0
   

Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

 
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:30 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Well, I consider that excessive.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:33 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Well, I consider that excessive.


Why? You can still own weapons which are extremely useful for both hunting and militia work. Pistols are useless for both of those tasks.

Long rifles satisfy the second amendment admirably without giving rise to coward's weapons, which are primarily used in crimes - and have no other use, really.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:38 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I belive the 2nd amendment to be more than a right to join a militia. I agree with the supreme court decision that it's fundamentally a right to self-defense. I also belive that that right extends to being able carry concealed (as do 48 states, to varying degrees). Concealed carry simply is not possible with a long gun (well, not realistically possible).

Self defense is another use for pistols Cyclops, and they are much easier to wield than a long gun.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:53 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

I support the second amendment, but at the same time I fail to see why any American citizen should be able to own a sub-machine gun.

Right now they can't. Well, they can -- theoretically -- but the regulations are so restrictive that it's practically impossible for an individual to get a permit to own a sub-machine gun or any other automatic weapon.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:56 am
@joefromchicago,
Which is why I support some gun regulations.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 11:01 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
The second that a child is digging curiously through their parent's closet and accidentally
blow their head off when playing around with
some of their parents free speech rights I'll consider this an accurate relationship.
What an interesting scene f.art sets for us, here:
there is A CHILD (one) digging, then mysteriously,
we find out that there are MORE than one child present:
he refers to THEIR HEAD, such that the digging children
all share one common head, which thay will blow off.
Alice in Wonderland?

Shoud that read "their parents' closet"
plural possessive, since so many new children have arrived
(who share the same head) ?





David
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 11:01 am
@JPB,
But machine guns are so much fun. And kids love 'em!

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 11:15 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
Concealed carry simply is not possible with a long gun (well, not realistically possible).


In Missouri, it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon longer than 5 feet
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 11:50 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
you are conflating the responsible handling and storage of guns with the constitutional right to own guns.
Ownership of guns, I agree should be embraced by liberals, Ive thought that way myself.

However, the second amendment should not be without limits .
OK, here 's how I see it, now:
Originally, the Founders expected that it was likely that we 'd need
to overthrow government AGAIN, because history teaches us
that human nature causes aggregations of political power.
The Author of the Declaration of Independence and our 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson
believed that revolutions 'd be necessary every 20 years; (he said so).
The Founders wanted the Citizens to WIN,
as thay 'd just finished winning against the English.
Accordingly, it was their vu that there r no limits on the 2nd Amendment, to include artillery and warships, etc.

I must confess, however grudgingly,
that a pure, Originalist application of the unlimited 2nd Amendment
is not a viable alternative. From my contact with the public,
especially from reading their mail on a daily basis, I have come
to know for a fact, that a statistically significant proportion of them
languish in varying states of mental ill-heath. If thay have access
to weapons of mass destruction, some of them eventually will USE them on us,
in the spirit of Timothy McVeigh or of Atta and Laden.

Hence, I will accept an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment
protecting only those weapons that can be borne upon the person:
bladed weapons, revolvers, pistols, rifles, shotguns n submachineguns.
That is personal freedom as it was thru the early 1900s.








farmerman wrote:
I think its important that you understand that each of "Us liberals"
buy into a selected batch of biases and beliefs, the list of which,
the Conservatives just accept pretty much in entirety and without thinking .
No doubt.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 12:10 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
But machine guns are so much fun. And kids love 'em!
VERY TRUE!!! I always did.
That one is only a submachinegun, not a full belt-fed machinegun
(which is a crew-served weapon, usually mounted on a tripod),
but SMGs are tons of fun.

Thay shoud have training in submachineguns in the public schools;
for participation of all grades. THAT woud cut down on playing hookey from school.

The only bad thing that I have to say about SMGs
is that there are not enuf of them.
David


0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 12:39 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I concur with farmerman's response, and I'll add that.....

I'm not one to advocate against ALL gun control measures (never have I held this position), and neither is the author of the article. What I prefer is exactly what the article mentions, that when gun control measures are in discussion, that there is serious thought-out opposition to them from ALL Americans BECAUSE we are limiting a RIGHT to protect someone's own LIFE, and that should not be taken lightly. Never should limiting any of our rights be taken lightly.

Pools and household cleaners accidentally kill more children than guns ever will, yet we do not see nearly as strong opposition to pools or bleach, and THOSE items are not defined in our constitution as a right of ALL people.
VERY WELL SAID!
I must agree.
Here are the gun control regulations which I 'll willingly accept
(tho thay will not work unless the victims of the regulations are willing to co-operate):

1. that convicted criminals be disarmed while confined to prison,
provided that thay have the option to be kept away from other
prisoners. (Of course, we know that thay have MADE guns while
in prison, but anyway, we can pretend that it works.)
That principle (of being disarmed, if kept away from other prisoners)
will also apply to jails.
Dangerous recidivists shoud NEVER be permitted contact
with the decent people.


2. that adjudicated luntics, after a fair trial at which thay had legal counsel,
be disarmed while confined in mental hospitals.

3. that compulsory education be expanded in its curricula
to include the competent, accurate and safe handling of all firearms
and bladed weapons, including education in battle tactics and in the law of self defense.
This shoud begin in the earliest practicable grades;
it may be offered on an incrementally augmented basis.

4. that gunsmithing courses be offered in the public schools.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 12:57 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
I don't mind the license idea either,
as long as it's not being used to severely restrict a person's right to buy a firearm.
Licensure is for ONE purpose: DISCRIMINATION.
Those citizens who don 't get the license,
get screwed out of their Constitutional Rights.





maporsche wrote:
These new Chicago rules for example, ARE excessive, in my opinion.
It will not keep me from owning a handgun in Chicago,
since I can afford the $1000 it's going to take me to register and get a permit.
It will keep poor people from having the right to protect themselves though, and that's unfortunate.
Its not only "unfortunate"; it is sodomizing them out of their Constitutional Rights.
The 2nd Amendment DIVESTS government of jurisdiction; it does not include an exception for the poor.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 08:43 pm

This will be like a re-play after blacks got the vote
and whites tried to keep their use of it as little as possible.

The repressionists will do the best that thay can to defeat defensive freedom
and pro-liberty citizens will do what is possible to enlarge freedom of self defense.

The battlefield is litigation.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 02:04 pm

I understand that the State of Utah
is about to follow in the footsteps of Arizona,
in that its gun control laws will also be repealed and citizens can legally carry their guns in public,
either openly or covertly concealed, without any legal need of licensure. THAT 'S FREEDOM, as the Founders intended.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 06:03 pm

The State of Wyoming came very close to adopting 100% freedom
to carry guns either openly or concealed, in its last session.
There is a wonderful chance that it will adopt it in a few months early next year.





David
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 06:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
The 2nd Amendment DIVESTS government of jurisdiction;


BS.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 06:23 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
The 2nd Amendment DIVESTS government of jurisdiction;
farmerman wrote:

BS.
Its the fact of the history involved.
The Constitution was rejected in Virginia, the most important colony,
and accepted only on the grounds that it contain the concepts
that became the Bill of Rights; thay were true to their word.

One of the concepts (argued in the Federalist Papers)
was that the citizens woud have the ability to OVERTHROW the government,
which some of the Founders believed woud happen again,
and many times. Thay did not want our low-life employee,
government, to be able to defeat overthrow, by disarming government's employers and creators.

Thay did not trust government,
and this was much discussed at the time.





David
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 08:09 am
@OmSigDAVID,
That was then, this is now.

Even in Heller, the USSC stated that tese rights can be limited by "reasonable restrictions", then they clammed up, the cowards.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 01:19 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
That was then, this is now.
U imply that by magic ( read that USURPATION ) government has been invested
with greater authority that it was granted at its inception.
That is FALSE.




farmerman wrote:
Even in Heller, the USSC stated that tese rights can be limited by "reasonable restrictions",
then they clammed up, the cowards.
NOT cowardice.
Those issues were NOT before the court, and therefore, thay shoud express no opinion on them,
because IF thay DO, then that is PREJUDICE; i.e., thay 'd have JUDGED the case BEFORE it is tried,
before counsel had any opportunities to present any evidence nor to present any arguments.
That is a corrupt practice, and pervasively known to be so.

Everything that thay said about any reasonable restrictions
(unless limited to keeping guns within the home, which those statements did not)
was devoid of any legal value, of any precedential value, the same as if the court ventured an opinion
as to who 'll win the next World Series; thay were obiter dicta.

The litigation is defined by THE PLEADINGS
and those issues that u mentioned were not before the court.





David
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 03:54 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
The litigation is defined by THE PLEADINGS
and those issues that u mentioned were not before the court.


Then why did the court bring it up?
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/15/2019 at 09:59:24