Sebastian the Ibis
Member
If Anti's think rights become obsolete. I would like to assert that their right to speak is obsolete and ask them to SHUT UP!
Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment
- Thread starter Aristodemus
- Start date
- Status
Aristodemus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 34
CaseyPJ, can we talk?
I'm a fan of good prose and a harsh critic of bad prose. I think Angry Mouse's prose is first rate. Now, I may have misunderstood your comment:
"I do like some of your other comments in this article on DailyKOS, the article on the other hand is trash."
If I did, I'm sorry. If, however, you're saying that the article itself, Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/19133/5152, is a POS, I'd like you to please write a reasoned critique, remembering that the point of the article is persuasion, not as a commentary qua commentary on the 2A.
I'd say to take between 100 and 200 words. A well organized defense should easily fit these parameters. Go long if you feel necessary. If you are in fact criticizing the article as a primer on the 2A, even though you missed the call of the question and we are straying off topic, same thing, please: 100-200 words. There are many other scholarly and popular works on the subject (Congress commissions them all the time, Standford Levinson's is great http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html, etc.). Whether Angry Mouse's is better or worse is off topic.
This is not personal; I have no vested interest in the article. It's just that I think it's good, I'm an arrogant bastard who thinks he's always right, and I want to know if this is one of the rare, rare ocassions when I'm wrong.
Seriously. Please take a swing. I want to make sure I understand you.
I'm a fan of good prose and a harsh critic of bad prose. I think Angry Mouse's prose is first rate. Now, I may have misunderstood your comment:
"I do like some of your other comments in this article on DailyKOS, the article on the other hand is trash."
If I did, I'm sorry. If, however, you're saying that the article itself, Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/19133/5152, is a POS, I'd like you to please write a reasoned critique, remembering that the point of the article is persuasion, not as a commentary qua commentary on the 2A.
I'd say to take between 100 and 200 words. A well organized defense should easily fit these parameters. Go long if you feel necessary. If you are in fact criticizing the article as a primer on the 2A, even though you missed the call of the question and we are straying off topic, same thing, please: 100-200 words. There are many other scholarly and popular works on the subject (Congress commissions them all the time, Standford Levinson's is great http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html, etc.). Whether Angry Mouse's is better or worse is off topic.
This is not personal; I have no vested interest in the article. It's just that I think it's good, I'm an arrogant bastard who thinks he's always right, and I want to know if this is one of the rare, rare ocassions when I'm wrong.
Seriously. Please take a swing. I want to make sure I understand you.
Aristodemus, the article I was referring to was http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/18/114035/428/127/517544 . I linked "this" to it, perhaps you overlooked it? I was not referring to the article "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment".
Aristodemus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 34
JohnNRATalley
John:
Kos has a surprising number of libertarians and/or true liberals who simply agree with Angry Mouse. The comments to her article are roughly 75% in her favor.
Senator "I'm a professor -- oops -- I meant a lecturer on Con-law") has in fact said, IIRC, that he supports and individual rights theory. But the good Senator, for all his sins, is also a good lawyer -- he did NOT say what REASONABLE restriction is.
We're off topic here, but I'm glad you liked the article. My bet on Heller:
the Supremes will rule 5-4 for Heller, +can't ban a class of firearm, +reasonable restrictions can apply.
____________________________________________________
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.
__________________
I have more guns then I *need*, but no where near all that I *want*.
I am looking to add an AR before Obama or Hillary take over the White House and say black guns are evil.
John:
Kos has a surprising number of libertarians and/or true liberals who simply agree with Angry Mouse. The comments to her article are roughly 75% in her favor.
Senator "I'm a professor -- oops -- I meant a lecturer on Con-law") has in fact said, IIRC, that he supports and individual rights theory. But the good Senator, for all his sins, is also a good lawyer -- he did NOT say what REASONABLE restriction is.
We're off topic here, but I'm glad you liked the article. My bet on Heller:
the Supremes will rule 5-4 for Heller, +can't ban a class of firearm, +reasonable restrictions can apply.
____________________________________________________
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.
__________________
I have more guns then I *need*, but no where near all that I *want*.
I am looking to add an AR before Obama or Hillary take over the White House and say black guns are evil.
Aristodemus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 34
Biker
Mind? Good on ya! That's my master plan here -- viral distribution through pre-selected distribution channels. Oh, I thought for a second you were talking about the Maddox link. ;-)
--------------------------
Helluva a good read. I'll be posting this elsewhere, if you don't mind.
Biker
__________________
Let's actually do something about our immigration problems. www.numbersusa.com www.fairus.org
Here's to cheating, stealing, fighting and drinking. If you cheat, may it be a death; if you steal, may it be a heart; if you fight, may it be for your Brother; and if you drink, may it be with me.
"Bring me my broadsword and clear understanding..."
Ian Anderson
Mind? Good on ya! That's my master plan here -- viral distribution through pre-selected distribution channels. Oh, I thought for a second you were talking about the Maddox link. ;-)
--------------------------
Helluva a good read. I'll be posting this elsewhere, if you don't mind.
Biker
__________________
Let's actually do something about our immigration problems. www.numbersusa.com www.fairus.org
Here's to cheating, stealing, fighting and drinking. If you cheat, may it be a death; if you steal, may it be a heart; if you fight, may it be for your Brother; and if you drink, may it be with me.
"Bring me my broadsword and clear understanding..."
Ian Anderson
Aristodemus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 34
retraction: CaseyPJ is the smart one and I'M the dumb one
Oh THAT article suggesting NRA complicity or indiffiferece to crime and suffering. My bad -- missed the embedded link. "Questions for the NRA (National Rifle Association): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/18/114035/428/127/517544
I guess you could say that this is only of those rare times when I'm wrong. LOL. Perhaps when you're feeling charitable you can teach me how to do that. I don't savvy HTML very well.
Yeah, gonna have to agree with you on that 110%: whiney, emotional, cowardly, ad hominem POS.
And since the mistake is mine, I owe you a beer as well as the one I owe to Rainbow Bob.
-----------------------------------
caseypj
Aristodemus, the article I was referring to was http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5...428/127/517544 . I linked "this" to it, perhaps you overlooked it? I was not referring to the article "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment".
Oh THAT article suggesting NRA complicity or indiffiferece to crime and suffering. My bad -- missed the embedded link. "Questions for the NRA (National Rifle Association): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/18/114035/428/127/517544
I guess you could say that this is only of those rare times when I'm wrong. LOL. Perhaps when you're feeling charitable you can teach me how to do that. I don't savvy HTML very well.
Yeah, gonna have to agree with you on that 110%: whiney, emotional, cowardly, ad hominem POS.
And since the mistake is mine, I owe you a beer as well as the one I owe to Rainbow Bob.
-----------------------------------
caseypj
Aristodemus, the article I was referring to was http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5...428/127/517544 . I linked "this" to it, perhaps you overlooked it? I was not referring to the article "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment".
Good article - lately I've realized that I am very close to being a Democrat. I'd actually support them on a majority of issues if I could just trust them to let my guns alone.
Not just hunting guns - I don't give a damn about duck hunting.
And don't pretend to be something you're not - if you don't like guns that's fine. I respect that. Don't buy any.
But let my military style guns and my high capacity magazines alone and you'll have my support.
Not just hunting guns - I don't give a damn about duck hunting.
And don't pretend to be something you're not - if you don't like guns that's fine. I respect that. Don't buy any.
But let my military style guns and my high capacity magazines alone and you'll have my support.
Aristodemus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 34
PremiumSauces -- thanks for forwarding the article
No, I'M not worthy! And quoting me? Anybody who helps me with my self-promotion is on my A-list. Muchas Gracias
I do enjoy my petty torments, even though thrashing discocarp is about as difficult/sporting as beating up on a crippled kid (no disrespect to the disabled). In those comments he got his ass handed to him by me, Angry Mouse, and this Jewish Buddhist dude from Iowa. It was glorious.
Now, this whole four-letter (****-letter) word thing on THR. I swear like a sailor (dad was a sailor). Do I follow FCC guidelines, or act like I'm in the presence of the children of strangers?
--------------------------------------
PremiumSauces
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-14-07
Posts: 917 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:
Quote:
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?
You sir, are THE MAN! - I'm not worthy; I'm not worthy.
__________________
Congratulations to Niklaus Lidstrom, Chris Chelios, Dallas Drake, Henrik Zetterburg, Pavel Datsuk, and the rest of the 2008 Champion Detroit Red Wings on bringing home the Stanley Cup to Hockeytown!
No, I'M not worthy! And quoting me? Anybody who helps me with my self-promotion is on my A-list. Muchas Gracias
I do enjoy my petty torments, even though thrashing discocarp is about as difficult/sporting as beating up on a crippled kid (no disrespect to the disabled). In those comments he got his ass handed to him by me, Angry Mouse, and this Jewish Buddhist dude from Iowa. It was glorious.
Now, this whole four-letter (****-letter) word thing on THR. I swear like a sailor (dad was a sailor). Do I follow FCC guidelines, or act like I'm in the presence of the children of strangers?
--------------------------------------
PremiumSauces
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-14-07
Posts: 917 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:
Quote:
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?
You sir, are THE MAN! - I'm not worthy; I'm not worthy.
__________________
Congratulations to Niklaus Lidstrom, Chris Chelios, Dallas Drake, Henrik Zetterburg, Pavel Datsuk, and the rest of the 2008 Champion Detroit Red Wings on bringing home the Stanley Cup to Hockeytown!
Aristodemus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 34
discocarp is as useful as a burned out match
Commander:
You always get on my good side (with all attendant rights and privileges, which, incidentally, wll get you a couple of coffee if you also have $3) by quoting me. Smashing that little discocarp twerp was huge fun.
Commander:
You always get on my good side (with all attendant rights and privileges, which, incidentally, wll get you a couple of coffee if you also have $3) by quoting me. Smashing that little discocarp twerp was huge fun.
Aristodemus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 34
thank you for the warm welcome
With apologies to CaseyPJ for my stupidly missing an imbedded link and thereby misunderstanding his point (now rectified), I appreciate the warm welcome and that so many of you have forwarded the article. We're allies here, event though we might quibble and quarrel. I'm glad to be among allies, and I hope we will have the chance to become friends.
--A
With apologies to CaseyPJ for my stupidly missing an imbedded link and thereby misunderstanding his point (now rectified), I appreciate the warm welcome and that so many of you have forwarded the article. We're allies here, event though we might quibble and quarrel. I'm glad to be among allies, and I hope we will have the chance to become friends.
--A
La Pistoletta
Member
Grey54956:
You are more right than you probably realize. The so called liberals (socialists) are a lobbying special interest group, whether for money, power or both. They are inherently collectivist and as such they abhor individualism.
Guns are individualism. With guns, you don't have to say "we", you can say I. I claim my rights to be inviolate. I and every other individual. Not as a group that holds power merely due to its size, but as men, apart by right and together by choice - this is known as civilization.
The purpose of civilization is to maintain a society where men can deal with each other only by mutual choice, not force. If this is corrupted and society becomes an organism in which your rights are systematically violated, it is worse than the savage jungle, where you'd meet the odd wild cat and brute, not a tank and a SWAT team.
Now I ask, what are all your other rights but cleverly formulated insults to your dignity as a human being, if you are disallowed from owning and using the means with which to protect them?
Don't Europeanize America. Don't ruin the country that, in the future, I intend for to be mine. Just as it is currently yours, but not for long if you don't watch out. Not even Hitler ultimately succeeded in taking the world by swift force, although he came close enough.
Guess what he did to pave the way for that? Did it have anything to do with guns? Some people cannot correctly answer a yes/no question if they so get ten tries. Time to wake up.
You are more right than you probably realize. The so called liberals (socialists) are a lobbying special interest group, whether for money, power or both. They are inherently collectivist and as such they abhor individualism.
Guns are individualism. With guns, you don't have to say "we", you can say I. I claim my rights to be inviolate. I and every other individual. Not as a group that holds power merely due to its size, but as men, apart by right and together by choice - this is known as civilization.
The purpose of civilization is to maintain a society where men can deal with each other only by mutual choice, not force. If this is corrupted and society becomes an organism in which your rights are systematically violated, it is worse than the savage jungle, where you'd meet the odd wild cat and brute, not a tank and a SWAT team.
Now I ask, what are all your other rights but cleverly formulated insults to your dignity as a human being, if you are disallowed from owning and using the means with which to protect them?
Don't Europeanize America. Don't ruin the country that, in the future, I intend for to be mine. Just as it is currently yours, but not for long if you don't watch out. Not even Hitler ultimately succeeded in taking the world by swift force, although he came close enough.
Guess what he did to pave the way for that? Did it have anything to do with guns? Some people cannot correctly answer a yes/no question if they so get ten tries. Time to wake up.
chris in va
Member
Wow, what can I say. I read every single comment on that blog, took over an hour. Frankly I'm surprised there are 'flaming liberals' that embrace the 2nd.
Didn't care for some of the elitism comments that the posters are much smarter and educated than most of the general US population.
But it's good to know the 'left' recognizes firearms/weapons protect the rest of the amendments and individuals...even though it's pretty plain to see.
Hope you don't mind, I might use that as a sig line.
Didn't care for some of the elitism comments that the posters are much smarter and educated than most of the general US population.
But it's good to know the 'left' recognizes firearms/weapons protect the rest of the amendments and individuals...even though it's pretty plain to see.
Hope you don't mind, I might use that as a sig line.
Aristodemus said:
I'd suggest that you go with the second option.
I also swear a whole lot more than I should - I did some time in boots and it left some marks on me. It's a hard habit to break so I get where you're coming from.
We do have some more civilized people on this board though as well as some kids...
In general, I pretend that I'm talking to a preacher's wife and kids.
You never know - on this board you very well may be.
Also, it's good to know that the left isn't just out to disarm us all. For the longest time I have avoided supporting pretty much any Democrat just because of that one issue. Even though I generally agree with the left's stance on many issues, I just couldn't bring myself to support a party that was so determined to disarm me.
John G
Member
Great article. Despite my being conservative, many of my friends are a bit to the left politically, and I'll be sending this one out to a few. They know me as a gun guy, but also as a funny and hopefully smart guy as well, so I suppose that chips away at the "gun nut" stereotye.
We can, and often do, get along!
We can, and often do, get along!
AZAndy
Member
This whole "liberals hate guns" concept has been very confusing to me. It seems only to be true if you define "liberal" as "one who hates guns." I'm pretty liberal in the usual ways: I don't care if someone's heterosexual or not, I don't care what anyone's race is, I don't care what (if any) religion someone adheres to, I'm pretty sure that socialized medicine and education would be good things, et cetera, et cetera. I'm even a Democrat.
But I do like guns and shooting. I have a dozen or so guns and a range membership that is exercised frequently and I belong to the NRA, the GOA, the SAF, and the CCRKBA. I have a C&R FFL and a permit to carry concealed, and I always have a gun on me unless I'm in the post office or the like.
It's a mistake to think that Democrats or liberals in general have a fear of firearms, or ignorant views on the rights of gun owners. Others have already posted similar views, which I was grateful to see. I felt I should add my views since the "let's trash the liberals" threads have been bothering me for some time.
Andy
But I do like guns and shooting. I have a dozen or so guns and a range membership that is exercised frequently and I belong to the NRA, the GOA, the SAF, and the CCRKBA. I have a C&R FFL and a permit to carry concealed, and I always have a gun on me unless I'm in the post office or the like.
It's a mistake to think that Democrats or liberals in general have a fear of firearms, or ignorant views on the rights of gun owners. Others have already posted similar views, which I was grateful to see. I felt I should add my views since the "let's trash the liberals" threads have been bothering me for some time.
Andy
AZAndy - the problem is the democratic leadership.
Gun owners remember them as the people who have repeatedly tried (and sometimes succeeded) to chip away at our rights.
It's true that the Republicans have also been guilty of some of this in the past, but they are generally considered to be on "our" side.
At the very least, their candidates are the ones who are more likely to own guns, carry guns, or at least give a damn about the rights of gunowners.
OTOH, we never seem to get that kind of support from Democrats unless they are pandering for votes. They claim to support "sportsmen", which is actually just a way to say "you can keep your grandpa's Winchester but we're going to take your Beretta and your HK-91 because you can't be trusted with weapons that are actually effective". They are also the people who are always making the push for more regulations, more restrictions, and more bans.
It's not liberals in general I'm worried about - I actually agree with them on a great many issues and would almost certainly use my votes to put them in office. I might even register as a Democrat.
But as long as the democratic leadership is hellbent on disarming me, how can I support them?
Gun owners remember them as the people who have repeatedly tried (and sometimes succeeded) to chip away at our rights.
It's true that the Republicans have also been guilty of some of this in the past, but they are generally considered to be on "our" side.
At the very least, their candidates are the ones who are more likely to own guns, carry guns, or at least give a damn about the rights of gunowners.
OTOH, we never seem to get that kind of support from Democrats unless they are pandering for votes. They claim to support "sportsmen", which is actually just a way to say "you can keep your grandpa's Winchester but we're going to take your Beretta and your HK-91 because you can't be trusted with weapons that are actually effective". They are also the people who are always making the push for more regulations, more restrictions, and more bans.
It's not liberals in general I'm worried about - I actually agree with them on a great many issues and would almost certainly use my votes to put them in office. I might even register as a Democrat.
But as long as the democratic leadership is hellbent on disarming me, how can I support them?
rocinante
Member
Good article but the comments were illuminating. Too often and I am guilty of such I see "outsider" pro gun advocates just swamp the anti argument and IMHO demolish it for the straw man it is. The comments of many that were supportive of the 2nd genuinely seemed to come from the faithful liberal flock. Some of them actually get it. To me the current crop of liberals are abhorent because their collectivism socialist tendencies just tramples the individual, the greater good over the individual is just down right unAMERICAN IMHO. To hear some actually focus on the individual and not the STATE as the foundation mulls some of my harsh judgment of idiocy on the whole bunch.
As far as Obama being 2nd amendment friendly PULL MY FINGER. I do not really see him as the usual 'pragmatic' politician. He is worst. He actually believes heart and soul in the whole ideology. Not a cafeteria liberal by any stretch including the catechism of gun confiscation and 'reasonable' control.
As far as Obama being 2nd amendment friendly PULL MY FINGER. I do not really see him as the usual 'pragmatic' politician. He is worst. He actually believes heart and soul in the whole ideology. Not a cafeteria liberal by any stretch including the catechism of gun confiscation and 'reasonable' control.
SoCalShooter
Member
I sent that to atleast 15 libs I know and a bunch of other people. Thanks!!
rainbowbob
Member
I passed the article on to my brother (the liberal "anti" pacifist Judge). He agreed with it! Score one for our side!
I too, have certain liberal leanings (which I try not to say too loudly on this site without my flame-suit on). I've said for a long time if the Dems could convince gun-owners they were SERIOUS about supporting 2A rights, including and especially the right to CCW - they would win the next election hands down. Unfortunately, as it stands, I don't know who to vote for.
pilot teacher
Member
Leadcounsel writes "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."
Sorry, but 15,000 homicides annually is nothing in comaparison to the 67,000 homicides committed in 2007 by drunk drivers. Many of who are illegals aliens.
Owning a gun is a right. Driving a car is a privilege.
Sorry, but 15,000 homicides annually is nothing in comaparison to the 67,000 homicides committed in 2007 by drunk drivers. Many of who are illegals aliens.
Owning a gun is a right. Driving a car is a privilege.
AZAndy
Member
goon:
Yep, can't argue with you there. I'm really embarrassed sometimes by what the damfools say. This two-party system nonsense has got to go; I'm only a Democrat by default. ;-) Someday the Libertarians will form themselves into a coherent party with actual candidates and I'll quietly slide on over that-a-way... my state doesn't even recognize it as a party affiliation yet.
Yep, can't argue with you there. I'm really embarrassed sometimes by what the damfools say. This two-party system nonsense has got to go; I'm only a Democrat by default. ;-) Someday the Libertarians will form themselves into a coherent party with actual candidates and I'll quietly slide on over that-a-way... my state doesn't even recognize it as a party affiliation yet.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked