MUST READ IF YOU'RE LIBERAL!

Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

By Kaili Joy Gray
DailyKos.com
July 4, 2010

Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."

There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.

And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.

Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.

And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.

Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.

So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.

And this is why:

No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."

First Amendment:

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

Ninth Amendment:

...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Tenth Amendment:

...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.

We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.

But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.

We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.

And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.

If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?

But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!

Right?

Wrong.

The United States Militia Code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.

Everyone else. Individuals. The People.

The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.

And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value.

No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.

All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.

But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.

We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.

But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.

Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.

Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?

Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.

And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.

Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.

No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.

When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.

Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?

Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.

Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.

And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.

Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.

They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes.

But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.

No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.

Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.

Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.

The Second Amendment is obsolete?

What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?

It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."

And you'd be right.

What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?

Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them.

And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.

And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.

No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.

To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.

The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.

We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.

And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.

So.

What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.

No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant."

This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.

This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)

This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.

This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.

Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.

Because we are revolutionaries.

And remember.... this was pulled from the Daiy Kos.... a very liberal site.

The anti-gun lobby also plays right into the hands of The NRA (and they count on it happening, too) because whenever gun owners feel that their right to bear arms is being eroded, membership (and money in the bank accounts) of The NRA rises. You might say that by talking about gun control, the gun control advocates ultimately are shooting themselves in the foot.

There's also a hard, cold fact; every city that has tight gun control measures has higher crime. That's a DOJ fact.

I've heard that said before, but this is the first time that someone's attributed the source. The other times were by gun lobbyists and they never said where they got that fact from, so I was suspicious. They also said that in cities where people are allowed conceal carry permits violent crime has gone down. It makes sense though. If the guy standing next to you might have a gun under his coat, you're gonna think twice about robbing that convenience store.

We have tight gun laws and thankfully few gun crimes.

I'm really not convinced about that, especially when compared to Canada and other countries. However, the gun crimes that make the press are probably (almost certainly?) committed by those who illegally own a gun, rather than responsible gun owners. My dad owned a shotgun, and many of my friends and folks I've known around here own guns for hunting, and in the 45 years that I've been alive there has only been one murder committed by a gun. I'm not frightened by hunters and others who enjoy guns -- I've known more people killed by cars and cigarettes. I just wish there was a way to keep them out of the hands of gangs and other criminals without infringing on the rights of sensible, law-abiding folks.

It does really frustrate me when the NRA and others oppose what I feel are common-sense measures like trigger locks and making people secure their guns in their homes so children and burglers can't get their hands on them. We keep stuff like rat poison in a place where kids can't get at it, but somehow that logic doesn't seem to apply to guns with some people. Sure, you have a right to own one, but I think you have a duty to be responsible and show some common sense, just like when you're driving a car, for example.

alland wrote:I'm really not convinced about that, especially when compared to Canada and other countries. However, the gun crimes that make the press are probably (almost certainly?) committed by those who illegally own a gun,

I can't argue with that except our most prolific spree killer Michael Ryan was a gun fanatic and I think owned all of his weapons legally.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

alland wrote:I'm really not convinced about that, especially when compared to Canada and other countries. However, the gun crimes that make the press are probably (almost certainly?) committed by those who illegally own a gun,

I can't argue with that except our most prolific spree killer Michael Ryan was a gun fanatic and I think owned all of his weapons legally.

Let me be devil's advocate here and say that guys like him are as crazy as a rat in a coffee can, and they use guns because they're convenient weapons, but if that were not the case they'd find something else to create mayhem; it was inevitable given their lunacy. When you look at notorious serial killers (which I know is different from spree killers) you'll see they kidnapped their victims and used other means like suffocation, bludgeoning (sp?), knives, etc. to kill their victims.

alland wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

alland wrote:I'm really not convinced about that, especially when compared to Canada and other countries. However, the gun crimes that make the press are probably (almost certainly?) committed by those who illegally own a gun,

I can't argue with that except our most prolific spree killer Michael Ryan was a gun fanatic and I think owned all of his weapons legally.

Let me be devil's advocate here and say that guys like him are as crazy as a rat in a coffee can

He was.

alland wrote:, and they use guns because they're convenient weapons, but if that were not the case they'd find something else to create mayhem;

Well you can't stab somebody from 100m away, nor can you suffocate them or bludgeon them to death. With a gun you can.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote: wrote:

alland wrote:, and they use guns because they're convenient weapons, but if that were not the case they'd find something else to create mayhem;

Well you can't stab somebody from 100m away, nor can you suffocate them or bludgeon them to death. With a gun you can.

Obviously, but my point was that if you're intent on killing someone there are many means of doing it. One US serial killer (I forget which one) put his arm in a sling and pretended to need help getting things in his car at a parking lot. He approached womem seeking help and when they were close enough to him he pushed them into his car and drove off with them. One notorious serial killer/hitman, Richard Kuklinski, used a cross bow to kill people. This is silent and just as deadly as a handgun, and much easier to procure. Not being able to get your hands on a gun just means you have to be more devious and inventive, but it doesn't always prevent those killers who are trully bent on their plans from carrying them out.

alland wrote:They also said that in cities where people are allowed conceal carry permits violent crime has gone down. It makes sense though. If the guy standing next to you might have a gun under his coat, you're gonna think twice about robbing that convenience store.

Even in liberal Minnesota, we have a conceal-carry law. Crime in Minneapolis went down within a year. Texas (where i used to live) has the same law. Same results.

But that law doesn't get rid of gun crime. It allows people to carry for personal protection. Crime has gone down and that is a good thing.

Most conservatives here consider gun control a form of control over them as a people. I'm not talking about trigger locks. I'm talking about making them hard to get or even illegal.

I live in a very liberal state. It's also a big hunting (and fishing) state. The gun owners here like their protection with their handguns. Most people here vote Democrat, too. So, it's not really solely a conservative issue.

Two things that would cause mass unrest in the USA right now is clamping down on gun ownership/rights and giving amnesty to 15 to 20 million illegals. Both very touchy issues here.

Most of the gun crimes in this country come from the lower portion of society. Mostly it's minorities. I know that's a touchy issue and i've been accused of being a racist for even bringing it up (which is a sad argument in itself) but the stats speak for themselves. In 2005, of all murders committed, 52.2% were by blacks. 45.8% were committed by whites and Latinos. The way that the FBI collects data makes it hard to try to show the differences in crime rates between 'Anglo' whites and Latino 'whites.'

Interesting read;

Comparing the US and the UK murder rates
http://porcupinenine.blogspot.com/2005/10/comparing-us-and-uk-murder-rates.html

Race and Ethnicity Stats
http://www.guncrime.org/race_ethnicity.html

Okay... in the first article the author shifts the argument from gun control to the "murder arte". This is NOT what the argument is about so he nulifies himself immediately by moving the goalposts. Secondly, he keeps quoting and comparing the 'murder rate' of US compared to English cities without mentioning how these murders were commited. In Washington;DC were they committed by handgfuns vs. murders commited in Manhester committed by a baseball bat...? He doesn't say. Then he admits defeat by saying "There are a lot of reasons why the US has long had a murder rate that exceeds that in the UK. The easy legal availability of handguns..." My point exactly.

Gun violence by country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

USA: 9th with 2.97 gun homicides for 100,000 pop.

Switzerland (also liberal gun laws): 20th with 0.56 gun homicides for 100,000 pop.

Germany: 22nd with .47 gun homicides for 100,000 pop.

--> A firearms ownership license (Waffenbesitzkarte) must be obtained before a weapon can be purchased. Owners of multiple firearms need separate ownership licenses for every single firearm they own. It entitles owners to purchase firearms and handle them on their own property and any private property with property owner consent. On public premises, a licensed firearm must be transported unloaded and in a stable, fully enclosing, locked container. A weapons ownership license does not entitle the owner to shoot the weapon or carry it on public premises without the prescribed container. Firearms ownership licenses are valid three years or less, and owners must obtain mandatory insurance and a means to securely store the weapon on their premises (a weapons locker). Blanket ownership licenses are sometimes issued to arms dealers.
A number of criteria must be met before a firearms ownership license is issued:
age of consent (18 years for rimfire calibers/21 years for higher calibers) (§ 4 WaffG)
trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
necessity (§ 8 WaffG) (Necessity is automatically assumed present for licensed hunters and owners of a carry permits (Waffenschein)).
Persons who are:
-convicted felons
-have a record of mental disorder or
-are deemed unreliable (which includes people with drug or alcohol addiction histories and known violent or aggressive persons)
are barred from obtaining a firearms ownership license.
Firearms carry permits entitle licensees to publicly carry legally owned weapons, loaded in a concealed or non-concealed manner. A mandatory legal and safety class and shooting proficiency tests are required to obtain such a permit. Carry permits are usually only issued to persons with a particular need for carrying a firearm. This includes licensed hunters, law-enforcement officers, security personnel and persons living under a raised threat-level like celebrities and politicians.
The weapons law does not apply to military use of weapons within the Bundeswehr.
The identity card of German troops contains a term allowing them carrying weapons. Nevertheless, issuance of guns and especially ammunition is also very strictly controlled within the armed forces.


Also something interesting:

In the United States, cities tend to have higher criminal gun violence rates but lower rates of gun ownership, compared with rural areas which tend to have lower criminal gun violence rates but higher rates of gun ownership.[26] Some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. Conversely, research has found that in the United States rural areas with high rates of gun ownership tend to have higher suicide gun violence rates and cities with lower gun ownership tend to have lower suicide gun violence rates.[27] In 2005, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns in the United States, at 33% of all homes in the state,[28] and had a homicide rate of 1.7 of every 100,000[29], although Wyoming also has a very high suicide rate which researchers have accounted for due to the relative accessibility of firearms.[30] High rates of gang membership and gang violence in urban areas have been used to explain these differences in crime gun violence.[31]
America's level of gun violence cannot be attributed to urbanization alone as international comparisons show. Singapore has the second highest population density in the world (almost 6,814 people per square kilometer, or about 50% more densely populated than Chicago, Illinois) but has the lowest level of gun violence of all the countries in the table above. Its rate of gun violence is 99 times lower than that of the United States which is 200 times less densely populated. The only way for a civilian to own a firearm in Singapore is to acquire an Arm & Explosives license.[1]


And as far as the "Some cities have low gun ownership rate but a high crime rate"... how can you know how many illegal guns are owned by felons and other people who aren't supposed to own one in cities like Chicago, Detroit, L.A., etc.?


There are also plenty more school shootings in the US than in Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe


The fact is that the more guns are around, the more likely they are to fall into the wrong hands, the more likely they are to be used in the wrong way.
It's the same with taking a firearm into a police questioning. It's not that they don't trust the officer, they're scared that the officer will get overpowered and the criminal/person in question takes the gun from the officer.

BubbleBliss wrote:


The fact is that the more guns are around, the more likely they are to fall into the wrong hands, the more likely they are to be used in the wrong way.

I could not agree more and this is the crux of the biscuit. This in itself is a wonderful argument for gun control. Period.

Point taken.