Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment


SkinsHokieFan

Recommended Posts

This word is the problem here.

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

Well said, again.

As a "liberal," on this board, I do see it both ways on this issue. I don't read the second amendment, plainly, to say that individuals have a right to own whatever weapons/arms they think they need. I do feel though that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that the government wasn't able to supress individuals by armed force that was not available to individuals.

The problem with this argument has always been that its not obvious, at all, what the Second Amendment was trying to say. I've posted before how the Constitution was actually written to create conflict between different interpretations, and the writers intended us to figure it out as best we could as we went along, applying conflicting principles in the same document.

I tend to think that the Second Amendment is either one of the worst written sentences ever, or simply a sentence that was conveying that the founders didn't know what to do with guns/arms. What is likely is that the fathers did not want a military state created that supressed the people. How that translates today, I don't know.

Its not easy. Its very hard. Its not obvious. Its very confusing. This debate (not just in this forum) would be better though if both sides realized that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm liberal, a gun owner, & I also hunt. I also believe that gun control is necessary, but the right kind of gun control. I have nothing but contempt for the NRA.
A gun owner and hunter who thinks the NRA is a bunch of kooks? God Bess You buddy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, that is what is wrong with supporting the rest of the Bill of Rights but not the 2nd. Everyone is willing to support a persons right to talk about overthrowing the govt, and print these words. But god forbid you own a gun while talking about it. You just became a radical. Remember when the Dems complained that liberal has become a dirty word? Well, the liberals are now trying to make the words "gun owner" dirty.

I just want to address this a little bit though....

I support the First Amendment, but that does not mean I think you can say whatever you want, do whatever your religion tells you, or etc etc. In fact, even the First Amendment allows for restrictions on speech, press, assembly, religion and petitions.

Just like that, its very rare that you hear someone say that "all guns should be outlawed, period." Of course, there are those wackos who say it, but that is the fringe of the debate. The debate is more, what is fair regulation and what are permissible restrictions on gun ownership? You can believe that the Heller case, for instance, was wrongly decided but still support the Second Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but there are also legislators who want to ban all rap music, who want to ban all alcohol, or who want to ban all offshore drilling. How do you fight against that? You get more votes on your side. These are not simple yes/no questions but questions of degree. In the end, we're not going to ban all guns, but we're going to ban some guns, and our legislators are going to vote on which ones get banned, or what tests are necessary, or where you can carry.

and if these legislators don't abide by what the majority want, then they get voted out. Simple as that. History has shown time and time again in this country, that when politicians go after guns...they lose their jobs.

Once we agree that some restrictions are necessary and proper, then we are no longer asking the Constitutional question. We're asking a legislative question, and the only way to really resolve the issue is to ultimately vote on it. There's no real right and wrong; just a compromise.

and again, we must remain vigilant. There are those that would have you store a gun and ammunition in such a manner that you and your family would be dead 10 times over before you ever had a chance to load the thing. We'd have laws that if you committed justifiable homicide in your home, you'd still be charged for not storing the gun correctly, because there is physicial way that if you were abiding by "storage" laws that you could have loaded the gun and fired the shots so quickly. lol

Sure, and you can vote against those politicians, or you can file lawsuits if it gets too close to an outright ban.

I'd rather not have to bother. I'll vote for only those politicians that will protect my gun rights, not work to undermine them.

But short of an outright ban, which the Supreme Court has now said is unconstitutional, I don't think we're really arguing about what the Constitution says anymore. There is really a lot of room to maneuver where the Constitution doesn't really help us decide on way or the other. The Second Amendment doesn't really say anything about whether a 5-day waiting period is reasonable, whether trigger locks should be required, or whether semi-automatic weapons should be banned. Those aren't really Constitutional questions. Those are just legislative questions, which you and I can debate, and our representatives can vote on, but the Founders don't really give us much guidance on which way to go when you start digging into the details.

The right to own firearms for me is not debatable. The Bill of Rights provides us with that right, no matter how some would twist the language. Do I want a nut job, or a felon to get their hands on a gun using legal means no, of course not, but I don't trust the politicians to just stop with waiting lists and background checks. Again, we must remain vigilant. The first mistake would be to believe that would be gun-banners are not among us, and they will seize the opportunity to infringe on our rights if left unchecked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, again.

As a "liberal," on this board, I do see it both ways on this issue. I don't read the second amendment, plainly, to say that individuals have a right to own whatever weapons/arms they think they need. I do feel though that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that the government wasn't able to supress individuals by armed force that was not available to individuals.

The problem with this argument has always been that its not obvious, at all, what the Second Amendment was trying to say. I've posted before how the Constitution was actually written to create conflict between different interpretations, and the writers intended us to figure it out as best we could as we went along, applying conflicting principles in the same document.

I tend to think that the Second Amendment is either one of the worst written sentences ever, or simply a sentence that was conveying that the founders didn't know what to do with guns/arms. What is likely is that the fathers did not want a military state created that supressed the people. How that translates today, I don't know.

Its not easy. Its very hard. Its not obvious. Its very confusing. This debate (not just in this forum) would be better though if both sides realized that.

what is so confusing about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Why do many liberals insist on taking every other constitutional law at face value, such as the right to free speech, but this one in particular is always debatable, unclear, and complex?

This speaks to the heart of the original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't a single gun I know of that cannot kill if the shot is placed well enough. That to me makes this argument moot. If I am good enough, and I have six shots in my revolver, I can kill six people. Should we ban revolvers? The problem, is that once you open the door to banning "some" guns, you leave the possibility of ALL guns being attacked until eventually, law-abiding citizens can buy NO guns, which I believe is the ultimate goal of many anti-gun legislators.

That's a BS argument and you know it. And you're not the first person in this thread I've called out for it.

The real problem, and what you illustrate perfectly, is the ridiculous persecution complex and paranoid delusions of some gun owners. Every single piece of common-sense legislation is just opening the doors for the govt to one day kick in your door and confiscate your guns. A 100% ban, even on only handguns, is the ultimate goal of an extreme minority of anti-gun legislators, and it would be unconstitutional if they ever tried to do it (as we have learned from DC and Chicago). It's a fantasy strawman that you set up so you can call out "slippery slope!" no matter what the proposal is, and it's a load of crap.

If you want to make a cogent argument for why you and everyone else who can pass a background check should be able to buy a military-grade fully automatic rifle or shotgun, have at it. But do it without resort to "well, criminals won't obey the ban anyway" or "well, what's next? Ban all guns, bow and arrows, slingshots, bb guns and pocketknives?!?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do many liberals insist on taking every other constitutional law at face value, such as the right to free speech, but this one in particular is always debatable, unclear, and complex?

You did not seriously just post that, after this same BS has been debunked at least 10 times in this thread already. Every other right, including speech, is subject to limitation in certain instances. They are all debateable, unclear and complex. 2nd Amendment deserves no special treatment. It is neither above, nor below your other rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is so confusing about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Why do many liberals insist on taking every other constitutional law at face value, such as the right to free speech, but this one in particular is always debatable, unclear, and complex?

You yourself agreed that it is debatable.
I have zero problem with wait lists and background checks. I have no problem with convicted felons not having legal access to guns.
Don't waiting lists and background checks infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Aren't convicted felons part of "the people"?

If waiting lists and background checks and prohibiting gun ownership by convicted felons are allowed by the Constitution, then what is else is allowed?

It sounds pretty debatable to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a BS argument and you know it. And you're not the first person in this thread I've called out for it.

The real problem, and what you illustrate perfectly, is the ridiculous persecution complex and paranoid delusions of some gun owners. Every single piece of common-sense legislation is just opening the doors for the govt to one day kick in your door and confiscate your guns. I think that is the ultimate goal of an extreme minority of anti-gun legislators, and it would be unconstitutional if they ever tried to do it (as we have learned from DC and Chicago). It's a fantasy strawman that you set up so you can call out "slippery slope!" no matter what the proposal is, and it's a load of crap.

If you want to make a cogent argument for why you and everyone else who can pass a background check should be able to buy a military-grade fully automatic rifle or shotgun, have at it. But do it without resort to "well, criminals won't obey the ban anyway" or "well, what's next? Ban all guns, bow and arrows, slingshots, bb guns and pocketknives?!?"

The delusion is that if left unchecked this fringe element that you call it would not try to do exactly what you describe in your post. The only thing that keeps these people from doing this, is a very strong resistance from groups like the NRA, who as a member, I do not always agree with every single stance they take, but I agree with enough.

The thing is, many of those that argue "private citizens don't need this gun or that gun, they don't need military hardware" apparently have complete faith in the "system," that there is no chance of collapse, or widespread civil unrest, so there is no need for an AR-15 in your home. There will always be somebody there to "save" you. They simply can't imagine a mob of hundreds storming your neighborhood. This is very dangerous thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did not seriously just post that, after this same BS has been debunked at least 10 times in this thread already. Every other right, including speech, is subject to limitation in certain instances. They are all debateable, unclear and complex. 2nd Amendment deserves no special treatment. It is neither above, nor below your other rights.

The manner in which a person is allowed to buy a gun is open to discussion with me, but not the right to own the gun. If I have proven that I am a mentally competent, law-abiding citizen, then whatever Firearm I choose to own is my choice to make, based on how much money I choose to spend. If I have to wait 7 days to pick it up, and go through a psychological exam to prove I'm competent, and a training course to learn how to properly shoot the weapon, FINE, but eventually the gun is mine. The 2nd amendment grants me this right.

If I meet those criteria, then whether I want a pea shooter, or a Ak, what difference does it make? If you can be trusted with one, you can be trusted with the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is so confusing about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Why do many liberals insist on taking every other constitutional law at face value, such as the right to free speech, but this one in particular is always debatable, unclear, and complex?

This speaks to the heart of the original post.

Well, for one its only part of the sentence that is the Second Amendment.

Should I continue, or do you want to agree that maybe, just maybe, its not plainly obvious on its face what the Second Amendment is saying?

Also, if you look at my second post in this thread (just after the one you quoted) I am pretty sure I put the First Amendment in a better context than you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The manner in which a person is allowed to buy a gun is open to discussion with me, but not the right to own the gun. If I have proven that I am a mentally competent, law-abiding citizen, then whatever Firearm I choose to own is my choice to make, based on how much money I choose to spend. If I have to wait 7 days to pick it up, and go through a psychological exam to prove I'm competent, and a training course to learn how to properly shoot the weapon, FINE, but eventually the gun is mine. The 2nd amendment grants me this right.

If I meet those criteria, then whether I want a pea shooter, or a Ak, what difference does it make? If you can be trusted with one, you can be trusted with the other.

Should this gun be legal too?

GatlingF.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The delusion is that if left unchecked this fringe element that you call it would not try to do exactly what you describe in your post. The only thing that keeps these people from doing this, is a very strong resistance from groups like the NRA, who as a member, I do not always agree with every single stance they take, but I agree with enough.

Yep. NRA is the only thing.

And 99.5% of the legislators.

And the will of the people who vote on the legislators (including the vast majority of liberals and non-gun owners).

And the President.

And the Supreme Court.

But other than them, it's mostly just the NRA. If left unchecked the fringe element will do nothing because they have no power and even if they had power and tried to exercise it the Supreme Court would slap them down like it was nothing.

The thing is, many of those that argue "private citizens don't need this gun or that gun, they don't need military hardware" apparently have complete faith in the "system," that there is no chance of collapse, or widespread civil unrest, so there is no need for an AR-15 in your home. There will always be somebody there to "save" you. They simply can't imagine a mob of hundreds storming your neighborhood. This is very dangerous thinking.

Best point you've made so far, imo. You have me pegged. I have a difficult time imagining a mob of hundreds storming my neighborhood. Although I'm sure if they were legal, they'd all have AR-15s too, so I don't see how I would be much better off. I would also add that it is very dangerous thinking if you can imagine that too easily.

I have a much easier time imagining a sociopath with no prior record taking one into a mall and mowing down 10s of people.

"But criminals won't follow the law anyway!!!"

Yeah. But why make it a million times easier to get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The manner in which a person is allowed to buy a gun is open to discussion with me, but not the right to own the gun. If I have proven that I am a mentally competent, law-abiding citizen, then whatever Firearm I choose to own is my choice to make, based on how much money I choose to spend. If I have to wait 7 days to pick it up, and go through a psychological exam to prove I'm competent, and a training course to learn how to properly shoot the weapon, FINE, but eventually the gun is mine. The 2nd amendment grants me this right.

If I meet those criteria, then whether I want a pea shooter, or a Ak, what difference does it make? If you can be trusted with one, you can be trusted with the other.

Just look earlier in the thread. It was already established that at the time of the Founders, the intent was that it would not apply to unusual weapons. The Supreme Court has recognized that, and there is no serious legal dispute about it. You may think that all our best and brightest legal minds are idiots and the Constitution is clearly the other way, but it's on rock solid ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is so confusing about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Why did you leave off the first part? The part about the Militia?

Why do many liberals insist on taking every other constitutional law at face value, such as the right to free speech, but this one in particular is always debatable, unclear, and complex?

The last 20 posts have discussed how none of the enumerated rights are absolute. None.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should this gun be legal too?

I wouldn't buy a mini-gun, no, but to play devil's advocate a bit, if you can be trusted with a semi-auto handgun, with a 15 round magazine, you can be trusted with a mini-gun, or whatever that thing technically is.

Both can kill several people in a matter of minutes. Right? History is full of people who were great shots doing maximum damage with minimum of weaponry and ammo. As I said before, banning guns doesn't stop crazy.

Bliz, do you remember the L.A. riots? Not that long ago. My point, was that something could happen at anytime, that could cause the system to falter, even if just in the short term. What if you call 911, and nobody is coming, because the cops are all at home with their families protecting them? Do you really think that premise is that far-fetched? Worst case scenario. It's like a rubber. I'd rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did you leave off the first part? The part about the Militia?

because I believe that the intent of the founding fathers were that both were mutually exclusive.

The last 20 posts have discussed how none of the enumerated rights are absolute. None.

Fair enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bliz, do you remember the L.A. riots? Not that long ago. My point, was that something could happen at anytime, that could cause the system to falter, even if just in the short term. What if you call 911, and nobody is coming, because the cops are all at home with their families protecting them? Do you really think that premise is that far-fetched? Worst case scenario. It's like a rubber. I'd rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

I remember a lot of people on the street, smashing store fronts. I don't recall hearing any stories about hundreds of people raiding a neighborhood.

Is your point that you would have been safe with a Jesse-Ventura-in-Predator style mini gun, but not safe with an arsenal of legal guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a lot of people on the street, smashing store fronts. I don't recall hearing any stories about hundreds of people raiding a neighborhood.

Is your point that you would have been safe with a Jesse-Ventura-in-Predator style mini gun, but not safe with an arsenal of legal guns?

Does the name Reginald Denny ring a bell?
Reginald Oliver Denny was 33 years old at the time, and a construction truck driver. On the first day of the rioting, Denny was attacked, pulled from his truck and brutally beaten, sustaining serious head and other injuries. As a result of the injuries he suffered during the attacks, Denny had to undergo years of rehabilitative therapy, and his speech and ability to walk were permanently damaged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the name Reginald Denny ring a bell?

Man, if only he had an awesome automatic weapon in his home when he got attacked in his semi after he got off the highway...

Yes. I remember the LA riots. They happened almost 20 years ago in a relatively small urban area and was put down by the National Guard (but not quickly enough...lots of death and property damage). It sucked. It was awful. It marginally goes to your point, but not really, since we're still talking about isolated classes of weapons versus a complete ban.

Now let's move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...