Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aristodemus

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
34
Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/19133/5152

Many of you know that DailyKos.com is perhaps the largest liberal blog. It is influential because mainstream media picks up stories; it is important because even Senators blog there.

The article above is outstanding. Most importantly, it is NOT an article about the Second Amendment. It is an article about how to persuasively convince a liberal why they should literally love it.

Many of you will say such attempts are pointless, energies are better spent elsewhere, there's nothing new there (you would have missed the point that the article is not about the Second Amendment -- it is about persuasion), you can't change a liberal's mind, etc. Maybe you're right. Let's not discuss these things.

Read it. If you like it, send it to liberal friends. That's it. How long does it take to send a link? People forward pictures of puppies and kittens millions of times a day. My favorite thing to forward is http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=irule

which is much better than furry animals.

Oleg: This is my first post and I have to say how much I LOVE your site, and how much my wife loves it. Before meeting me she always thought that gun owners were bad, evil people. She knows better now, and has commented often on the power of the images you have created.
 
Aristodemus:

First of all...A hearty WELCOME to THR!

Secondly...I laughed out loud at your "favorite thing to forward".

Thirdly...That article is the best argument for card-carrying liberals to support the 2nd Amendment I have ever read! Brilliant! I will be sending it to several people imediately. Great stuff!
 
I owe RainbowBob a beer

First: Many thanks, Bob. I've been lurking for quite some time. Usually in the tactical sections, but now I have this wild hair (hare?) . . .

Second: Maddox -- the BEST. Makes me laugh, every f'ing time. Doesn't matter how many times I look at that thing. I'm as pleased to introduce somebody to that as the DailyKos article. Check out his piece on why Top Gun is the Gayest Movie Ever.

Third: Sincere thanks. The friend who sent the article to me said she'd been hit moderately hard on other sites due to the "futility" and "it's all been said before" stuff. I'm glad you're seeing it for what it is (an approach to persuasion) and not just an essay on the 2A.

And for those who just tuned in, direct your browser to the following URL and then forward to your liberal friends:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/19133/5152

Hopefully I'll have other interesting stuff to contribute.
__________________________________
Aristodemus:

First of all...A hearty WELCOME to THR!

Secondly...I laughed out loud at your "favorite thing to forward".

Thirdly...That article is the best argument for card-carrying liberals to support the 2nd Amendment I have ever read! Brilliant! I will be sending it to several people imediately. Great stuff!
__________________
Best regards,
Rainbowbob
 
that was a very good piece. Thanks for posting that. Also, welcome to THR.
 
Aristodemus welcome to THR and thank you for sharing Angry Mouse's brilliant message!To find an article of that clarity,sanity and reason on The Daily Kos is almost unbelieveable.I hope the author is still well and breathing.
How he snuck it into that sewage pit is almost beyond belief.I'm at a loss for words.I'm making up a list of my favorite liberals to send this to as we speak.The "art work" to forward was a riot also.
I have a feeling you are going to be great asset to this forum.:)
 
Welcome to THR.

A very interesting article. Strangely, as I was driving to work today, I was thinking about the ACLU, and why it largely avoids the 2nd Amendment like it was stinky laundry. It dawned on me that the reason the ACLU and other liberal organizations avoid the 2A is elementary: Many liberal organizations are built upon the idea that banding individuals together gives them strength to influence society and goverment. The individual is nearly powerless, but strength comes in numbers. Thus, liberal organizations benefit from rallying people under a particular cause.

However, armed citizens are the protectors of their own rights. Power may flow from the barrel of a gun, but the individual can also harness that power for his or her own safety, prosperity, and liberty. The armed individual may choose to defend him or herself from those who would tread upon their rights and liberty.

Perhaps self-reliance is viewed as incompatable with liberal organization. It would seem difficult to convince someone that they are powerless without a large group of like minded persons to stand beside them if they felt that power rested within their own hands.

Maybe liberal organizations need to cater to those who feel victimized, marginalized, and oppressed. Empowering individuals to guarantee and defend their own rights would diminish their base. Thus some infringement of civil rights is acceptable, so long as it provides more voices for their cause, and the total infringment of a right that is anethma to their power base is entirely desireable.

Just my thoughts from my morning drive.
 
Aristodemus:

Well...if you're ever in the Seattle area - I'll take you up on that beer - and buy the 2nd round!

Or...next week I'll be in North Idaho hosting a Seach & Rescue convention shooting competition on our property [here: www.twinriverheights.com]. If you're anywhere around those parts - stop by.
 
Liberals don't like the 2nd Amendment because it can hurt people, it doesn't appeal to their illogical emotional issues, such as affirmative action, welfare, universal healthcare, etc. I do like some of your other comments in this article on DailyKOS, the article on the other hand is trash.
 
Last edited:
meh, not ALL Liberals are anti gun, not ALL Conservatives are pro gun, but thats the stereotype.

I know plenty of pro gun Democrats but they seem largely ignored by the people who control the party.
 
methinks some liberals are antigun because thats the way they were raised, or lack thereof.

a kid who grows up in the urban area, and listens to rap/pop music will, or course prefer rap/pop music when he is an adult. consiquently, that same person may think that country and/or rock music is trash. (as for me good ol lynard skynnard is hard to beat)

likewise a child who grows up with parents who oppose guns, and brainwash their children into thinking that guns are evil and are devices of death, will, in most cases, still think the same way as an adult.

also, a "liberal" who is neither pro or anti gun, (a fence rider, so to speak) will of course be influenced by the vast majorities of anti-gun liberals.
hopping on the bandwagon indeed.

lastly, some people are swayed into anti-gun agendas by life expirences.

this is purley my speculation, just so yall know...
Senators Feinstein for example, is most likley a rabbid anti-gun because she twice ran for mayor of san fran
on November 27, 1978, San Francisco mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated by a rival politician, Dan White senator feinstien automatically ascended into mayors position afterwards.

hypothetically speaking, if someone never handled a gun in their life, and they was neither anti- or pro gun, and then someone they knew got shot and killed, they would tend to stray away from firearms.

any person with common sense, would get a ccw permit, training and buy a handgun for protection, but then again, too many people in this world dont have common sense.

like a man fearing all breeds of dogs because a pit bull bit him as a child.
a fear of an inanimate object it points to inmaturity, and a pointless, unrational and useless phobia.

just my 2 cents. im signin off... 1000 shotgunshells and 900 clays aint gonna bust themselves tomorrow:D
 
This "liberal" fully supports the Second Amendment and just forwarded the entire text of the blog, with commentary, to about 50 fence sitters and anti's with whom he communicates regularly.

I will bring many more outsiders to the table of open minded debate that someone who tends to continue with the "us versus them" mentality.

Not meaning any disrespect, but my support of clean air and water and a few other leftist concepts has no bearing on my position concerning our right to keep and bear arms.

Again, no disrespect, but there is a big difference between Grey 54956's statements of "Many liberals" and "Maybe liberals" compared to caseypjs blanket statement of "Liberals don't..."

Grey's wording invites debate and shows inquisitiveness and willingness to consider, whereas wording like caseypj's would likely drive many fence sitters back across the line thinking that 2A people are unwilling or unable to interact in a "High Road" fashion.

That being said, caseypj, I know exactly how you feel and am guilty of the same form of generalizing on occasion. I think it's part of our nature, but it does us no good most of the time.

(/rant off)
 
Not meaning any disrespect, but my support of clean air and water and a few other leftist concepts has no bearing on my position concerning our right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

QFE, I am half liberal(pro environment, anti outsourcing) and half conservative(pro gun, anti illegal immigration). Many others share this same view and they seem completely ignored.
 
Interesting article. It's worth remembering that we're arguing for LIBERAL gun laws. Liberal in the true sense of the word.
 
I didn't think I would ever hear of or see anything believable on The Daily Kos, but that blog/article is a breath of fresh air.

Welcome to THR by the way and thanks for sharing the information. Maybe there is some hope, but one of the comments to the article indicated that Obama supports the 2nd amendment as a personal right, I don't believe that for one moment. He will do all he can to ban/restrict guns he can.
 
That was a good article, well thought out. It is true not all liberals are anti-gun. But, the vast majority of the elected ones in Washington are, and they are the ones that are gonna be making the rules if elected.
 
The problem with leftist liberal's thinking is not that some are not pro gun who have had a life or experience that has specificly shaped that one opinion.
The problem is the philosophy that it is okay to restrict, add constant new legislation to ban or restrict or set government mandates over practicly every aspect of life or any product eventualy ends up at guns.

Even the most pro gun leftist who raises a child with those values but never focuses much on guns in a positive or negative way will have a child with a natural inclination to be anti, and vote accordingly. Eventualy they will say "Gee we restrict every other thing that could possibly be used wrong, put extra taxes on anything that we don't consider absolutely essential, and restrict or punish companies and other people any time thier product is improperly used, even if the product was working as intended. Why have guns escaped these "common sense" measures.

You could invite pro gun leftists to settle an area, and without a doubt within a generation or two they would be primarily anti gun, or in favor of many licenses and restrictions and government oversights. Those restrictions and oversights of course grow until the freedom is absent for most people, and all but a few types are restricted as unnecessary.

It is not so much pro or anti gun, it is the belief that for every problem the remedy is more government, more agencies, of course requiring more taxes to fund it, and more legislation to mandate the "solution".
Every year the incremental restrictions add up. Each one alone often has decent logic, and can seem like a good idea, but the totality of them all combined make for an unfree society.


So the two really cannot coexist even though there is a lot of leftists that have been victims or otherwise have specific life experiences that make them appreciate being armed.
As a whole though the mindset that every aspect of life, and any and all products are subject to legislation and special taxes or restrictions if they directly or even indirectly have some sort of impact on others held by the left eventualy makes its way to guns.

A child raised to respect everybody's rights, even those they may not agree with as long as another individual is not directly infringing on thier liberties, be self sufficient and independent (which includes taking care of personal security) will not eventualy reach that same anti conclusion.
They could also be raised with no pro gun or anti gun messages or experiences (good like with public schools there, even the image of a gun is contraband in many) and would still be more inclined to favor firearm rights.

It is simply different ideologies.


Do you believe you have the authority to decide what other people have the right to do?
To what extent?
Do you believe the government owes you something, or does not take enough from other people to benefit you?
Do you believe the government needs to do more for you, or you need to do more for yourself?

The answers given to that could be used to show just how inclined your child or grandchild raised with similar beliefs is to be anti gun. Of course special 'pro gun interventions' to specificly target that one belief and make it not fit in with the others can be used on an individual basis to skew the results, but without such an intervention the results are rather predictable.
 
I think the biggest problem we liberals have is this exact misconception. When I first started looking in to the online gun community I realized that this must be how a republican who just realized they were gay and headed to a LGBT club. It felt like even though I know the truth of the matter, because I was a liberal, I didnt have the right to own a gun. Now though, I don't care what anyone says. I refuse to join the NRA. I refuse to vote for most Republicans. I refuse to back down on human rights issues. I also refuse to back down on 2A issues as well.


If someone doesn't like it, they can get over it.




P.S. the "gun community" statement does not include THR. I have felt VERY welcome here. Thanks folks.

ETA: P.S.S. With the exception of the folks like the one above. <shrug> Nothings perfect though.
 
Love this from the link.:)

I find all weapons despicable (0+ / 0-)
There is a large gray area between weapon and tool. I don't think guns fall in that gray area.

John McCain hates children.

by discocarp on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:31:49 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
===============================================
if *all* weapons were despicable . . . (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:Shadan7, fight2bfree, debedb
discocarp would have no peace to enjoy. Peace is a state imposed upon our natural state (anarchy -- we are a nasty species), by good guys (some are called "police") who impose fundamental rules like prohibiting somebody who is bigger than you are from bashing in your head with a rock and taking all your ****.

I too am a pacifist. I love peace. I love my peace. I also love (well, not love, but appreciate the utility of) my piece(s), which permit me to impose a sphere of peace and tranquility for between 75 and 300 yards around me.

It might be impolite to point out the following to discocarp, but I feel compelled. There are two kinds of people in the world: (1) the free; and (2) food animals. Can you guess in which category I think you (discocarp) belong?

by Aristodemus on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:38:04 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
=====================================================
You are no pacifist -nt- (0+ / 0-)

John McCain hates children.

by discocarp on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:09:30 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
====================================================
if I wasn't a pacifist (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:fight2bfree
I'd have to kick your ass for insulting me like that.

by Aristodemus on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:13:30 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
Click to expand...
 
Here's what I don't get:

You only have to look at all of the readily available information about contemporary (last 100 years) history of herding and slaughter of millions of unarmed citizens by worldwide dictators.

The formula is roughly the same. Citizens have arms. Society is running relatively smoothly. A new party comes into power (sometimes violently). The new party convinces citizens to hand over their arms (or takes them by outlawing them or forcibly). Once the citizens are unarmed, their standard of living plummets and they are ultimatley used as cannon fodder by the party in power.

Liberals don't think that can happen here, but that is a HUGE risk to take. That is a HUGE gamble with the security of the US with no guaranteed payoff.

Everything has a cause and effect: The blissninnies think that America would just be roses and rainbows if guns and the 2A were legally abolished.

However, the reverse is true. Much like other nations that experimented with outlawing guns, crime - especially violent crime - would likely skyrocket overnight. Breakins would be more commonplace, as would armed robbery, rapes and murders. Citizens would be at the mercy of criminals.

And then there would be a NEED for a larger police state and Soldiers in the streets under martial law to 'keep the peace.' Soon, all of our rights under the Constitution would dissolve and we would be facing the exact situation our forefathers warned of and guaranteed our rights against. A tyrannical dictatorship.

The 2A is unbelievably important, even at the sad cost of the 15,000 homicides in the US each year. Frankly, if things went sour in the US, that would just be the beginning of the homicides.
 
Great read, thanks for posting it.

As to why things have become this way, I think Kim du Toit explained it very well several years ago.

Caution: It's sexist and offensive but there is some grain of truth buried in there if you can see past the insults and some pretty bizarre rantings. The BASIC premise is that the Second Amendment scares men that have become "wussified" because it is a constant reminder to them that other men have NOT.

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/essays/41/

I think George Carlin invented the term originally.
 
That article is out-FREAKIN'-standing!!! Wow. One of the best ever. Sent to all my friends, liberal or otherwise.

Originally posted by Aristodemus on the Daily Kos:

discocarp would have no peace to enjoy. Peace is a state imposed upon our natural state (anarchy -- we are a nasty species), by good guys (some are called "police") who impose fundamental rules like prohibiting somebody who is bigger than you are from bashing in your head with a rock and taking all your ****.

I too am a pacifist. I love peace. I love my peace. I also love (well, not love, but appreciate the utility of) my piece(s), which permit me to impose a sphere of peace and tranquility for between 75 and 300 yards around me.

It might be impolite to point out the following to discocarp, but I feel compelled. There are two kinds of people in the world: (1) the free; and (2) food animals. Can you guess in which category I think you (discocarp) belong?
Click to expand...

You sir, are THE MAN! - I'm not worthy; I'm not worthy. :)
 
Helluva a good read. I'll be posting this elsewhere, if you don't mind.

Biker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
new second amendment Article on KOS
Replies
3
Views
652
Henry Bowman
H
A
  • Locked
Some Liberals Actually DO love the Second Amendment -- teach yours to love it, too
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
unloved
U
X
  • Locked
Gun-Shy Liberals: Who cares about the Second Amendment?
Replies
7
Views
761
DKSuddeth
D
J
  • Locked
Hell has frozen over... a liberal taking our side!
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
makarovnik
M
L
  • Locked
Why liberals should love the 2nd ammendment
Replies
5
Views
516
Sam1911
S
Back
Top