Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

DailyKOS ^ | July 4, 2010 | Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse

[Neil E. Wright]

Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:00:03 AM PDT

Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process."  It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."

There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.

And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.  

Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise .....

[Neil E. Wright]

Here's the link: MASH HERE

If you're wondering why I'm posting something from a moonbat KOS kid, this person has it EXACTLY RIGHT. When someone from the other side makes OUR arguments for us, in a highly coherent and logical manner, I am delighted to point that out. I highly recommend everyone read the entire article.

★ FREEDOM! ★

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

You Know The Drill
Click the Pic

Hey! FReepers!
Help Fill The Tank!
How About It? Huh?
It Ain't Askin' Too Much
Ya Know....

[mnehring]

One thing I’ve learned about Liberals is they do support gun ownership, as long as it is themselves only. They don’t want it for everyone, just their little protected class.

They are fine with guns as a projection of their own power over others.

They oppose gun ownership by all as a protection of life, liberty, and property.

[jessduntno]

“This is an appeal to every liberal who says, “I just don’t like guns.”

This is a bullshitter’s argument. Liberals (communists) love guns; when they have them all. They don’t hate guns; they hate those who own them and ARE NOT LIBERALS. Remember, the 120 or so million who have died at the hands of the left were not killed in group hugs.

[Neil E. Wright]

Which is why I posted this. The writer makes the case, in no uncertain terms, that "the people" in the Bill of Rights means EVERYONE, even those with whom you disagree.

★ FREEDOM! ★

[Darkwolf377]

Liberals love the Constitution.

HA HA!

Sorry...

[wku man]

"They can talk about the intentions of the Founders."

Horsesh**! I've never once hear a CommieLib SOB talk about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. They think it's a "living document", for cryin' out loud!

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Cyber Liberty]

The money line, from the article:

The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.

[Darkwolf377]

I guess I don't read this as you do. He's actually making a very narrow point, and like Michael Moore is holding up the Iraqis who are killing our troops as models for revolution. That is his ONLY care here—that the liberals are well-armed revolutionaries.

I know a lot of people online swagger about the same thing, but the vast majority of gun ownership is for hunting and personal/home/property protection.

All of that is beside the point for this guy, who talks about guns being there for armed insurrection against the government. He and his ilk don't give a damn about the average gun owner, they care about the Che Guevera-loving contingent that has fantasies about killing Republican white fascists while they look cool in red berets.

Sorry, no sale.

[sinanju]

Gotta give credit where its due. That was an excellent article.

I’m also encouraged that a good deal of the comments on Kos are pro-2nd amendment.

[waterhill]

“Liberals love guns; when they, and only ‘they’ have them..”

EXCELLENT....

[Rodamala]

Thanks for posting... sadly, however, I will not be reading the whole article. I have a zero click policy for DailyKOMMIE & Huffnblowpost.

[waterhill]

“Liberals love guns; when they, and only ‘they’ have them..”

EXCELLENT....

[xp38]

This was the line that raised my eyebrow...And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness. The ends justify the means mentality is a core liberal priciple.

[Darkwolf377]

From the comments: “ These folks historically have taken defending their rights into lynching black folks.”

As you point out, libs are the ultimate dumbed-down Machiavellians—”The end justifies the means” translates to them as “We are good, therefore whatever we do is by definition good, and those who oppose us are bad.” Now, you get this from plenty on the right, too, but I find the sane folks on the right have that truly conservative “I want government that governs least” attitude. I don't get ANY of that coming from the left.

What I DO get from the left as on the comments to that article are the quotes from comic books like V for Vendetta, idolatry of CHE! that has zilch to do with the truth about that slime, and phony ideas like the one above (how man white have owned guns? how many recorded lynchings are there? I'd ask but I know the nonanswers I'd get from them).

The basic argument that the Second Amendment is good is fine, but the details DO matter.

[School of Rational Thought]

Well worth the read and recommend reading it to some of you who have posted without reading it.

[max americana]

I agree..I dont want to give a CLICK COUNT to DailyKooks.

I’ll just rely on the Freepers.

[Red in Blue PA]

Awhile back I was in a bar in a foreign country, and the subject of guns came up. 3 Californians were also in the bar and got involved in the argument. They were against my carrying my gun for defense......but they all owned guns and claimed they like to go to the range.

Effing hypocrites.

[Red in Blue PA]

Hate to tell you, but the 2A is NOT about hunting. It is indeed a necessary counterbalance to a tyrannical govt.

[Darkwolf377]

Hate to tell you, but the 2A is NOT about hunting. It is indeed a necessary counterbalance to a tyrannical govt.

Hate to tell you, but you need to learn to read. I pointed out that the ARTICLE was about libs being "pro-gun" so they could get their hands on guns for revolution when they wanted--they don't care about guns for what the vast majority of people want them for.

You can disagree with what I wrote, not what you misread.