Posted on 07/10/2010 8:57:45 PM PDT by Neil E. Wright
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 .....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailykos.com ...
If they misuse them, they will be caught and tried, gun or no gun. Whether they are Che lovers is not my concern.....defending the 2A is.
Seems to me that some people like you would love to put a question on Form 4473: “Are you or have you ever been a lover of Che”?
“...libs being “pro-gun” so they could get their hands on guns for revolution when they wanted...”
So? They’ll be out-numbered, out-smarted, out-classed, *and* out-gunned.
BUT, only the ones they agree with.
news reports,
Paging dan raTHer, Paging dan raTHer. Paging dan raTHer.
and exhaustive studies.
Like all the gore bull warming studies?????
I sure hope so. And your point is...?
Whether they are Che lovers is not my concern.....defending the 2A is.
Good for you. I'm merely addressing the motivation of LIBERALS who in this case are expressing support of gun rights. As long as they support that, it's fine as far as that goes--but I guess you are not concerned with Obama, who said he was for change. Heck, I was for change, too. Everyone was for change. If you go through life simply looking at what people want you to believe is the bottom line, I have no use for you.
My point was a larger one, beyond the article. If you want to be blinkered and only follow the one point this writer is addressing, you go right ahead. I'm concerned with the larger liberal hatred of gun rights. If you're not aware of that, you'll buy anything.
Seems to me that some people like you would love to put a question on Form 4473: “Are you or have you ever been a lover of Che”?
Seems to me you're a liar.
You're right, why worry about anything, we'll just win in the end.
(Looking at our liberal president, our liberal House, our liberal senate...)
Yeah, we outnumber 'em, uh huh...it'll be a cakewalk, liberals don't even like guns (thinking of all the gun crimes done in the city, all the libs who profess gun control and yet own guns).
Leftist groups like the ACLU want to protect the rights of criminals only. If the rights of ordinary citizens were being protected, protecting the rights of criminals would help to prevent a “slippery slope” where the government infringed upon the rights of increasingly-less-criminal people. On the other hand, when the rights of law-abiding citizens are not being respected, protecting the rights of criminals more than the rights of the law-abiding encourages police to respect the rights of criminals more than the law-abiding. A dangerous situation, and IMHO hardly accidental.
They should love capitalism, they should love freedom, they should love invidial thought, as all these things stand to benefit them. Why they don’t, why they’d rather take the complicated road in life instead of going the simple way to the very thing they demand is a question that has yet to be answered.
It's good to see that "some" liberals, even if a tiny minority, GET IT about the second amendment.
Then you're mis-reading it. By the comparison to free speech for ANY speech, the author is making the analogous point for arms ownership.
No, I'm not. I'm just using my brain to think about what is written and why it is written that way, and going to the underlying message behind the writer's "unusual" position.
You're filling in between the lines what you really WANT to be there. That's your right. I think for myself, and wishful thinking has nothing to do with that for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.