Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

>snip

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.

>end snip

It's as though we've developed a blind spot around the Second Amendment since 1968, but thankfully the spot now appears to be growing a little smaller.

of guns and how that motivates people to oppose 2nd amendment rights, but what it really boils down to is a fear of other people and their freedom and how they might choose to use it. And that is a reasonable fear, but it isn't a reasonable cause for oppression.

I can understand why people would be afraid though, but live free or die.

like that war in Vietnam. Once they saw what modern weapons could do in real time on the TV every night. They started questioning the sanity of modern weapons and moved toward safe sane regulations. Why shouldn't the weapon industry be regulated like every other industry?

It's about the average citizen who, last I heard, is guaranteed numerous rights under the Constitution.

This is about ownership, not manufacturing.

Once again a strawman.

Nobody is arguing the firearm industry should be subject to no regulation.
Nobody is arguing that right to keep and bear arms is unlimited.

Those are both strawmen brought out when the the real issue can't be argued on the merits.

The issue was Chicago banned universally handguns a weapon which has a legitimate legal purpose and is used overwhelming for lawful purposes. The citizens in Chicago have the same Constitutional protections to own a handgun as the citizens of rural Alaska.

"...safe sane regulations" have done nothing to affect crime, except to make it more difficult for some people in certain cities to defend themselves against thugs who WILL obtain what weapons they need. The violent crime rate has been falling for some 15 years, even as the number of guns in civilian hands has risen from around 190,000,000 to over 300,000,000, concealed-carry has become legal in over 40 states, and the so-called assault weapons ban has come and gone like swamp gas.

If you are talking about regulations regarding safety of the weapon, maybe you have a point. Certainly, if a weapon fails and harms the shooter and/or bystander, then recourse can be had as with other product liability cases.

BTW, the "modern weapons" of the Vietnam war are still not generally allowed to anyone off the street; the 1934 Firearms Act strictly regulates FULL-AUTO weapons, or true "assault rifles." AK-47 "clones," AR-15s, SKS semi-autos -- the stuff you read about in MSM -- are NOT full-auto, and are not "assault rifles." They are inadequate for combat.

Please be aware that both semi-auto and full-auto technologies have been around since the late 1800s, hardly modern stuff.

I posted this earlier in the week when someone lamented Obama hasn't banned guns and got put on ignore by a DU'er.

I too can understand the fear but if they want to change the law then they need to pass an amendment to the constition. Till then the 2nd amendment should allow law abiding people to own a gun or guns.

In this country it is a right.

Where a higher standard of civility is enforced.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=325583&mesg_id=325583

:eyes:

I'm very interested in your plan.

are willing to completely ignore the second. Talk about being cognitively dissonant. While some restrictions on arms are necessary, removing the right to bear arms altogether is just another form of tyranny. Freedom belongs to those willing to take it at gunpoint.

I just can't get behind this nanny state mentality that seems to have infested much of the party..

Common Sense Safety requirements and responsibility. At least as much as required if you own an automobile. NO ONE I know wants to take anyone's gun away..NO ONE..

I've met plenty of liberals who want all guns banned immediately. I wish it weren't true, but it is.

most liberals I have known (and myself at one time before I really thought it through) have been solidly anti-gun in entirety.

However, I've met my share that believe that guns actually cause murder, rather than simply make it easier. All guns. No matter what. That's not reasonable.

A fallacious argument, implying that anyone who disagrees with your position is not a sensible person.

I think the right extended to forming militias. I think the activist courts has overturned the original intent of the constitution and made it into a personal right which was not present. The court and the NRA have completely dismissed the whole 'well regulated militia' portion as if it doesn't exist or mean anything.

Is a problem.

You might consider limiting ownership, regulation, licensing and taxation of the 2nd amendment acceptable but would you find it equally acceptable for the 1st amendment?

It's never been really liberal vs. conservative, as much as it's urban vs. rural. And our media, in equating liberal with urban and conservative with rural, ends up painting it as liberal vs. conservative in order to put it into the one-size-fits-all framework of political discourse they force on us.

...don't want to support 2nd Amendment rights because they don't want to be on the same "side" as the people that typically use those rights. In other words, because of the people that the right is associated with (right-wingers) they don't want to support the right anymore.

Tampa-St Petersburg, Florida. Many honest people legally owned firearms for sport and self defense. A good number of my co-workers and acquaintances had concealed weapons permits. Guns were ubiquitous and were owned by both liberals and conservatives.

though I agree with the misrepresentation of MSM. Does anyone really think that liberal gun-hating is a big thing in Miami, Tampa, Dallas, San Antonio, Atlanta, St. Louis, etc.? These are urban areas, even if MSM things cows are being milked at Brickell Street Stables.

Puts me at odds with many faux liberals who would prefer a Big Brother socialist state, instead of a society with empowered individuals.

"Well-regulated militia" means to me that every gun should be registered, any crime committed with an unregistered gun brings added penalties, any crime committed with a stolen gun brings penalties for the registered owner for failing to secure his or her weapon, and in order to keep and bear arms, a gun owner should attend a two week annual course for training in the proper handling, care and use of his or her weapon of choice.

Who's with me for full enforcement of the entirety of the language of the Second Amendment, and not just a selected phrase?

Oooh listen! Crickets.

In before this goes where all threads like this are consigned.

Seems like you're talking about needing a permit in order to own a firearm in America. Do you need a permit to worship God, write a blog, or vote?

On the other hand, if you're talking "registration" as in a central database of how many firearms are in civilian hands, that may pass muster. Depends on what all is involved in the database.

Mine are all registered. However, why do you think the course you describe should be 2 weeks long? A necessary 2 weeks out of the year, every year? That would be almost impossible for anyone to negotiate.

Otherwise those guns tend to go missing, and end up in the hands of criminals and militant nuts. A well regulated militia would require its enlistees to drill at regular intervals and be evaluated for their ability to perform their defined duties. And we have that in the National Guard.

For that matter, so does the Second Amendment itself. It doesn't read "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms..."

as President in an election rigged by his brother.

You and I are both fully aware that's an ad hominem attack. It says nothing about the substance of the decision.

Apparently not.

The militia is made up of both the organized and unorganized militia. Organized = national and state guard. Unorganized = the rest of us. Well regulated is to be equipped with the same arms and equipment and ready to show up WITH it in hand should the unorganized militia be called upon.

The Heller decision discusses this and is well footnoted with historical documents on what the people meant when they penned the 2A. You may want to check it out.

You would have a branch of the government doing that.

Remember, back in those days, the Founding Fathers had no intention of having a police force or a standing army. Back in those days, the citizenry organized into militias and had guns to fight against tyranny. Even if you're going to argue that it's not an individual right, it doesn't negate the fact that I have a fundamental right to self-defense and life. That right is inalienable and cannot be taken away by any man.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the states have a pool of armed citizens from which to form their well-regulated militias.

There is nothing in your wished-for regulations that is out of line with the Constitutional phrase "well-regulated."

:eyes:

yourself.

Your interpretation is wrong. Federal registration is illegal. We already HAVE compounding sentencing for use of a firearm in a crime, registered or not.

I refuse to buy into that notion. One of the reasons I set up the Amendment II Democrats website in the first place was because the Second Amendment is "owned" by those who bother to claim it.

If someone steals my car, should I be punished for crimes he committed while using my car.

Police don't have to attend a two week annual training course on firearms so why should the average gun owner?

Oooh listen! Crickets.

"well-regulated militia" meant that citizens were to report with THEIR OWN ARMS to receive basic training. If you find anything in your "quote" of the Second which suggests "registration," gun-crimes and penalties, training periods, etc., please relate them.

I have no problem with the entirety of the language of the Second, the operative clause being "the right of the people..."

You should know that the original Articles of the Constitution spelled out Congress' duties viz-a-vis militia, while the Amendments spelled out what Congress could NOT do. The "militia clause" was added in order to specify Congress' interest, and not to abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Even Alan Dershowitz, no fan of the Second, recognizes the individual right to keep and bear arms. Laurence Tribe, who popularized the "militia clause" and was for some time the darling of the gun-controllers, has since backtracked and said that the Second recognizes an individual right. Dershowitz says that if you don't like individuals keeping and bearing arms, then repeal the Second.

If you have cricket problems, acquire some toads.

is how people interpret that as being able to own heavy weapons, such as M16's and rocket launchers. No. I don't see it that way. No one needs to own those things. I support the Second Amendment, but with heavy restrictions.

As in "I support the Second Amendment, BUT..."

Historically, this has resulted in legislative leng t'che - death of the Second Amendment by a thousand cuts.

Do I oppose all gun restrictions? Of course not. I have no desire to see a "Mad Max" state replace our Federal system. But the Founding Fathers never referred to the Bill of Rights as the Bill of Needs.

Like yelling Fire in a crowded theater..

Look it up.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

to our soldiers and mentioned in Heller as being particularly suited to militia service. The unorganized militia are supposed to keep these at home and practice with them so that they can show up with them if called upon.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They aren't even particularly powerful weapons.

And equating them to rocket launchers demonstrates your ignorance furthar.

even the 1st amendment has lots of restrictions we accept

the argument is that the 2nd should have NO restrictions what-so-ever

Other than yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater and self-evident cases of libel and slander, for example.

Because I don't have a million dollars I don't have the same amount of speech as Exxon.

The United States is the only "Free Speech Zone" I recognize - no need for further compartmentalization.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

That argument is pure folly, and laughable to the extreme.

Let me explain..

Does someone sew people's mouths SHUT, when they go into a theater, because they MIGHT YELL FIRE??

Or do we let everyone "take their mouths" into the theater, and if anyone is stupid enough to yell "FIRE" do we punish them after they do it??

Or do we punish EVERYONE because someone MIGHT yell fire??

No, we obviously, punish AFTER someone yells fire.. WE DO NOT RESTICT THE TOOLS USED TO YELL FIRE...

"the argument is that the 2nd should have NO restrictions what-so-ever"

Please point me to a link, post, article, press release, anything, anywhere in which someone other than yourself made that argument.

I never understood why anybody on the left would be hostile to gun ownership, given that the origin of gun control comes directly from Nazi Germany, and that the original purpose of gun control here was to prevent blacks from defending themselves against the KKK.

Is this the next wedge issue of the 2010 campaigns?? Just curious...

Oh, and I do support second amendment rights - just with some commen sense regs stated by some already.

in which Supreme court said a complete ban on handguns is Unconstitutional. The larger issue is that the 2nd amendment applies to state & local govts as well.

is a misunderstanding of our nation's history and of the wording of the Second Amendment. I support the Second Amendment completely. No one should be banned from serving in the state militia, and no one should have their rights to keep and bear arms within that milita infringed upon. That's what was happening in 1776, and that's what the amendment was about.

Second, the right of my kid to not get killed by some idiot who loses his temper in a bar trumps the right of that idiot to play with his toy in the bar, in exactly the same way that shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater or burning a cross on someone's front lawn is trumped by the right to live. ANy restrictions which make that less likely without infringing on a person's right to serve in a militia is open to discussion.

Next they'll try to claim that the Third Amendment forbids troops from carrying quarters.

GOVERNMENT CODE

TITLE 4. EXECUTIVE BRANCH

SUBTITLE C. STATE MILITARY FORCES AND VETERANS

CHAPTER 431. STATE MILITIA

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 431.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Reserve militia" means the persons liable to serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.

(1-a) "Servicemember" has the meaning assigned by Section 161.551, Health and Safety Code.

(2) "State militia" means the state military forces and the reserve militia.

(3) "State military forces" means the Texas National Guard, the Texas State Guard, and any other active militia or military force organized under state law.

(4) "Texas National Guard" means the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/GV/htm/GV.431.htm

Most Texans really don't have any choice. They are members of the Texas state reserve militia whether they want to be or not.

The British did seize arms from citizens thus preventing the militias from forming. There are dozens of cases of that.

Once formed up you can't effectively seize arms from the militia because they have this tendency to shoot back. At that point it isn't called a seizure of arms it is called a skirmish. Hence the "solution" was for loyalist governors and military commanders to go door to door and seize arms from EVERYONE. Why everyone well because the milita was comprised of virtually everyone. Since it was difficult for British troops to tell loyalists from rebels it was simply easier to seize firearms from all the colonists. Now under British common law the colonists had the right to keep arms and those arms couldn't be seized without charges and warrant. However those rights were violated by a tyrant king. Individuals when confronted with overwhelming force are more likely to comply with tyranny at their front door then when shoulder to shoulder with an army of one's fellows.

To prevent that from ever happening again the 2nd was included in Bill of Rights.

The British troops violated many of the rights of the colonists you might recognize some of them:
* they seized newspapers which printed "radical stories".
* they prevented large numbers of colonists from assembling together (for fear it was cover of militia).
* they suspended jury trials and held trials by military tribunal.
* they seized arms protected under British common law.
* they refused petitions of grievances.
* they placed troops in homes of colonists (at colonists expense) without recourse.
* they jailed "rebels" based on their words alone.

Recognize any of these rights which the British troops violated and the colonists might think need stronger protecting in some future government?

The "shot heard round the world" (Battle of Old North Bridge) was the result of British troops attempting to seize gunpowder (thus making arms useless). They figured they would get to armory prior to the militia forming up except ..... oops those minutemen are fast. The British actually attempted to back down because they didn't want to engage the militia (far easier to seize arms from unformed citizens) except oops again someone fired and the revolutionary war had begun.

You failed to notice the Second Amendment does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Just like voting rights, the rights protected under the Constitution have expanded over the years, and the Second Amendment now applies to all Americans.

Adjust.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

Source: http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
(Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
(Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
(James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"
(George Washington)

Source: http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html

One way or another, everyone has their panties in a load over this issue. People are probably outraged at my lack of outrage

to Republicans by being on the wrong side of an issue empowers them, then yes, I find myself annoyed, if not outraged. The RKBA is a progressive issue. It is one that the Republicans got us to grab like a tar covered hand grenade.
We have a few misguided zealots who don't realize they are buying a racist argument, pissing off a whole lot of people in the middle, and making those of us who share their views on marriage equality, universal health care and the environment share their stink of failed fascism when they try to unconstitutionally deprive their fellow citizens of enumerated rights based on an ignorant ('well regulated') reading of the constitution, genuine cultural elitism, urban chauvinism ("the needs of us civilized urbanites overrides the rights of you rednecks in fly over states), irrational fears and/or dogmatic adherence to Party.

Causing Democratic candidates to lose elections by vociferously being factually and constitutionally wrong, arrogant, fascist, elitist and paranoid makes one either an agent of the Republican party, an idiot or a woefully misguided zealot

The Rev. Ian Paisley is a Protestant clergyman and politician from Northern Ireland whose vigorous, oft-repeated anti-Catholic public statements made him the go-to guy for Unionist quotes for the media back in the day.

Now, you would think a guy like that would be a very large and obvious target for assasination by the IRA- and you would be wrong.

His screeds were so hateful and over the top, the (Irish) Republicans left him alone as he was one of their best recruiting tools.

A lesson not lost on the USAian Republicans. For them, people like Josh Sugarman, Dianne Feinstein, and Paul Helmke are the gifts that keep on giving...

Anti-gunners often make two wildly incompatible arguments.

Argument #1: The recent case is awful because local control should rule here. Obviously, dense cities should be able to have stricter rules than rural areas even if they might make it impossible for some people to legally keep and bear arms, *and if rural communities want fewer restrictions then they should be able to have that too.*

Response: But banning guns in cities has not seemed to have any appreciable effect on crime rates, or even firearm possession among criminals.

Argument #2: Well of course not, since areas outside the cities are awash in guns it is simple for anybody to bring guns into the city, undermining the local bans! We can not effectively reduce guns in the cities unless we severely regulate guns everywhere!

Response: ???

Hypocracy is only a tasty snacky-treat....

I am a bout as liberal treehugger as they come, but we keep guns to protect ourselves from Kreestians and rpukes.

the rest of us, much like the RWers do.

Sorry, but we are fully qualified to have ALL our constitutional rights, not just the ones you may approve of.

Seriously, if you hate guns, please don't buy any...no one is forcing you to do something against your will.

mark