decades past, it's Barry Goldwater. I didn't agree with how he felt Southern States should and can treat blacks as a state's rights issue, however on several different issue's he is as much of a true "small government" Libertarian-Conservative as you can get. I don't think you identify with the Tea Party, I think you more identify with the father of modern conservatism which is Barry Goldwater.

 

[aslinged]

With respect to the precise labeling of liberals, progressives, democrats, conservatives, neo-cons and republicans....it's all a calculated ruse. It is not a haphazard mystery of modern America that the divisive issues of gun control and abortion (to take two obvious examples) perfectly bisect the voting populace. Classical liberalism means---liberty, freedom. Modern liberals neither know this nor care. Modern conservatives generally fail to know this as well.

If you take ten minutes to fact check the reality that Obama continued Bush policies and upped the ante on all of them, you are left with only two choices: cognitive dissonance followed by compliance at one level or another OR understanding that they are merely two flavors of the same sh!t sandwich. Bush's Patriot Act mirrors Obama's NDAA. Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan are mirrored by Obama in Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and the rest. Each played a part in giving away two generations of future wealth to the banks.

Further study will show you that the shared agenda is actually a philosophical corruption of political and domestic realities that is called Fabian Socialism.

The icon of Fabian Socialism is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Thus endeth the lesson.

 

[pyromancer]

I didn't agree with how he felt Southern States should and can treat blacks as a state's rights issue, however on several different issue's he is as much of a true "small government" Libertarian-Conservative as you can get. I don't think you identify with the Tea Party, I think you more identify with the father of modern conservatism which is Barry Goldwater.

Not libertarian for this issue if for no others, slavery would take away from the liberty of others. I am not tea party either, Share some of their ideals but as a group no! The tax system is screwed up but I view them more as conservatives who just don't want to pay taxes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BY5ZGurCU here illustraties a point and gives me a laugh.

"liberal" Is a word thrown around much like "assault weapon" people identify it with a certain group without looking at the word. Liberal or liberty first.

Restricting someones rights to keep and bear arms would not be liberal, unless that person where using those arms to restrict the liberties of others. Socialists those who we call "liberals" many times point to things like this and say well then what about if society as a whole is less restricted by limiting the rights of society as a whole. The problem with this is socialists don't really want to limit the rights of the government in turn because they view the government as being separate. Libertarians in my experience tend to view things more on a level playing field. In regards to 2A unless some one develops a magic wand that could make all guns cease to exist anyone should be allowed to have them, and be punished on their personal actions involving them.

Prostitution tends to be a good example to explain libertarian beliefs. I don't care what anyone else does with their own body or their money. If someone wants to sell their body it is their choice, as it is the choice of their clientele to pay for their services. Prostitution is illegal in most places due to a few reasons, a major factor being moral issues. My moral beliefs are my own and should not effect anyone else. There is the issue of public health, to which I would say we all have had sexual education and are made aware of these risks, and even if not its the personal responsibility of someone to educate them selves. So it falls on these parties to make personal choices on how they feel about the mater and taking advantage of it or not. Some people also say well I don't want prostitution because I dont want my family/friends to have anything to do with it. A libertarian would say it is their choice and if you have a valid reason for this you should educate them, and let them make an educated decision, but unless it actually causes you harm you have no right to push your beliefs on others. Then their is the issue of possible theft, to which I would say this would factor into laws and government involvement but not for prostitution but for the prosecution of one of the parties now becoming a thief. With this comes the possibility of assault which again legal and government involvement, but only in the case of the assault. Its really about personal freedoms, see liberty. Libertarians are not anti-government but think government should be there to protect our liberties first and foremost, social services, job creation, public infrastructure, and all the rest of what our government does gets a little complicated sometimes. On one hand the people pay for it and don't always all use all the services, and on the other they are still available to everyone(in theory). This can cause a lot of debate, but its really the same debate that happens amongst anyone.

The word liberal, in the sense that we value personal freedom, I think applies to everyone regardless of political beliefs in some form and I absolutely hate that we use it to describe those who I view as socialists. I feel that everyone on this board believes in liberty when it comes to firearms, and could be described as liberal in that regard.

 

[CharonPDX]

Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

It's a few years old, but still pertinent. I will admit I am more liberal than conservative (and neither a D or an R), but I have never understood how anyone (Liberals) can argue against the Second Amendments meaning. This article did a fantastic job of explaining why.

EXACTLY!!

That is how I feel, and how I try to explain it to other liberals. Heck, I just posted a comment similar to that on Facebook to an anti-gun friend. He re-posted a photo "People are so angry about gun regulation you'd think they were being denied the right to marry the person they love." So I replied with:

To other liberals, I like to compare it to that, or abortion rights, or the prohibition on marijuana. Freedoms are freedoms. We should fight for *ALL* of them. Heck, I think that the reciprocity of concealed handgun licenses (something strenuously fought for by conservatives,) should be fully linked with reciprocity of marriage licenses.

I wish "D" and "R" weren't the only choices that have any chance of getting elected around here. Even the theoretically nonpartisan races end up as "D" vs. "R". I would love to see a party that has the good parts of both, and none of the bad parts. (The "protect rights selectively and cry foul over the rest" that BOTH practice.)

 

[DMax]

With respect to the precise labeling of liberals, progressives, democrats, conservatives, neo-cons and republicans....it's all a calculated ruse. It is not a haphazard mystery of modern America that the divisive issues of gun control and abortion (to take two obvious examples) perfectly bisect the voting populace. Classical liberalism means---liberty, freedom. Modern liberals neither know this nor care. Modern conservatives generally fail to know this as well.

If you take ten minutes to fact check the reality that Obama continued Bush policies and upped the ante on all of them, you are left with only two choices: cognitive dissonance followed by compliance at one level or another OR understanding that they are merely two flavors of the same sh!t sandwich. Bush's Patriot Act mirrors Obama's NDAA. Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan are mirrored by Obama in Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and the rest. Each played a part in giving away two generations of future wealth to the banks.

Further study will show you that the shared agenda is actually a philosophical corruption of political and domestic realities that is called Fabian Socialism.

The icon of Fabian Socialism is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Thus endeth the lesson.

I never considered Bush a conservative. Any leader that gives away our liberty is a traitor to the reason we are Americans. Bush did start it with the patriot act with lots of critcism from dems, Then obammy doubles down on all of it and know including guns and his followers stand behind him yet they hated Bush for the exact same thing. It pretty easy to see why now nobody trusts the Ds its clear what they say is not there real agenda. Americans even thought they have short memories there are 2 things they rarely forget things that they believed they been lied to about and lost trust. That is where we are at as a nation. Do with it you want but more of the same will not be causing it to go away any time soon. Both side need to stand together for one cause the rebuilding of our gov starting with all current politians that have been in office more than 2 terms. Gone and Gone

 

[pyromancer]

I wish "D" and "R" weren't the only choices that have any chance of getting elected around here. Even the theoretically nonpartisan races end up as "D" vs. "R". I would love to see a party that has the good parts of both, and none of the bad parts. (The "protect rights selectively and cry foul over the rest" that BOTH practice.)

You realize the reason for this is that everyone believes this to be true right? I voted non D or R I never once viewed it as throwing away my vote. I viewed it as being an American who woke up and realized I didn't have to make an A or a B choice. If no one is ever willing to stand up and say I'm not going to chose A or B even if the person I vote for wont win then sure no one else will ever have a chance. Stand up for your beliefs first, if you have to pick the lesser of two evils make sure there isn't a 3rd choice first.