The glaring omission in the liberal crusade for civil liberties: The Second Amendment

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...cond-Amendment

OK, I know this article is sort of one big strawman, but he hits things right on the head, IMHO.

[onelifecrisis]

Wow, that second amendment does get some scrutiny eh?

I liked the comment I read in an article linked by someone else here:

"The second amendment gives people the right to bear muskets, not uzis."

Which is pretty much the same as a comment I made in yet another thread: if "arms" in 2A means any arms, then all Americans should be able to buy their own nukes. Funnily enough, nobody replied to that one.

[Weiss Pinguin]

I always thought that line meant we could indeed use these:

[Zachstar]

Not this junk again. The 2nd Amendment is SAFE GOOD whatever... Supreme court will side with the NRA as long as the weapon involved dosent put a hole in you the size of an basketball.

It wouldnt matter if dems had many more in congress. Yer guns are safe.. Can we focus on more important issues? Perhaps the one involving my states economy getting raped?

[mookiemookie]

No, Weiss, you have it all wrong!

[Sailor Steve]

I liked it.

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

I liked the comment I read in an article linked by someone else here:

"The second amendment gives people the right to bear muskets, not uzis."

Once again someone gets the whole thing backward. The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" anybody anything. It is a guarantee that the government is not allowed to interfere with our natural, or 'God-given' rights. You seem to live in a world where you are only allowed what the good and gracious government gives you. That is exactly what made America different, and what we are constantly in danger of losing. Actually, the Second Amendment does "give" us the right to own Uzis. I would have to pay a whopping good sum for a Federal Firearms License and register it, but I can indeed own one.

Which is pretty much the same as a comment I made in yet another thread: if "arms" in 2A means any arms, then all Americans should be able to buy their own nukes. Funnily enough, nobody replied to that one.

Okay, I will reply to that one. The main difference there is that we are talking about a weapon that could be used to start a war. If I were as wealthy as Bill Gates I might be able to afford both the weapon and the means to deliver it, but the rest of 'the people' would certainly be endangered by its very existence.

You could also argue for the right to build a radio station so powerful that it could override every other station in the community. Is that part of the right to free speech?

[Moeceefus]

liberals...

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Moeceefus

liberals...

???????

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Once again someone gets the whole thing backward. The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" anybody anything. It is a guarantee that the government is not allowed to interfere with our natural, or 'God-given' rights.

God given? No such thing. Name one right of yours that didn't have to be fought for by someone.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You seem to live in a world where you are only allowed what the good and gracious government gives you.

And so do you, like it or not. Though I would replace the word "give" with "grant (sometimes under duress)".

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That is exactly what made America different, and what we are constantly in danger of losing.

I agree that we're all constantly in danger of losing our rights, but it seems you're missing a contradiction: if they are 'God given' then how could you lose them?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Okay, I will reply to that one. The main difference there is that we are talking about a weapon that could be used to start a war.

That's a terrible evasion of the point, Steve, and I suspect you know it.

[August]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

And so do you, like it or not. Though I would replace the word "give" with "grant (sometimes under duress)"

That's why you are an English Subject and he's an American Citizen.

[U-104]

Originally Posted by August

That's why you are an English Subject and he's an American Citizen.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by August

That's why you are an English Subject and he's an American Citizen.

I think you mean British Subject, something that has not existed since 1983 (I am a British Citizen) but either way I see no difference; the wording is a technicality, and one that has nothing to do with rights, which have existed in England since 1689 (and which formed the basis of the American Bill of Rights).

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

God given? No such thing. Name one right of yours that didn't have to be fought for by someone.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

I didn't say it, they did. Yes, rights must be defended, but that is a given

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787

We indeed do believe that these rights are ours natually, and that others can take them away, but that they will never have the right to.

And so do you, like it or not. Though I would replace the word "give" with "grant (sometimes under duress)".

This is true, but you seem to accept it as the government's prerogative to call the tune. We don't.

I agree that we're all constantly in danger of losing our rights, but it seems you're missing a contradiction: if they are 'God given' then how could you lose them?

Simple. Someone bigger and stronger can keep them from us.

That's a terrible evasion of the point, Steve, and I suspect you know it.

Is it? The problem is that some see Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as endangered by others' ownership of certain weapons. Their fears are valid, at least in their own eyes, and some reasonable control has to be acceptable. I've already pointed out elsewhere that even in the fabled 'Old West' towns had ordinances preventing the carrying of firearms in town, but not their ownership. Weapons that can destroy countries need to be monitored by countries. I don't claim to know what's best. Your arguments are as good as mine, but America was founded on the concept of individual liberty, and as Jefferson stated that liberty can never be protected if the people are disarmed.

[Tchocky]

Man, it's been Constitution Central round here the last few days.