Antipathy That Should Never Have Existed
Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
"Liberals love the Constitution.
Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.
And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.
So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.
And this is why:"
Timely read for theFourth.
I consider myself as progressive as they come and have been a gun owner all my life. I demonstrated against the Vietnam war in my college years and helped take over my school after Kent State. Most days I'm packing a .40 pistol or a .357 revolver.
There are several other strong reasons to reject the supposed gulf between liberals and progressives and gun ownership. It was invented by mouthbreathing troglodytes for one, rightwing dullards who equate their masculinity with weapons and constantly look for men who they need to feel don't match up with their virile awesomeness. Just like sneering at others for not being patriotic enough. Gentler souls or those who aren't fixated on the caliber/penile correlation become automatic liberals. It's another phony left - right divide, meant to be a chain yanking wedge issue.
More vulnerable members of our society need to be armed. Racial minorities, women and older people should have this equalizing factor especially as we descend into a dark era of state terrorism.
(And just a difference of opinion with the Kos article, there are far more guns in america today than was mentioned in the article. The numbers mentioned are low because each recorded background check may actually include several gun transactions instead of just one.)
We're about to enter a no man's land of chaos where liberals should reject a false impression that 'the gun culture" is a part of their political, Bush mob mentality opposites. Guns were never the perview of the wingnuts though they wanted desperately to think that. There's never going to be a more important time to have weapons than in upcoming days. Buy them, learn to use them, share them with friends and family, and get ready.
"Liberals love the Constitution.
Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.
And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.
So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.
And this is why:"
Timely read for theFourth.
I consider myself as progressive as they come and have been a gun owner all my life. I demonstrated against the Vietnam war in my college years and helped take over my school after Kent State. Most days I'm packing a .40 pistol or a .357 revolver.
There are several other strong reasons to reject the supposed gulf between liberals and progressives and gun ownership. It was invented by mouthbreathing troglodytes for one, rightwing dullards who equate their masculinity with weapons and constantly look for men who they need to feel don't match up with their virile awesomeness. Just like sneering at others for not being patriotic enough. Gentler souls or those who aren't fixated on the caliber/penile correlation become automatic liberals. It's another phony left - right divide, meant to be a chain yanking wedge issue.
More vulnerable members of our society need to be armed. Racial minorities, women and older people should have this equalizing factor especially as we descend into a dark era of state terrorism.
(And just a difference of opinion with the Kos article, there are far more guns in america today than was mentioned in the article. The numbers mentioned are low because each recorded background check may actually include several gun transactions instead of just one.)
We're about to enter a no man's land of chaos where liberals should reject a false impression that 'the gun culture" is a part of their political, Bush mob mentality opposites. Guns were never the perview of the wingnuts though they wanted desperately to think that. There's never going to be a more important time to have weapons than in upcoming days. Buy them, learn to use them, share them with friends and family, and get ready.
posted by nolocontendere at 5:58 AM
2 Comments:
Cant argue with any of that. I am way to the left of the Liberals out there so far into anarchy I am almost aligned with the libertarians. I don't own a gun myself, though I am glad I know a few people that do. I reckon if it comes to guns and shooting people I have already lost. But I also think each man should be free to make his own decision in that regard. I don't support any restrictions on gun ownership. Prohibition is always wrong. Cannabis or cannon.
I'm with you on the political spectrum scale Michael.
I believe that very soon we're all going to have to come to grips with a much harsher reality; a nightmare zone we all have to travel through, and during that time most of us will be forced to make decisions we never would have wanted to make. I want the maximum number of people to make it to the other side.
Post a Comment
<< Home