Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
*Mods - if this in the wrong forum, please move as needed*

I came across the piece yesterday and feel compelled to share with the board. There's a lot of debate going on both against and in favor gun control and I think the writer here hits on a very logical position. Please read it through and give it some thought....

Why Liberals should love the Second Amendment




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.



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 certain 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 further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions. Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.





No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.
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 Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons. The Second Amendment is obsolete?





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.


Think about that last quote people. At it's absolute core, the Second Amendment is our last option to defend against a tyrannical government. Remove that option, and every single person living in the United States is at the mercy of whatever whim those in power choose to dictate.

Lastly, I'll wrap up with these two quotes from the Supreme Court of the United States:



“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying arm… is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” -Wilson vs. State




“A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.” Warren v. District of Columbia, 444A.2d 1(D.C.App.181)


Anyway, read on and check the emotional responses to this issue at the door.
edit on 12/21/12 by surfinguru because: added content
edit on 12/21/12 by surfinguru because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I never understood why "liberals" are down on the second amendment.

Liberal = liberty = freedom

But today it just means big government?

Our founding fathers were "liberal" in the sense that they fought back against oppression.

I am radically liberal when it comes to so-called social issues.

That being said, I believe that the smaller the government the better. That puts me in the same boat as the conservatives. Unless you want to talk about sex or drugs. Then they LOVE the big government.



I think the OP raises a VERY important point. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting deer or defending against burglars. It is about REVOLUTION. It's been over two hundred years since our "revolution" and look what happens when we become complacent.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I have said it before, if the second amendment goes, the rest will soon follow.




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I started through the comments expecting to see them all eating themselves alive like they so love to do on Democratic Underground but am surprised to see so many in agreement.

Liberty eventually trumps tyranny every time.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I'm a liberal and I love the Second Amendment. No one's taking my gun. Not everyone fits into your little box just because Fox News told you so.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Def Youth
 


Def, are you responding to Redmoon? Why so confrontational? His point is still very valid, if the 2nd goes away, you can be sure encroachment will significantly increase. It's pretty clear protests and signature gathering petitions hold no value to those incharge.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Quit using those tired old arguments..


Own guns so the government does not blah blah..yet guns so far have done not anything to stop the government from doing anything.

If we don`t have guns then only criminals will have guns..which may be true...but where do criminals get guns...break in from law abiding citizens

Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010



About 1.4 million guns, or an annual average of 232,400, were stolen during burglaries and other property crimes in the six-year period from 2005 through 2010.
On average, firearms were stolen in an annual average of about 4% of the 2.4 million burglaries occurring each year, in 2% of the 529,200 robberies, and in less than 1% of the 13.6 million other crimes involving theft from 2005 through 2010.
From 2005 through 2010, 86% of burglaries and 75% of other property crimes involving a stolen firearm were reported to police.


People would be crazy to try invade when they know a lot of Americans would armed..
Today`s military of any country would never be afraid of armed civilians...it is your military they fear not you people...best excuse ever.





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join