Why are liberals against the second amendment?
- Thread starter ganymede
- Start date
- Status
Liberals, gun control, pre-purchase background checks, etc,,,
Hello anyone reading this and please don't get angry with what I'm about to say. Instead think about it. I own firearms. I consider myself to be liberal on some issues, and not on others. I reside in a state where the majority votes red, Tennessee. Our Governor is a Democrat. Recently as in last week that so called liberal Democratic Governor passed legislation that makes it ILLEGAL for authorities to confiscate firearms if marshal law is declared. Good move Governor!!! He's pro gun, he hunts and has no problem with the 2ND Amendment.
I personally have no problem with a background check. In fact I'm glad there are background checks when buying firearms. That's because I know and have known many a person that I would NOT like to see able to simply up and buy a firearm without any background check. I DO NOT want murders, rapists, career criminals, gang bangers, convicted drug addicts and crack heads, able to visit any establishment and buy a gun.
I on the other hand have nothing to fear from a background check.
So liberals aren't always the problem just as conservative Republicans aren't always the cure.
As is the case in all instances there's good and bad, right and wrong on all sides and in all instances. The day man can act in a noble manner, free from error is the day that controlling mans behavior can end. Until that day arrives control over behavior can and will be in place. All I can say is act responsible, stop painting anyone that doesn't see it as you do as a liberal and maybe, just maybe we as a nation will move in a saner direction.
Now I'm going to sign off, and check to see if I can find a Smith & Wesson model 65 that's for sale on line. I've got to get me one of those fine revolvers!!! And I do NOT mind passing a background check to see that I'm not a criminal or have mental issues.
Hello anyone reading this and please don't get angry with what I'm about to say. Instead think about it. I own firearms. I consider myself to be liberal on some issues, and not on others. I reside in a state where the majority votes red, Tennessee. Our Governor is a Democrat. Recently as in last week that so called liberal Democratic Governor passed legislation that makes it ILLEGAL for authorities to confiscate firearms if marshal law is declared. Good move Governor!!! He's pro gun, he hunts and has no problem with the 2ND Amendment.
I personally have no problem with a background check. In fact I'm glad there are background checks when buying firearms. That's because I know and have known many a person that I would NOT like to see able to simply up and buy a firearm without any background check. I DO NOT want murders, rapists, career criminals, gang bangers, convicted drug addicts and crack heads, able to visit any establishment and buy a gun.
I on the other hand have nothing to fear from a background check.
So liberals aren't always the problem just as conservative Republicans aren't always the cure.
As is the case in all instances there's good and bad, right and wrong on all sides and in all instances. The day man can act in a noble manner, free from error is the day that controlling mans behavior can end. Until that day arrives control over behavior can and will be in place. All I can say is act responsible, stop painting anyone that doesn't see it as you do as a liberal and maybe, just maybe we as a nation will move in a saner direction.
Now I'm going to sign off, and check to see if I can find a Smith & Wesson model 65 that's for sale on line. I've got to get me one of those fine revolvers!!! And I do NOT mind passing a background check to see that I'm not a criminal or have mental issues.
FiREhAwk
Member
At the Engineering firm I last worked for conservatives/republicans were in the majority. The more liberal employees sometimes openly questioned why we needed guns during our gun conversations! Two interns almost got hostile with me when I brought in a Beretta 96 Brigadier I just bought to show some of my friends. They said "Handguns have one purpose, to kill people." I asked them what they thought of me owning an ar-15 and they asked why I needed it to hunt as I have several bolt actions! :banghead: When more people got into the conversation and they realized their opinion was not gaining support they never brought up the issue again. This was one example, but even the more senior and fulltime liberal workers spoke out against gun ownership from time to time. Now to the topic of this thread. The more liberal guys were usualy from areas like the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill) Or urban Wilmington where there is a good bit of crime. So why are (the majority) of liberals anti second? The same reason (the vast majority) of conseratives are pro second. It is where we are born and raised and what our family and enviroment instills in us. We are a product of our raisings. Yes some people grow up in a anti gun home but see the flaw in their logic and become more moderate on the issue. At the same time some one could be raised in a home with guns and shooting activities, but something tragic happen and they now become more extreme against them, or go to a liberal school where they take in conflicting ideas. Sorry this got so long and if I do not make any sense as it is a bit late, but people who express or believe more into their emotion than logic alot of times come out anti on issues such as this. Spock would be a strong gun rights supporter.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
I didn't read all 13 pages, so if this has been said, I apologize.
I think it is because the 2A is at it's source, a reliance on the individual to makes one's own path and to protect that path. Liberalism is at it's center, a creed of collectivism, and group value over individual. The idea that people must be responsible for their own protection, either from each other or from tyranny, flies in the face of liberalism, which decrees that everyone is responsible and thus beholden to each other or a centralized group.
The 2A is about you looking out for you. Liberalism is about you looking out for everyone(whether you want to or not). It goes beyond just firearms. Everything about liberalism stresses group over self. I must provide you are house. I must provide you health care. I must provide you a job or food. Or I have a right to the profit you worked for. I have a say in what your children are taught. The 2A takes the teeth out of those would enforce those ideals. The 2A is I will do for me, and you are free to do for you. And neither of us will make the other do anything by force. Compromise through mutual agreement and trade of value for value(also known as capitalism) because we both have the ability to defend ourselves and our own interests.
To enforce groupthink, the individual must be subdued. And to be subdued, he must first be disarmed.
I think it is because the 2A is at it's source, a reliance on the individual to makes one's own path and to protect that path. Liberalism is at it's center, a creed of collectivism, and group value over individual. The idea that people must be responsible for their own protection, either from each other or from tyranny, flies in the face of liberalism, which decrees that everyone is responsible and thus beholden to each other or a centralized group.
The 2A is about you looking out for you. Liberalism is about you looking out for everyone(whether you want to or not). It goes beyond just firearms. Everything about liberalism stresses group over self. I must provide you are house. I must provide you health care. I must provide you a job or food. Or I have a right to the profit you worked for. I have a say in what your children are taught. The 2A takes the teeth out of those would enforce those ideals. The 2A is I will do for me, and you are free to do for you. And neither of us will make the other do anything by force. Compromise through mutual agreement and trade of value for value(also known as capitalism) because we both have the ability to defend ourselves and our own interests.
To enforce groupthink, the individual must be subdued. And to be subdued, he must first be disarmed.
It's deeper than political
A lot of people say they are 'afraid of guns'. What they really mean is they are afraid of themselves. They know that a gun doesn't act of its own volition. But they know that it will allow a person who is reckless, stupid, or evil to do great damage.
A person who is afraid of, or does not like, guns, and is not willing to learn about them and overcome these irrational feelings, is really expressing a deep seated distrust in their own character.
We should assume that such persons are the best judge of their own qualities and should not be trusted with anything else that can cause harm either, like cars, credit cards, or political power.
A lot of people say they are 'afraid of guns'. What they really mean is they are afraid of themselves. They know that a gun doesn't act of its own volition. But they know that it will allow a person who is reckless, stupid, or evil to do great damage.
A person who is afraid of, or does not like, guns, and is not willing to learn about them and overcome these irrational feelings, is really expressing a deep seated distrust in their own character.
We should assume that such persons are the best judge of their own qualities and should not be trusted with anything else that can cause harm either, like cars, credit cards, or political power.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Isher said:
Then your definition of what a liberal is today is not the same as mine. If what you have written is true, you're a conservative. "Lock Stock and Barrel" support of the Constitution is what conservatism is all about.
Woody
TT
member
Exactly, except that I would point out that you are referencing modern liberalism here, not classical. The motivations that drive a person to join the Democratic Party inherently stand in opposition to individual self-defense.
They say they support the Constitution, but their definition/interpretation of the Constitution is very different than Conservatives interpretation.
The obvious example is that many liberals interpret the 2nd amendment as only allowing the military to keep and bear arms, it is not an individual right. The fact that the Heller decision was so close (5-4) shows you that the liberal judges on the court were of the same opinion.
All -
My opinion only.
If this discussion is going to be substantive, and go anywhere, then
We need to go back to the mother lode, the Federalist Papers.
I found a verbatim copy on the net:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
I'll be the first to admit that, shame on me,
The last time I really thoroughly went through them
Was 1990 or 1991.
Note: The Federalist Papers have everything to do with
The Constitution and nothing to do factional politics, i.e.
The present conservative/liberal mud wrestling.
Enjoy.
isher
One more thing.
Moderators, I just did my best to roll thru this whole site re:
The Constitution and/or the Federalist Papers
(Which to me are THR to the Constitution)
And found nothing.
'Course, maybe I'm blind, because I'm not
Particularly adept with computers.
But maybe setting those two up as stickies, somewhere,
Might help everyone.
My opinion only.
If this discussion is going to be substantive, and go anywhere, then
We need to go back to the mother lode, the Federalist Papers.
I found a verbatim copy on the net:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
I'll be the first to admit that, shame on me,
The last time I really thoroughly went through them
Was 1990 or 1991.
Note: The Federalist Papers have everything to do with
The Constitution and nothing to do factional politics, i.e.
The present conservative/liberal mud wrestling.
Enjoy.
isher
One more thing.
Moderators, I just did my best to roll thru this whole site re:
The Constitution and/or the Federalist Papers
(Which to me are THR to the Constitution)
And found nothing.
'Course, maybe I'm blind, because I'm not
Particularly adept with computers.
But maybe setting those two up as stickies, somewhere,
Might help everyone.
Last edited:
Yes, the many neo-liberals with whom I have spoken and debated over the years, firmly believe this.
Of course, if one examines this premise and accepts it, then one can only come to the conclusion that our Founding Fathers intended to set up a Military police State. Only the Military (and police) could be armed, therefore the citizens would be under the bootheel of the politicians' military police... forever. Afterall, when only the military is allowed to "Keep and bear arms," what do you have??
A dictatorship as tyrannical as any that ever existed.
Neo-liberals find this confusing, when one points it out to them.
Of course, it is not too difficult to confuse a neo-liberal.
L.W.
Quote:
ROB 360 - "The obvious example is that many liberals interpret the 2nd amendment as only allowing the military to keep and bear arms, it is not an individual right. "
Yes, the many neo-liberals with whom I have spoken and debated over the years, firmly believe this.
Of course, if one examines this premise and accepts it, then one can only come to the conclusion that our Founding Fathers intended to set up a Military police State. Only the Military (and police) could be armed, therefore the citizens would be under the bootheel of the politicians' military police... forever. Afterall, when only the military is allowed to "Keep and bear arms," what do you have??
A dictatorship as tyrannical as any that ever existed.
Neo-liberals find this confusing, when one points it out to them.
Of course, it is not too difficult to confuse a neo-liberal.
L.W.
__________________
Always go straight forward. If you meet the devil, cut him in half and go between the pieces. (Wm. Sturgis, clipper ship captain.)
OK..... let us go back
To the original argument:
Founding Fathers Home Page > Federalist Papers > FEDERALIST No. 29
FEDERALIST No. 29
Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788
Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?
By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.
In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes "Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire"; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.
A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.
PUBLIUS.
I offer this with neither prejudice nor preconception.
isher
ROB 360 - "The obvious example is that many liberals interpret the 2nd amendment as only allowing the military to keep and bear arms, it is not an individual right. "
Yes, the many neo-liberals with whom I have spoken and debated over the years, firmly believe this.
Of course, if one examines this premise and accepts it, then one can only come to the conclusion that our Founding Fathers intended to set up a Military police State. Only the Military (and police) could be armed, therefore the citizens would be under the bootheel of the politicians' military police... forever. Afterall, when only the military is allowed to "Keep and bear arms," what do you have??
A dictatorship as tyrannical as any that ever existed.
Neo-liberals find this confusing, when one points it out to them.
Of course, it is not too difficult to confuse a neo-liberal.
L.W.
__________________
Always go straight forward. If you meet the devil, cut him in half and go between the pieces. (Wm. Sturgis, clipper ship captain.)
OK..... let us go back
To the original argument:
Founding Fathers Home Page > Federalist Papers > FEDERALIST No. 29
FEDERALIST No. 29
Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788
Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?
By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.
In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes "Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire"; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.
A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.
PUBLIUS.
I offer this with neither prejudice nor preconception.
isher
Joe Demko
Member
My estimate is that we are about one more "liberals are teh stoopid" from threadlock. Sadly, some of you make valid points, but then can't resist throwing in a gratuitous insult. Doing that undermines your point rather than reinforcing it.
I'll ask again: Does anybody here choose to believe anything he knows to be false?
I'll ask again: Does anybody here choose to believe anything he knows to be false?
runrabbitrun
member
Well I want whatever the police have access to.
If they are getting FA weapons, I want one too.
(Might need to help them out one day)...
They are NOT military...
So why is it 'they' can now possess full auto and I can't?
Oh I remember.
2 guys had full auto illegal guns in
the North Hollywood bank shoot out.
GREAT excuse huh?
So now we can slip FA weapons to LE and none for the REST of us?
Why not?
If they are getting FA weapons, I want one too.
(Might need to help them out one day)...
They are NOT military...
So why is it 'they' can now possess full auto and I can't?
Oh I remember.
2 guys had full auto illegal guns in
the North Hollywood bank shoot out.
GREAT excuse huh?
So now we can slip FA weapons to LE and none for the REST of us?
Why not?
Last edited:
Bud Tugly
Member
I totally agree with the folks who say it's mostly your upbringing that determines your stance on the second amendment. I'm a liberal on most issues, but my dad taught me to shoot and respect guns at an early age. I have no fear of guns but rather see them as a very useful (and fun) tool that can be very dangerous if misused.
Cars kill FAR more people than guns, but since the vast majority of people learn to drive at an early age and own a car there never will be a clamor to ban them. Most people recognize that driving is a useful and fun activity with great potential for danger if done irresponsibility.
IMO the only way to change attitudes about guns is to expose more people to them at an early age by responsible adults. Shooting a gun should be a part of every child's education. Why can't we have skeet and trap shooting teams in high schools like football and basketball or more youth shooting leagues?
Maybe a pipe dream but IMO the only real solution.
Cars kill FAR more people than guns, but since the vast majority of people learn to drive at an early age and own a car there never will be a clamor to ban them. Most people recognize that driving is a useful and fun activity with great potential for danger if done irresponsibility.
IMO the only way to change attitudes about guns is to expose more people to them at an early age by responsible adults. Shooting a gun should be a part of every child's education. Why can't we have skeet and trap shooting teams in high schools like football and basketball or more youth shooting leagues?
Maybe a pipe dream but IMO the only real solution.
BlackHand1917
Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 187
Firstly, these people we call liberals are not really Liberals at all, either 19th Century Liberals (who would be similar to today's Libertarians) or 1930's Rooseveltian Liberals who wanted big government to "save capitalism" from its weaknesses. The people we call Liberals nowadays are best described as Frankfurt School Marxists. The story of how a band of odd Marxists from Hungary managed to take over the left wing of the American political spectrum is a fascinating one.
Some folks right remember that after World War One (1919) Hungary got taken over by a bunch of Communists led by a fellow named Bela Kun. In a very brief time (18 months) the people of Hungary threw these rascals out. The intellectuals that were behind the revolution fled to Germany and set up an academic institution/think tank called the Frankfurt School in the city of the same name. There were big differences between regular Marxists and these Frankfurt School guys. Old timey Marxists (at least publically) had a high regard for working class folk. The Frankfurt School guys hated and distrusted the working class. The other big difference was the deep hatred the Frankfurt Schhol Marxists had for Christianity. They believed that if you undermine Christianity you have half the battle won. Regular Marxists hated Christianity, but merely as an opiate of the masses. The Frankfurt School people were very elitist.
Well, in 1933 when Mr. Hitler took over Germany the Frankfurt School Marxists fled Germany and sadly chose to settle in Manhattan, mainly in the precincts of Columbia University and other schools. So guys like Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Theodore Marcuse got themselves good jobs as university professors. Marcuse, for example, virtually invented modern feminism and gay rights. In the late fifties and early sixties there was a mood for change in the US. Well, it just so happens that most of the leadership of the campus Left and the hippie movement studied under these Frankfurt School guys: hence the crazy 60's!
These people are elitists. They don't want working class people to own guns. They distrust the working classes because the working folk just might throw them out on their ears just like they rejected Bela Kun in Hungary. My little story here is a very stripped down and simplified one, but do a little web search and reading on the Frankfurt School and you will find the truth!
Some folks right remember that after World War One (1919) Hungary got taken over by a bunch of Communists led by a fellow named Bela Kun. In a very brief time (18 months) the people of Hungary threw these rascals out. The intellectuals that were behind the revolution fled to Germany and set up an academic institution/think tank called the Frankfurt School in the city of the same name. There were big differences between regular Marxists and these Frankfurt School guys. Old timey Marxists (at least publically) had a high regard for working class folk. The Frankfurt School guys hated and distrusted the working class. The other big difference was the deep hatred the Frankfurt Schhol Marxists had for Christianity. They believed that if you undermine Christianity you have half the battle won. Regular Marxists hated Christianity, but merely as an opiate of the masses. The Frankfurt School people were very elitist.
Well, in 1933 when Mr. Hitler took over Germany the Frankfurt School Marxists fled Germany and sadly chose to settle in Manhattan, mainly in the precincts of Columbia University and other schools. So guys like Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Theodore Marcuse got themselves good jobs as university professors. Marcuse, for example, virtually invented modern feminism and gay rights. In the late fifties and early sixties there was a mood for change in the US. Well, it just so happens that most of the leadership of the campus Left and the hippie movement studied under these Frankfurt School guys: hence the crazy 60's!
These people are elitists. They don't want working class people to own guns. They distrust the working classes because the working folk just might throw them out on their ears just like they rejected Bela Kun in Hungary. My little story here is a very stripped down and simplified one, but do a little web search and reading on the Frankfurt School and you will find the truth!
runrabbitrun
member
OMG BlackHand1917
Your post of the TRUTH may have this 13 page
discussion locked.
I hope not, but it seems to happen here
a lot when we get to the 'meat' of things.
Your post of the TRUTH may have this 13 page
discussion locked.
I hope not, but it seems to happen here
a lot when we get to the 'meat' of things.
runrabbitrun
member
Rob360
I wondered the same thing too.
Even after trying to articulate my response to those who
I may debate against.
I got lost a little after that.
So.. not trying to get on the 'bash Joe' band wagon.
Joe...
Will you go ahead and make your point already?
TIA
I wondered the same thing too.
Even after trying to articulate my response to those who
I may debate against.
I got lost a little after that.
So.. not trying to get on the 'bash Joe' band wagon.
Joe...
Will you go ahead and make your point already?
TIA
Blackhand1917 -
Ummm, yeah, there IS just a tad more to it.
Part I:
http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/english/history.htm
Part II:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
Try starting off with Kant, Hegel, Nietzche, to
Name a few.
Instead of Bela Kun.
If you have any references to contradict what I have just offered
Please publish them.
isher
To be fair, here is a short biography of Bela Kun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Béla_Kun
Ummm, yeah, there IS just a tad more to it.
Part I:
http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/english/history.htm
Part II:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
Try starting off with Kant, Hegel, Nietzche, to
Name a few.
Instead of Bela Kun.
If you have any references to contradict what I have just offered
Please publish them.
isher
To be fair, here is a short biography of Bela Kun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Béla_Kun
Last edited:
ConstitutionCowboy
member
DWH said:
Never said they were. All who refuse to abide the Second Amendment are liberals, though. All who won't abide the First Amendment are liberal as well.
Anyone who takes liberties with the Constitution is a liberal. Anyone who liberally applies the Constitution is a strict constructionist/originalist constitutionalist conservative.
Liberal human behavior and conservative human behavior are both different from one who takes liberties with the Constitution(a liberal) and one who liberally applies the Constitution(a conservative).
Woody
To be liberal is to live in a cloud of delusion fraught with fantasy, and a disregard for the law and fair play. Alas; clear fact, unambiguous consensus, scrutiny, and researched reason does prevail and keeps me in touch with who is who, what is what, and explains why I am conservative. B.E.Wood
Simple. Liberal is just nice, more acceptable word for a socialist. People having guns gives them the ability to stop the slide into governmental largesse where the government controls all aspects of your life. Take away the guns and it makes it much easier for them to control the people and make them dependent on the government.
Woody -
You astound me.
"Liberal human behavior and conservative human behavior are both different from one who takes liberties with the Constitution(a liberal) and one who liberally applies the Constitution(a conservative)."
If you would, please parse this statement beyond it's apparent
Complete and utter circular reasoning.
I'm not throwing rocks,
I'm just baffled.
isher
You astound me.
"Liberal human behavior and conservative human behavior are both different from one who takes liberties with the Constitution(a liberal) and one who liberally applies the Constitution(a conservative)."
If you would, please parse this statement beyond it's apparent
Complete and utter circular reasoning.
I'm not throwing rocks,
I'm just baffled.
isher
SCKimberFan
Member
The folks being described here are Progressives, not Liberals. They could also be classified as Marxists. True or Classic Liberals are much more libertarian in their thinking, and not at all like the so-called liberals (actually - progressives) we have with us today.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
