Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

[The Evil Genius]

Not sure why you sent him a snarky comment, but it seems to be a reasonable opinion to have. Why the rolleyes?

Have you accidentally (or through ignorance) harmed or killed anyone at the ballot box lately?

[zoony]

As I've grown older and gotten a better understanding of human nature and how the world actually works, I've grown much more liberal in many of my beliefs.

The 2nd Ammendment isn't one of them. The article is something I've been saying for a long time now... that the liberals have it completely backwards on this issue.

....

[Prosperity]

Have you accidentally (or through ignorance) harmed or killed anyone at the ballot box lately?

I heard he voted for Dubya

[DjTj]

For once I agree with the Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

First of all, this article wasn't written by Kos himself but by one of his contributing editors.

And I agree with the general sentiment of the article that liberals should pay more respect to the Second Amendment.

But I disagree with a lot of the arguments set forth in the article. First, the idea that liberals oppose all restrictions on the Bill or Rights is incorrect. For example, the Supreme Court has recently been interpreting the First Amendment to protect political spending, under a theory that money is akin to speech in that context. The Court has used this interpretation to strike down campaign finance laws, and recently, to basically give corporations a free pass to run political ads with less regulation than is imposed on individuals. Liberals oppose that expansive interpretation of the First Amendment.

Similarly, a Christian student group in California wanted to exclude gays from its membership, citing their First Amendment Rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of association. Liberals opposed these rights, arguing that the First Amendment did not extend to this context.

There are many places where the Bill of Rights conflicts with other rights and other liberal values, and that's where liberals have made choices about where to choose their fights.

I also disagree that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to revolution. The Second Amendment provides a state right to revolution, and just like the Thirteen Colonies organized militias and fought against England, it protects the state's right to maintain a militia and fight the federal government if necessary. It also provides an individual right to keep and bear arms, but the Supreme Court has held, and I agree, that the individual right is only a right to self-defense. It is not a right a revolution. The Constitution does not guarantee you an unlimited right to arm yourself sufficiently to fight against the government.

because the ammendment is speaking to two different things.

1. "a well regulated militia" shall be maintained...

2. and the individuals right "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Here's where it gets interesting. If there are two separate rights, should they be held to the same standard? I believe that the first right, regarding militias, is the right to revolution, which may include machine guns and rocket launchers. The second right is about self-defense, which does not include machine guns and rocket launchers.

These two separate rights clearly reflected in State Constitutions at the time the Bill of Rights was written, which recognized both a right to defend the state and a right to defend yourself. It's not a right to individual revolution but an individual right to self-defense, and also a state right to organize a militia for a revolution if necessary (where that militia is under the control of the state government).

The 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution:

XIII. That the people have a right bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

http://www.duq.edu/law/pa-constitution/constitutions/1776.cfm

I agree that liberals have gone a little too far in restricting the Second Amendment, and that is a product of demographics and politics more than anything, but the idea that the individual right to bear arms should be unlimited is absurd, and it should be rejected just as the unlimited right to free speech and the unlimited right to free exercise of religion have been rejected.

The Second Amendment's individual right to bear arms should be interpreted consistent with its purpose, which was self-defense. Under that rubric, reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are perfectly legal, and I think the Supreme Court has been doing the right thing in this regard.

[Predicto]

Personally I think there should be a minmum standard of education and training to be allowed to vote.

Also, a course, which you pay for, which you could finish in a weekend, to vote.

Umm... there are very good reasons we no longer have Poll Taxes in this country.

[Predicto]

Long essay that saved me a lot of typing.

Well said.

[Elessar78]

Does the second amendment guarantee the right to own a firearm if it's for sport or for personal protection (or personal preemptive strike) , as in not for protection of the state?

My reading of the 2nd is that: in case we need to raise a militia, private citizens should have the right to own guns in the first place.

Note: I'm a gun owner and do not believe that gun control is all that necessary.

[Prosperity]

Umm... there are very good reasons we no longer have Poll Taxes in this country.

because they were used to oppress black people?

would that still be a problem given our more egalitarian society?

a fundamentally good idea could be misused by ignorant people, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered a failure in all future cases

just sayin'

i kind of feel the same way about gun rights, the more I believe at least some people can be trusted with that power, the better I feel about gun ownership and the 2nd amendment

[Dr Drunkenstein]

You guys are missing the boat on 3 crucial points:

#1 The "militia" described at the beginning of the 2nd amd, does it refer to the general public or the military? It refers to the military. How do I know this? From Article II Section2 of the Constitution:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

You have no individual right to own a gun per the constitution.

#2 Your discussion has centered around guns. The 2nd amd never mentions guns. It is talking about all arms. So, if you feel individuals have a constitutional right to bear arms with no restrictions, I should be able to have nukes, chemical weapons, etc. That would make for a really fun country. Of course we need to have HUGE restrictions on the 2nd amd.

#3 The root of this debate among the founding fathers came from, like so much of our legal foundation, English common law. In England, only the nobility could have swords (and when they were invented, guns) and these laws made rebellions against the King next to impossible. This is why some of our founders clung so strongly to the ideas of individual gun ownership, to keep the governing authority in check. Of course, with the explosion of technology, our government now has fighter jets, aircraft carriers, nukes an chemical weapons. It is 100% impossible for an armed citizenry with only guns to confront our government so we need to allow private citizens to own nukes and chemical weapons in order to keep the federal government in check OR we must admit that this justification for gun ownership has been made obsolete.

[Predicto]

because they were used to oppress black people?

would that still be a problem given our more egalitarian society?

They were used to oppress black people, but they also discriminate against poor people.

[Burgold]

Yeah, these articles are generally non productive. Usually, when creating an us versus them scenario you just don't get very far.

Imagine if this author decided to write...

Why Conservatives should support the Bill of Rights and argue why Conservatives should support privacy laws, freedom of the speech or freedom of the Press. You would get a wonderfully defensive reaction.

[Sikbug]

Not all liberals hate the 2nd amendment. I actually helped start a gun club in NYC with a bunch of guys way more liberal than I.

http://shootingliberally.blogspot.com/

We even got some press out of it.

[Hubbs]

Sure. When non "liberals" fight to protect the other rights as hard as they do the 2nd amendment.

Ah, the ol' "I can support an illogical stance because the other side does it too!" defense. Brought to you by the makers of "We should cut off the heads of Al Jazeera journalists because the other side does it to ours!" and "If only you knew the power of the Dark Side!"

If you think you're better than the other "side" - which requires buying into the belief that there can only be two ways to think about most political issues, and each of them have been predetermined for you, but we'll ignore that for the moment - then "they do it too" isn't a valid excuse.

[Destino]

because the ammendment is speaking to two different things.

1. "a well regulated militia" shall be maintained...

2. and the individuals right "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It sure as hell doesn't read that way.

If I were to say "America's roads being what they are after a snow storm, you should get the warranty on those new tires" I am not making two separate statements. The first part is the reason I'm telling you to do the second.

"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."

That is no different. In fact it reads in a fairly straight forward manner. The founders felt that in order to have a well regulated militia, something they felt essential to ensuring freedom, people had to be allowed to keep and bear arms.

People may disagree in this day and age that such a right is necessary to maintain freedom... but it doesn't really matter. As others have said in this thread a changing world is irrelevant to a degree in this discussion. The right is given and the government may not take it away (unless of course you are an enemy combatant, felon, or any other label the government creates to grant itself power the constitution clearly forbids it from having)

[Dr Drunkenstein]

"The Second Amendment's individual right to bear arms should be interpreted consistent with its purpose, which was self-defense. "

The 2nd amendment says "necessary for the security of a free state" so if you are talking about self-defense from a domestic threat, you couldn't be more wrong. If you are talking about self-defense from an international threat, then I need to be allowed to own nukes and chemical weapons in order to fight an invading army which has the same. Either way, all of your points look silly compared to what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS.

[Dr Drunkenstein]

"People may disagree in this day and age that such a right is necessary to maintain freedom... but it doesn't really matter. As others have said in this thread a changing world is irrelevant to a degree in this discussion. The right is given and the government may not take it away"

So......I have a right to own nukes and chemical weapons? Then why are the individual ownership of these arms illegal? Why haven't I seen a single Republican/Conservative try to legalize them per the Constitution? More than anything, this proves the hypocrisy of Conservatives.

[#98QBKiller]

Not all liberals hate the 2nd amendment. I actually helped start a gun club in NYC with a bunch of guys way more liberal than I.

http://shootingliberally.blogspot.com/

We even got some press out of it.

There are always exceptions to every rule. I consider myself liberal on pretty much every issue except the 2nd amendment and capital punishment.

[Bliz]

Personally, I also think a certain minimum number of hours of training should be a prerequisite to ownership in any state. A readily available license for a safety and best practices course you could finish in a weekend. But that's just the government trying to get your name on the list so they know who all the gun owners are, right?

Personally I think there should be a minmum standard of education and training to be allowed to vote.

Also, a course, which you pay for, which you could finish in a weekend, to vote.

Wow. How clever of you

Not sure why you sent him a snarky comment, but it seems to be a reasonable opinion to have. Why the rolleyes?

Because it's not an opinion he has. He was attempting to ridicule the idea of a mandatory license/safety course for gun ownership by suggesting we should do the same for voting (which is a bad idea for reasons explained by others). After all, there's no difference between the two, right?

If SHF is able to construct a logical, coherent argument about why a mandatory safety course is a bad thing, or unconstitutional, then he will get a non-snarky reply

[Skin'Em84]

Personally, I also think a certain minimum number of hours of training should be a prerequisite to ownership in any state. A readily available license for a safety and best practices course you could finish in a weekend.

I agree with this 100%. You have to go through driver's training and pass a test to drive a car, why can't we do the same with guns? They are just as dangerous if not moreso.

[Dr Drunkenstein]

"I agree with this 100%. You have to go through driver's training and pass a test to drive a car, why can't we do the same with guns? They are just as dangerous if not moreso."

The constitution says nothing about needing a training course to own arms. IF the militia aspect of the 2nd amendment refers to the general public, then the general public has a right to own guns and nukes and chemical weapons without a training course. Pass as new amendment if you want to require a training course if that is the case......

[Commander PK]

You guys are missing the boat on 3 crucial points:

#1 The "militia" described at the beginning of the 2nd amd, does it refer to the general public or the military? It refers to the military. How do I know this? From Article II Section2 of the Constitution:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

You have no individual right to own a gun per the constitution.

#2 Your discussion has centered around guns. The 2nd amd never mentions guns. It is talking about all arms. So, if you feel individuals have a constitutional right to bear arms with no restrictions, I should be able to have nukes, chemical weapons, etc. That would make for a really fun country. Of course we need to have HUGE restrictions on the 2nd amd.

#3 The root of this debate among the founding fathers came from, like so much of our legal foundation, English common law. In England, only the nobility could have swords (and when they were invented, guns) and these laws made rebellions against the King next to impossible. This is why some of our founders clung so strongly to the ideas of individual gun ownership, to keep the governing authority in check. Of course, with the explosion of technology, our government now has fighter jets, aircraft carriers, nukes an chemical weapons. It is 100% impossible for an armed citizenry with only guns to confront our government so we need to allow private citizens to own nukes and chemical weapons in order to keep the federal government in check OR we must admit that this justification for gun ownership has been made obsolete.

What are guns if not "arms?" They had "guns" in the time of the founding fathers, so to conclude that the "arms" they are talking about are everything else except guns is disingenuous at best. How could the founding fathers know how technology would advance? Obviously, the intent was to level the playing field. For the "little guy" the commoner to be able to stand against "the big guy." In whatever form "the big guy" takes. Speaking strictly to point #3, we should surrender our guns, because we can't stand up to a nuke or chemical weapons? What about the right to self-defense? Will the government protect me from an intruder? What about civil unrest? If a mob attacks my home am I supposed to wait for the National Guard to come save me?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Because it's not an opinion he has. He was attempting to ridicule the idea of a mandatory license/safety course for gun ownership by suggesting we should do the same for voting (which is a bad idea for reasons explained by others). After all, there's no difference between the two, right?

If SHF is able to construct a logical, coherent argument about why a mandatory safety course is a bad thing, or unconstitutional, then he will get a non-snarky reply

Actually there isn't. Both are constitutional rights, which when violated (as in the case of poll taxes) should be vigourously fought against.

In referencing the new Chicago law, how is a poor black man supposed to get the money to leave the city and pay for training for his gun?

This is inherently biased against poor people, which is uncontitutional and violates equal protection of the law. You are basically saying "if you don't have the money to take a training course too bad, you can't exercise your Constitutional right"

Kinda like what was done in the era of poll taxes.

I agree with this 100%. You have to go through driver's training and pass a test to drive a car' date=' why can't we do the same with guns? They are just as dangerous if not moreso.[/quote']

Where in the Constitution are you given the right to drive?

[DjTj]

"The Second Amendment's individual right to bear arms should be interpreted consistent with its purpose, which was self-defense. "

The 2nd amendment says "necessary for the security of a free state" so if you are talking about self-defense from a domestic threat, you couldn't be more wrong. If you are talking about self-defense from an international threat, then I need to be allowed to own nukes and chemical weapons in order to fight an invading army which has the same. Either way, all of your points look silly compared to what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS.

The Bill of Rights was written with the entire backdrop of English Common Law in mind. What it says to you is not the same as what it ACTUALLY SAYS to someone who wrote it and voted on it at the time.

I'll let Justice Scalia explain:

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

* * *

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

And if you need other textual support, look to the State Constitutions at the time. I cited Pennsylvania for you, and Vermont had the same language:

Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment . Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them—Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state … .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. See Vt. Const., ch. 1, §15, in 6 id., at 3741.

You can't read the Second Amendment outside the context of the laws existing at the time. That was not how the Constitution was written, and it is not how we continue to write laws today.

[Predicto]

Obviously,

This word is the problem here.

None of this is obvious. It's actually quite complicated.

[DjTj]

Actually there isn't. Both are constitutional rights, which when violated (as in the case of poll taxes) should be vigourously fought against.

In referencing the new Chicago law, how is a poor black man supposed to get the money to leave the city and pay for training for his gun?

The same place he gets the money to run political ads on TV to exercise his right to free speech? :whoknows:

This is inherently biased against poor people, which is uncontitutional and violates equal protection of the law. You are basically saying "if you don't have the money to take a training course too bad, you can't exercise your Constitutional right"

Kinda like what was done in the era of poll taxes.

Voting is a particular case, especially since the Twenty-Fourth Amendment explicitly prohibits poll taxes. (If the Fourteenth Amendment prevented this, why did we need the Twenty-Fourth Amendment?)

We have fees for basically everything else - filing fees for being a candidate for office, for registering a political party, for parade permits, for FOIA requests ... As long as the fees aren't excessive, and they don't discriminate, they are perfectly legal.