[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.

[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.

[Rodamala]

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

[School of Rational Thought]

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

[Arrowhead1952]

Liberals can quote legal precedent,

BUT, only the ones they agree with.

news reports,

Paging dan ra^THer, Paging dan ra^THer. Paging dan ra^THer.

and exhaustive studies.

Like all the gore bull warming studies?????

[supercat]

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.

[RWB Patriot]

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.

[Wonder Warthog]

Agreed. I almost dropped my teeth when I read it (and I will note that I found the link to it NOT on FR, but at "Google News" in their "Spotlight" section).

It's good to see that "some" liberals, even if a tiny minority, GET IT about the second amendment.