PDA

View Full Version : Call to Arms for Liberals!!!


aileron
04-24-2008, 11:13 AM
This is a nice article, and thank god its been written, I wish all liberals would read it. The person is spot on.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/21/19133/5152


Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment
by Angry Mouse
Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:33 PM PDT

Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization.

I know liberal couples who give each other pocket size copies of the Constitution for Christmas.

Ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they will 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, the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

So.

Liberals love the Constitution. They especially love the Bill of Rights. They love all the Amendments.

Except for one: the Second Amendment.

* Angry Mouse's diary :: ::
*

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally. In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of "gun nuts"? Why do they complain about the "radical extremist agenda of the NRA"? Why do they argue for greater restrictions?

Why do they start performing mental gymnastics worthy of a position in Bush's Department of Justice to rationalize what they consider "reasonable" infringement of one of our most basic, fundamental, and revolutionary -- that's right, revolutionary -- civil liberties?

Why do they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote Democrat? Why are they so dismissive of approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns?

And why is their approach to the Second Amendment so different from their approach to all the others?

Well, if conversations on this blog about the issue of guns are in any way indicative of the way other liberals feel, maybe this stems from a basic misunderstanding.

So, allow me to attempt to explain the Second Amendment in a way that liberals should be able to endorse.

No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."

First Amendment:

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

Ninth Amendment:

...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Tenth Amendment:

...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.

We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.

But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists would not ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for it to be interpreted expansively.

We know the Founding Fathers intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.

So why, then, do liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right? Why do they talk about it as a collective right, as if the Founding Fathers intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, when we are so positively clear about what they meant by the exact same phrase in the First Amendment?

If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "**** Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?

But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!
Right?

Wrong.

The United States Militia Code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.

Everyone else. Individuals. The People.

No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.

All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.

But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that some restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.

We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.

But when it comes to the Second Amendment...You could hear a pin drop for all the protest you'll get from liberals when politicians talk about further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms.

Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Washington D.C. ban on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable. (Later this year, the Supreme Court will quite likely issue an opinion to the contrary in the Heller case.)

Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

What if a politician -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?

Ridiculous, right? We'd take to the streets, we'd send angry letters to our representatives in Washington, we'd call our progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, we'd be up in arms. (Yeah, pun intended.)

And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.

This hardly seems consistent.

No. 3: It's not 1776 anymore.

When the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.

Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. But do we question the right of our gracious host, Markos, to say whatever the hell he wants on his blog? (The wisdom, perhaps, but not the right.)

aileron
04-24-2008, 11:14 AM
continued ....


Similarly, the Founding Fathers could not have imagined 24-hour cable news networks. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?

Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and Bill Moyer's analysis of the corruption of the Bush Administration, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.

We liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment.

But as for the Second Amendment? When discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.

Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.

They will defend the right of citizens to attend a Bush rally wearing an anti-Bush button, even though the First Amendment says nothing about buttons.

They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though, when writing the Sixth Amendment, the Founding Fathers certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes. The notion of airplanes would have shocked most of them (with the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson. He was always inventing things.)

No. 4: It's not like you can use it anyway.

Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.

Tell that to the USSR, held at bay for about six years by pissed off Afghanis with WWI rifles.

Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.

The Second Amendment is obsolete?

What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?

I'm guessing it's been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."

And you'd be right.

And hasn't our current administration made the Sixth Amendment obsolete?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Shall we ask all of those "unlawful combatants" whether the Sixth Amendment still applies?

The President merely has to categorize you as an "unlawful combatant," and whoosh! No more rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, or even knowledge of the charges and identification of the witnesses who will testify against you. With one fell swoop of the pen, the President can suspend your Sixth Amendment rights.

Since it has no effect, whenever the President feels like it, why do we even need the Sixth Amendment anymore?

What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?

Of course not! I voted when I was eighteen, and I was proud to do so. In fact, most liberals will argue for greater enfranchisement. They support the rights of convicted felons to vote. Liberals are all about getting out the vote and rocking the vote. They sit at tables at their local farmer's market, trying to register new voters. They make calls to likely voters, even offering to give them a lift to the polling station.

For liberals, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment (for teens), the Fifteenth Amendment (for blacks), and the Nineteenth Amendment (for women) barely scratch the surface.

But the Second Amendment?

Crickets. Or, worse, loud calls for greater restrictions. More laws. Less access. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.

And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.

Because, to paraphrase a recent comment by mlandman:

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or even guns anymore than the First Amendment is about quill pens and hand-set type.

We do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because that is not the point. And red herring arguments about types of ammunition or handguns versus rifles (even scary looking ones) are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from what is at the true meaning of the Second Amendment. And that brings me to my final point.

No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.

Consider the words of that most forward thinking of Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Tyranny in government. That was Mr. Jefferson's concern. And he spoke from experience, of course. He knew the Revolutionary War was not won with hand-painted banners or people chanting slogans. It was a long and bloody war of attrition where the colonials took on the biggest military machine in the world.

And we all know how that turned out.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.

To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.

aileron
04-24-2008, 11:14 AM
continued....



Mr. Jefferson might never have imagined automatic weapons. But he probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street, or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.

And the Second Amendment is no different. We liberals tend to get bogged down in the details at the expense of being able to understand, and appreciate, the larger idea.

The Second Amendment is not about how much ammunition is "excessive." Or what kinds of guns are and are not permissible. We should have learned by now that prohibition is ineffective. That's why we repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, prohibiting the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors." It didn't work.

That's why our War on Drugs has been such an utter failure. Prohibition does not prevent people from smoking pot; it just turns pot smokers into criminals. (And what would our hemp-growing Founding Fathers think of that?)

And so it is with gun laws. They certainly don't prevent gun crimes. A total ban on handguns in DC has hardly eliminated violent crimes in DC. Although it may be correlation, rather than causation, crime tends to be lower in areas with more guns. After Florida and Texas passed concealed carry laws, crime rates went down.

So.

What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.

No, this is a rallying cry for the Constitution. For the Bill of Rights. For all of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founding Fathers meant."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "Columbine and Virginia Tech prove we need more laws."

This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.

This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)

This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who thinks, despite some poor judgment on the issues of, say, slavery or women's suffrage, the Founding Fathers actually had pretty good ideas about limiting government power and expanding individual rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will take their guns away.

This is an appeal to you, my fellow liberals. Not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.

Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.

Because we are revolutionaries.

Suvorov
04-24-2008, 11:42 AM
Crickets.......

Because, the modern "Liberal" leadership is NOT liberal in the classic enlightenment mold. They are leftists elitists who want to impose their own form of "self enlightened" Marx inspired Platonic rule one the masses.

They are smart enough to know that the 2nd Amendment and an armed populace serves as the greatest threat to their end game and thus through "double speak" they trick their followers into not only giving up their own rights, but into taking away the rights of others. Once the population is disarmed, then NONE of the other "rights" will mean anything.

Pvt. Cowboy
04-24-2008, 11:50 AM
I'll withhold comment until the majority rules in DC v. Heller.

Two Shots
04-24-2008, 11:51 AM
Suvorov +1, To beat a old horse again, Ask the Jewish people how disarming citizens worked for them. Take a look at country's that disarm citizens and see what other rights were taken.

Ironchef
04-24-2008, 11:52 AM
I'm liberal and I approve this message.

CCWFacts
04-24-2008, 12:04 PM
I do wish liberals would support the 2A. However, there's one particular flaw in this guy's argument. His premise is that "liberals love the constitution". I think this is not true.

Look for the word "constitution" on Obama's site or Hillary's site. Last time I checked, they didn't even dare to use the word, not once, on their website. Look at the liberal stance on what kind of judges they want: "living document" type judges. Loving the constitution, and "living document" are contradictory viewpoints.

I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.

Translation:

I would look for justices who will disregard parts of the const., like the 2A, the 10th A, or whatever else, whenever the federal government deems it necessary.

That's not love of the constitution.

hoffmang
04-24-2008, 2:38 PM
Posts like that should give everyone here hope. The poster is female as well..

-Gene

DedEye
04-24-2008, 2:54 PM
^ <-- Liberal lover of the 2nd.

.223
04-24-2008, 3:46 PM
:patriot:

Nemo
04-24-2008, 4:08 PM
Good to see that perspective from a fellow lefty (and a woman, too. Hot dang.)

aileron
04-24-2008, 4:22 PM
Read the comments section that is pretty good reading on their thoughts, they go back and forth, and angry mouse blames gun control liberal nut cases for their democratic losses. Which I agree with.

Pretty interesting reading all the same. Hoffmang is right, it appears we are starting to turn a corner for the better. Maybe in a few years, we will be in a different perspective all together, and we can once again fight over stupid ideologies while our gun rights get opened up and we worry about other problems. :D


I'm up for a change of pace.

Sam .223
04-24-2008, 4:25 PM
IMO, we're dealing with extremeists who believe that thier interpretaion of the constitution and bill of rights is the only correct one and they don't want to be told any different, and the only way to show them when you're unhappy with their policies is to vote them out of office. times and technology may have changed since the writing of these documents but the country is built off of those words and if i remember history correctly they were addressing individual rights of the people, maybe the politicans need to go back to school and go over US history one more time.

grywlfbg
04-24-2008, 4:25 PM
I do wish liberals would support the 2A. However, there's one particular flaw in this guy's argument. His premise is that "liberals love the constitution". I think this is not true.

Do you think the Bush administration loves the Constitution? Shall we go through a list of the number of rights and laws he and his people have trampled in the last 7 years?

The current "right" does just enough pro-2A stuff so that they're "better" than the current "left". Look at all the controversy on this site about McCain. Special interest voters will "hold their noses" and vote for the lesser of 2 evils. They've done it time and again. Do you think liberals are all atheists? And even if they are, do you think they're going to ban churches? That's ridiculous. But the "right" has convinced plenty of people that only they are the choice for religious people.

The "left" does the same thing with the environment. If you think that a Republican majority will result in the instant desertification of the Earth that's ridiculous. And like the "right" and the 2A, the "left" is just pro-environment enough to make them "better".

When I say the "left" and "right" I'm talking about in general and as a party. There are staunch believers on both sides of both issues I described above in both parties.

We need to learn how to actually have a rational conversation that doesn't degenerate into bashing each other and getting rid of this stupid 2-party system would help too.

tmuller
04-24-2008, 4:39 PM
getting rid of this stupid 2-party system would help too.


DPP might be the way to go but the coalition forming process still ensures that you will get a governing body that no one chose. Just a comprimise between parties and the politics just continue. Removing apathy from the public may be the best option IMO.

hoffmang
04-24-2008, 6:10 PM
If anyone has a KOS account (I can't bring myself to register...) someone should point out that government tyranny happens quite often - even in modern times - and the best example of that is The Deacons for Defense and Justice.

-Gene

tankerman
04-24-2008, 7:20 PM
I'm liberal

So are these people
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=96928

Good for you.

ViPER395
04-24-2008, 7:21 PM
So are these people
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=96928

Good for you.

LOL :D

Nice.

JayRuff
04-24-2008, 7:51 PM
good read, thanks for posting

dohidied
04-24-2008, 11:21 PM
Excellent article.

cackinthebox
04-24-2008, 11:26 PM
i'm a liberal and i do support the 2nd amendment in its entirety. we're not all the same

cackinthebox
04-24-2008, 11:29 PM
not sure if this is 100% true, but if you can find anything in it thats blatantly false let me know.

Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control

by Richard Poe


Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.

Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure.

A Gallup/CNN/USA Today survey taken in June 1999 – only two months after the Littleton massacre – showed that the number of Americans who favored stricter gun laws had declined by 20 percent since 1990.

Public support for gun control has dwindled even further since then. An Associated Press poll released on the one-year anniversary of the Littleton shootings shows that Americans favor strict enforcement of existing laws over new gun laws – the exact position of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – by 42 to 33 percent.

That same month, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 6 percent of Americans believed that tougher gun laws would prevent future school shootings.

Meanwhile, a Tarrance Group poll has shown that only 5 percent of Americans want gunmakers and gun dealers held responsible for misuse of firearms.

Clearly, the pressure for gun control is not coming from the grassroots. It comes from those layers of society that the left calls the "ruling classes" – academics, Hollywood stars, Washington insiders and multibillion-dollar media conglomerates.

The latter are particularly influential in pushing anti-gun propaganda. A study by the Media Research Center released in January 2000 showed that television news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumbered those opposing such laws by a ratio of 10 to 1.

The blame for this media bias is traditionally assigned to "liberal journalists." And, indeed, most journalists do hold left-of-center views. A 1996 survey of working journalists by the Roper Center and the Freedom Forum showed that 89 percent had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only 4 percent identified themselves as Republicans and only 2 percent as conservatives.

Yet, their "liberal" views probably have less impact on the media’s anti-gun bias than most people assume. Rank-and-file reporters have little power to influence the political spin even of their own stories.

When I worked at the New York Post in the mid-1980s, I found the newsroom filled with liberals. They grumbled constantly about the paper’s conservative slant. But they went along with it, because it was company policy.

Liberal news organizations are no different. Political bias comes from the top. Rank-and-file reporters simply do what they are told.

Those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights are keeping our fingers crossed about George W. Bush. But the monolithic commitment America’s "ruling classes" have shown toward gun control makes one wonder whether even a president is free to buck the current.

cackinthebox
04-24-2008, 11:34 PM
i think they are all in cahoots, no one in the govt wants us having guns. bad times ahead, bad times... :TFH::TFH::TFH::TFH:

harlot
04-25-2008, 1:09 AM
I am liberal and to me liberal means first and foremost freedom, including the freedom to own as many guns as you want. In this country democrats and republicans have destroyed what it means to be liberal or conservative and substituted their own platforms which are based simply on forcing people to adhere to their own social policies and nothing else. Its supposed to be difficult to restrict freedom in this country, but its easier to ban or make something illegal nowadays than it ever has been and it seems to be the favorite pastime of our elected officials.

leelaw
04-25-2008, 1:19 AM
Do you think the Bush administration loves the Constitution?

Strawman.

Bush is not a difinitive example of the Republicans, nor of Conservatives in general.

Nor is saying Al Gore is representative of all Liberals correct.

mymonkeyman
04-25-2008, 1:27 AM
Yea, the problem is that Nixon and Bush Jr. aren't good examples of conservatives. Nixon believed in centrally-controlled price for (a staple of a socialist/communist state). Bush Jr. and his massive expansion of the Medicare system is also not a particularly strong conservative. They are both best described as conservative-leaning authoritarians.

The article is wrong about the Mulford act, which only prohibited carrying of LOADED weapons in public places. Reagan wasn't acting at his best when he signed it, but its highly politically charged context makes it somewhat more understandable. Certainly Liberals have pushed far harder for gun control, for more severe gun control, and for more completely nonsensical gun control, especially in the past 20 years.

AxonGap
04-25-2008, 12:52 PM
If I use too much ammo can I be called "liberal" too! :rolleyes:

outersquare
04-25-2008, 1:12 PM
just ask a liberal that if bush suspended the constitution and declared martial law tomorrow, if they would pick up a rifle and start fighting.

dohidied
04-25-2008, 1:59 PM
That's why I got into guns in the first place.

cackinthebox
04-25-2008, 3:31 PM
just ask a liberal that if bush suspended the constitution and declared martial law tomorrow, if they would pick up a rifle and start fighting.

i think most of the bay area would take up arms. they like their safety, but they like their freedoms even more

Suvorov
04-25-2008, 5:42 PM
i think most of the bay area would take up arms. they like their safety, but they like their freedoms even more

Bull! They are a bunch of mindless sheeple who want the government to take care of their every need. They would lay their slingshots down the moment their masters told them to.

Oh, and where would they get the guns? Except for the few of you true liberals, none of the Red Diaper Doper Babies in Marin or the Sunset District own any and they have made sure that gun stores are few and far between.

hoffmang
04-25-2008, 6:20 PM
You'd be surprised how many guns there are in the 5 county area...

You can take a look at the AW Reg by county on the AG's site to see very surprisings stats.

-Gene

Harrison_Bergeron
04-25-2008, 6:20 PM
It would depend on who suspended the Constitution, if W, then yes, rioting in the streets, if Hillary, praise for a job well done.

radioburning
05-02-2008, 2:55 PM
I am liberal as well, and I approve of this message.

movie zombie
05-02-2008, 5:39 PM
liberal, female, more than several guns and LOTS of ammo....... and i don't consider hillary to be liberal. obviously, the government understands that the 2nd amendment is about we the people having guns to institute revolution; hence, their wanting to take them away.

movie zombie

aplinker
05-02-2008, 6:01 PM
God bless liberal, gun-loving women. :)

My most liberal female friend shocked me when she basically evoked all of those arguments last year...

cbn620
05-02-2008, 7:48 PM
I find that your average hardline conservative LOVES the Constitution. LOVES the second amendment. But doesn't much care for the others, except maybe the 4th.

I find that your average hardline liberal LOVES the Constitution. LOVES the first amendment. But doesn't much care for the others, except maybe the 3rd or the 5th.

I find that your average libertarian, whether left or right leaning, LOVES the Constitution. LOVES every damned part of it!

I, my friends, I fit in the latter camp.

I may be a liberal but I am not a "liberal". Sadly, with everyone being a flamboyant, sheepish joiner in this country, most everyone who says they are a "liberal" or a "conservative" are not. Not at all.

RegularLT1
05-02-2008, 10:49 PM
The definition of a liberal has taken a 180 degree turn in recent years. Democrats are no longer liberals in the classic sense. Clintonistas. They are Marxists. Unfortunately, Republicans are headed toward being Fascists. I'm talking about the Guiliani and Bush types.

Where I come from, being called a Democrat is almost as bad as calling your mom a filthy whore. I'm trying to get used to people calling themselves democrats/liberals and they actually mean freedom. Versus higher taxes, more welfare, bigger government, affirmative action, and more gun control.

Since definitions are all messed up these days... just remember that Thomas Jefferson was a Republican. I am one of those Republicans.

cbn620
05-02-2008, 11:45 PM
Thomas Jefferson wasn't a "Republican". I consider myself relatively in the same camp as Jefferson. Remember that the modern Republican party wasn't in existence when Jefferson was alive. He was in a party that existed in those days called the Democratic-Republican party.

The modern Republican party you refer to founded in 1854 had NOTHING to do with Jeffersonian politics.

If you play the "What's in a name?" game, you'll find the two major parties of today basically named themselves thusly, Democrat and Republican, because the words bring emotion of those two ideals upon which our country was founded.

Regardless, the Democratic-Republican Party that elected Jefferson in the election of 1800 has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party founded in 1854 which remains in power today.

By any standard, Jefferson was a strong liberal, duly a man of the Age of Enlightenment. He was not what you'd consider a "Republican" today, not by any means. He was for a republican government, which even today's Democrats are for. In this sense, the word "Republican" has no real meaning.

Bottom line here is, when you bring up the vernacular term "Republican" in today's words, the theories and doctrines and worldviews that come to mind are incomparable to the politics of Jefferson. That is not to say the modern Democrats are any better.

If you want my honest opinion both parties are corrupt, powerful entities that we as a country would do much better without. Neither party truly represents the interest of public opinion, they stand merely as a facade that embody a political system we have, relatively speaking, very little control over.

Pappy91W
05-03-2008, 1:59 AM
I would like to point out that I **AM** a LIBERAL, by many definitions, including my support of social programs, one of the reasons I pay taxes, to insure our poor, needy and just plain stupid ARE taken care of, why the hell not? I live in the finest nation in the world, period.

Many of my fellow firearm enthusiasts CONFUSE "LIBERAL" with "LIBTARD", as there IS a difference.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, means KEEP your damn hands off my guns, and is an individual right, a REAL liberal understands this.

A libtard follows so called DEMOCRAT party lines, and has been spoon fed their every thought by those elected to supposedly represent them, thus, "GUNS ARE BAD". But this is not consistant with DEMOCRATS by a long shot, just the LIBTARD. Just TRY to take a gun away from a SOUTHERN DEMOCRAT and see what happens. You think WE are rabid about our rights? THOSE good ol' boys will shoot, shovel and shut-up for real, they too are LIBERALS.

LIBERAL & LIBERTY go hand in hand. LIBTARD and PHUCKTARD go hand in hand. I know some pretty whacked out Republicans that are very anti-gun.

Now, I have spent much time, over the years to when the Democratic PARTY decided to make gun control a HUGE party line and for what reason, I do remember things went in HIGH GEAR here for us in California over the Stockton School Yard shooting, spurring the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. Before that, I had NEVER heard of anything other than FA being an "Assault weapon", it was two words grouped together that became a single buzzword over night. I remember laughing "Assault weapon"? Is that an instrument used to facilitate rape? A lone gun walking down the street in preparation to lay siege to a police station? A gathering of Semi auto guns about to over-run a fixed position of revolvers and bolt action rifles? I'm NOT laughing now, damn, reality sure changes MY sense of humor as I went door to door in the late 80s urging fellow Californians to write their legislators and say NO to the Roberti Roos Act and again with SB23.

So, why are Liberal College Student types ANTI gun? They are spoon fed their principals by LIBTARD professors, thus, birthing a new generation of MORON. Nothing more. But they are powerful and make lots of noise and have and will use every armed tragedy as a knee jerk response to further their cause.

Why are LIBERALS anti gun? We're not! You just don't know the difference between LIBERAL and LIBTARD.

Let freedom RING! Educate a LIBTARD so that they can become a REAL liberal.

Harrison_Bergeron
05-03-2008, 1:14 PM
I think that the coming election is going to highlight that fact more so than ever before, especially for the Democrats. I think that if Hillary has her way and wins the nomination through the super delegates it would be the beginning of the end for the current way of doing things. The fact that the Democratic party would be so stupid as to make it possible, and 100% public, for a group of political elite to choose who we are allowed to have the option of voting for is just ridiculous. We all know that the nomination system is a joke compared to what the forefather intended, but to actually make an official way for the elite to trump the will of the people is just mind boggling.


If you want my honest opinion both parties are corrupt, powerful entities that we as a country would do much better without. Neither party truly represents the interest of public opinion, they stand merely as a facade that embody a political system we have, relatively speaking, very little control over.

mymonkeyman
05-03-2008, 1:21 PM
I think that the coming election is going to highlight that fact more so than ever before, especially for the Democrats. I think that if Hillary has her way and wins the nomination through the super delegates it would be the beginning of the end for the current way of doing things. The fact that the Democratic party would be so stupid as to make it possible, and 100% public, for a group of political elite to choose who we are allowed to have the option of voting for is just ridiculous. We all know that the nomination system is a joke compared to what the forefather intended, but to actually make an official way for the elite to trump the will of the people is just mind boggling.

Not to mention how the Democrats were talking crap about the electoral college after 2000. The electoral college is far closer to representing the popular vote than having 20% of the votes come from people with no accountability for their decision.

radioburning
05-04-2008, 10:35 AM
To clarify, when I said liberal I meant liberal in a Libertarian kind of way. And by Libertarian, I mean socially liberal(keep the government out of my private life), and fiscally conservative(less government programs/spending). I might have an inaccurate definition of Libertarian, but this is the one I'm sticking to for now...

P.S. Why is it so hard to break out of the two party system we have now?

RegularLT1
05-04-2008, 4:01 PM
I would like to point out that I **AM** a LIBERAL, by many definitions, including my support of social programs, one of the reasons I pay taxes, to insure our poor, needy and just plain stupid ARE taken care of, why the hell not? I live in the finest nation in the world, period.


The idea of taking money by force from the labor of motivated individuals and giving it to unmotivated individuals is the polar opposite of true liberty. If you want to give away your money to help the poor, then by all means, give it all away. However, by voting in socialists you are taking MY money and my liberty! I don't agree with 99% of the things the government wastes money on. Not only do they waste it, but they waste it on such a grand scale that the sheer numbers are mind boggling.

On top of that, it's all unconstitutional for the government to do all this stuff anyway. The intent of the forefathers was to keep the government off our backs and out of our wallets. The Constitution was drafted with intent of controlling the government, not the people. Socialism is the exact opposite.

Socialism is dependence on the government. The government provides all, and can take away all too at its' whim. We live in the greatest nation ever because until recently, we had NO socialism. We were so successful as capitalists and a republic, that suddenly in the 30's a socialist movement was born.

I am so stirred up at this comment, that I am not doing a very good job of making a counter argument. But you should really think carefully about what socialism really brings. Examine other socialist countries and see what dependency on government handouts brings.

A fundamental part of human psycology is that we want to be rewarded for our work. Under socialism, your reward for being successful is being robbed blind by the government to fund the lazy people. No thanks.

RegularLT1
05-04-2008, 4:07 PM
Thomas Jefferson wasn't a "Republican". I consider myself relatively in the same camp as Jefferson. Remember that the modern Republican party wasn't in existence when Jefferson was alive. He was in a party that existed in those days called the Democratic-Republican party.

The modern Republican party you refer to founded in 1854 had NOTHING to do with Jeffersonian politics.

If you play the "What's in a name?" game, you'll find the two major parties of today basically named themselves thusly, Democrat and Republican, because the words bring emotion of those two ideals upon which our country was founded.

Regardless, the Democratic-Republican Party that elected Jefferson in the election of 1800 has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party founded in 1854 which remains in power today.

By any standard, Jefferson was a strong liberal, duly a man of the Age of Enlightenment. He was not what you'd consider a "Republican" today, not by any means. He was for a republican government, which even today's Democrats are for. In this sense, the word "Republican" has no real meaning.

Bottom line here is, when you bring up the vernacular term "Republican" in today's words, the theories and doctrines and worldviews that come to mind are incomparable to the politics of Jefferson. That is not to say the modern Democrats are any better.

If you want my honest opinion both parties are corrupt, powerful entities that we as a country would do much better without. Neither party truly represents the interest of public opinion, they stand merely as a facade that embody a political system we have, relatively speaking, very little control over.

You are correct sir. However, consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792. It became the dominant political party until the 1820s, when it split into competing factions, one of which became the modern-day Democratic Party. Its members identified the party as the Republicans, Jeffersonians, Democrats,[1] or combinations of these (Jeffersonian republicans, etc.).

This is what I was referring to. So now you know what I mean when I say "I am one of those Republicans!"

I did not mean a Bush Republican, but I didn't explain it very well.

Noah
05-04-2008, 9:16 PM
To clarify, when I said liberal I meant liberal in a Libertarian kind of way. And by Libertarian, I mean socially liberal(keep the government out of my private life), and fiscally conservative(less government programs/spending). I might have an inaccurate definition of Libertarian, but this is the one I'm sticking to for now...

P.S. Why is it so hard to break out of the two party system we have now?

Based on your description of your political views... I want to reccommend this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/ref=pd_ts_c_th_3?pf_rd_p=293833901&pf_rd_s=right-3&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=283155&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0Z712WD3JTSZYR9198VD
It is a quick read and I bet you will be glad you read it no matter what you think of the man.
Also he is absolutely PRO-gun. :)

Also you have the coolest mail box ever.

MT1
05-04-2008, 11:48 PM
Damn good article, it's a shame that many "liberals" are too emotional about the subject to even read it if placed in front of them. Almost every time the 2nd amendment is brought up in front of an anti, they get so exasperated that coherent speech patterns turn into mumbling about the evils of guns and their owners, all ability to carry out a constructive conversation is lost and we as the upholders of the constitution are deemed to be those who will be the downfall of society. I know because my aunt is one of these people...this article has been forwarded to her :D

As for the political parties, they are both corrupt and neither wants us to own guns - I truly believe that we have become a corporately owned state, the politicians push foreign agenda's for the betterment of those that line their campaign funds, it's not a government "By the people, for the people" anymore, and like has been said - people are too consumed with their next episode of survivor to even care that their rights and liberties are being taken away by democrat and republican alike. This representative democracy that we live in has a fatal flaw, and that is corruption. A vast majority of the people that we see in government these days, those that we begrudgingly elect to office because they are "the lesser of two evil's", gravitate towards those positions for power, money, and influence - it's few and far between that you will see a true servant of the people who is there to push for his/hers constituents best interests.

I think the government is broken, and I don't see it ever being fixed until the next revolution comes around and wipes the slate clean. Unfortunately, like I said earlier, I think there are too many distractions for most of the sheep in this nation and like the frog in the soon to boil water, most will not care or realize until it's too late.

MT1
05-04-2008, 11:49 PM
To clarify, when I said liberal I meant liberal in a Libertarian kind of way. And by Libertarian, I mean socially liberal(keep the government out of my private life), and fiscally conservative(less government programs/spending). I might have an inaccurate definition of Libertarian, but this is the one I'm sticking to for now...


I'm the same as you.

Based on your description of your political views... I want to reccommend this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/ref=pd_ts_c_th_3?pf_rd_p=293833901&pf_rd_s=right-3&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=283155&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0Z712WD3JTSZYR9198VD
It is a quick read and I bet you will be glad you read it no matter what you think of the man.
Also he is absolutely PRO-gun. :)


I just ordered that book, he was my choice for president - I really think it would take someone like him to shake things up enough that some change might start to happen.

FlyingPen
05-05-2008, 12:02 AM
The most extreme sides of each side is usually the most vocal and shout the loudest. They often drown out the moderates of each side which are a truer reflection of respective points of views, they are the silent majority often bemused by the crazy talk coming from each direction.

Btw, liberty is subjective so it's pretty pointless to try to define it. Liberty from taxes to one person equates to not having liberty to another person from broken roads or homeless people breaking into houses to get something to eat after all the social programs end or old people turning into soylent green. Liberty is a fluid concept.

RegularLT1
05-05-2008, 1:08 AM
Btw, liberty is subjective so it's pretty pointless to try to define it. Liberty from taxes to one person equates to not having liberty to another person from broken roads or homeless people breaking into houses to get something to eat after all the social programs end or old people turning into soylent green. Liberty is a fluid concept.

Creating working roads is a legitimate part of the federal government's charge (military). Old people are the responsibility of the relatives first, community second - not the federal government. Liberty has different meanings for different people. But the Constitution and rule of law should not.

Stealing money under the threat of force from the productive members of society to create and expand entitlement programs for the non-productive members... is neither a part of liberty or the Constitution.

movie zombie
05-05-2008, 5:11 AM
We were so successful as capitalists and a republic, that suddenly in the 30's a socialist movement was born.
.


so successful as capitalists that we had the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930's. what was the government supposed to do? let people starve to death? which they were....... people were looking for work and couldn't find it. the business community had collapsed. the government pumped $ into the economy via the WPA and other programs to put people to work. people working created a need for goods. a need for goods allowed business to get back on its feet.

movie zombie

yellowfin
05-05-2008, 7:16 AM
so successful as capitalists that we had the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930's. what was the government supposed to do? let people starve to death? which they were....... people were looking for work and couldn't find it. the business community had collapsed. the government pumped $ into the economy via the WPA and other programs to put people to work. people working created a need for goods. a need for goods allowed business to get back on its feet.

movie zombie The economic interruption of the early 30's became the Great Depression because of government meddling and poor decisions which would have been corrected in a much more timely and infinitely less costly manner if they'd have kept the fed's grubby hands off of things. If all you've got's a nickel and the food you need costs a dime, sooner or later you and the grocer are going to establish that to get that food from point A to point B the price has got to adjust to 5 cents or both of you aren't going to work. Basic economics tells us that price is just an arbitrary number in and of itself. King FDR couldn't understand that--or, more likely did understand that but wanted to make himself a hero by messing things up, then patching it up with an expensive bandaid then claiming credit for fixing the problem. People were starving because they couldn't afford food for what it was going for. King Dingbat FDR's solution? RAISE FOOD PRICES! Brilliant! Even cut food production to do it! Double brilliant! What you couldn't sell for less because of government price controls had to be left to rot in the fields. They even put someone in jail (who took it to the Supreme Court in fact) because they grew their own food, ate it themselves, and swapped it locally rather than running it through the mucky system. The money that could have been in the economy for businesses to obtain to rebuild had been confiscated by the government to loan to England to bail them out from their own problems.

A noted British economist, John Maynard Keynes, was King FDR's go-to man for policies, suggesting that unlimited government spending regardless of side effects or long term obligations was the way to go. Side effects like inflation which destroys the purchasing power of the very lower classes that they are pretending to save and artificial wage inflation which crowds out private businesses from using the pool of available labor to expand and reemploy the very people who needed the work. The only entity who could employ them at that point was, naturally, the government with its newly minted no limit credit card. Hello inflation and national debt--again. So you had government money inflating the supply side and the demand side. Why not just take it out from both sides and let prices fall where they may? That would have been too easy: the problems would have fixed themselves which wouldn't do because the King couldn't take credit for it. What was more important than the actual well being of the people was the promotion of the Donkey party as the official problem solver of the people, who were then obligated to give them almost unilateral power for the next half century.

Of course what apparently failed to register on the radar was that Keynes was a Fabian: the Fabian society was a movement in England advocating SOCIALIST TAKEOVER and GOVERNMENT RULE OF THE ECONOMY. Basically the same as Fidel Castro.

Apparently no one noticed that little tidbit at the time.

Noah
05-05-2008, 8:39 AM
I think the government is broken, and I don't see it ever being fixed until the next revolution comes around and wipes the slate clean. Unfortunately, like I said earlier, I think there are too many distractions for most of the sheep in this nation and like the frog in the soon to boil water, most will not care or realize until it's too late.

I agree, its all broken, all 3 branches.
And I think the single largest distration for people now is survival. With the dollar slipping into oblivion the middle class is slowly fading away and most folks have to work their tails off just to maintan, leaving them just wanting to rest & forget about it at the end of the day. Fewer and fewer people have time to read and think. Then you throw in the American Idol and other crap the media spews out and.... well, yea. :mad:
My wife and I turned our cable off last year, we said screw the idiot box all togeather. Even the news has become a dog and pony show.
Without that intelegence sucking TV thing, day to day life has never been better. :)

Noah
05-05-2008, 8:58 AM
Btw, liberty is subjective so it's pretty pointless to try to define it. Liberty from taxes to one person equates to not having liberty to another person from broken roads or homeless people breaking into houses to get something to eat after all the social programs end or old people turning into soylent green. Liberty is a fluid concept.

I think I disagree with you here.
True freedom is not perfect, but it is better than being corporate slaves.
yea some people go hungry etc. But that happens with social programs too.

Liberty from an income tax and IRS would leave this country with so little $ in the budget we would have to cut federal spending back to the amount of spending we had waaay back in 1997. ;) look it up, its true.
Taxation belongs on a local level IMO. You want fancy roads with pretty landscape in the median... move where the taxes are higher. You want lower taxes, move to the area that fits you. This country is too big and diverse for direct federal taxation.

It is very similar to gun control.
Some guns are OK, but we can't trust people to own whatever they want.
Some liberty is OK, but we can't trust people to be responsible for themselves.

IMO we were made to have infinate liberty, I think the more we have the better.

Noah
05-05-2008, 9:23 AM
I would like to point out that I **AM** a LIBERAL, by many definitions, including my support of social programs, one of the reasons I pay taxes, to insure our poor, needy and just plain stupid ARE taken care of, why the hell not? I live in the finest nation in the world, period.


http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Let me correct you. You pay taxes because you don't mind being stolen from.
Private charity is far far far more efficient and effective than government "social programs".

My wife went to New Orleans last year to volunteer.
2 years and 60 billion government dollars later, and she and fellow volunteers were still just filling dumpsters with trash and debris. That is how inefficient and ineffective Government is.
People will give when there is a need, Katrina pulled in ~$5 billion from private donations, and most of the clean up was done is being done by churches and private groups.

The San Diego fires left many stranded for a while and private donations and help made FEMA look like a joke.

Imagine if every tax payer suddenly had a 30% pay increase. Just imagine how much more $ would be out there to make the economy boom and fill the church/charity coffers..... just a thought. ;)

I guess it just boils down to wether you have more faith in your fellow man or more faith in government..... I for one trust my neighbor more than the suits in government.