Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

User avatar
Yarddawg
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:14:28

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by Yarddawg »

dems4guns wrote:I agree with you about the black market, but there has to be an appropriate balance between barriers to access and it being too cumbersome for ordinary citizens. I find the current background check acceptable.
If someone asks me for my permit, I will gladly and proudly provide it for inspection. It is a part of making carry an accepted norm in public. It reassures them.
I am glad to see you admit that additional laws will have no effect on criminals. Where we disagree is imposing additional requirements for background checks, permits, etc. that you find to be "reasonable".

You seem to propose that we, as gun owners, should be willing to sacrifice some of our liberties for security.
Benjamin Franklin wrote: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Engage your brain!
User avatar
zephyp
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue, 05 May 2009 08:40:55
Location: Springfield, VA

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by zephyp »

Yarddawg wrote:
Benjamin Franklin wrote: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
One of my favorites.....deserve neither....
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...

Image
User avatar
dems4guns
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat, 14 May 2011 12:42:58
Location: Vienna, VA

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by dems4guns »

Yarddawg wrote:You seem to propose that we, as gun owners, should be willing to sacrifice some of our liberties for security.
No I am not suggesting that you sacrifice your liberties. You have the liberty to own, possess, and use firearms. So what liberty are you sacrificing to get a background check? (BTW, I am not suggesting checks should be any more than it is right now.)

People will abuse the system if there are no rules...history has proven that time and time again. The government ensures vehicles meet certain safety standards. The government ensures child safety seats meet certain safety standards. The government plays a role in establishing safety standards and ensuring we commerce is conducted fairly and honestly. The government regulates the distribution of nuclear materials to protect the "general welfare" of America. Requiring background checks is ensuring the "general welfare" of the people by checking that someone dangerous or crazy is not purchasing firearms that would do harm to others or themselves. That is government ensuring the safety of its citizens without sacrificing fundamental liberties.

Dems4guns
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
User avatar
Yarddawg
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:14:28

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by Yarddawg »

dems4guns wrote:So what liberty are you sacrificing to get a background check? (BTW, I am not suggesting checks should be any more than it is right now.)
Privacy! It is nobody's business, but mine, how many guns that I may or may not have. It is nobody's business but mine if I am carrying or not. It is nobody's business but mine (and the second party that I am dealing with) if I decide to sell or give away all or part of my collection.

Again, it all comes down to "The RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed!
Engage your brain!
User avatar
OleMan
VGOF Silver Supporter
VGOF Silver Supporter
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:57:50

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by OleMan »

I'm truly thankful for anyone, regardless of political label, strongly supporting the Second Amendment. However, the majority of what the media labels as liberal politicians in this country's political system are the very people who instituted "gun control" as we know it today. I see a lot of discussion about "reasonable gun control" creeping in to any discussion of the subject - but little actual proof of what is "reasonable". As we know "reasonable" generally turns out to be just another silly or overbearing attempt to interfere with private gun ownership and use - like one semi-auto rifle being ok and another being an "assault weapon"; or state and municipal laws superceding the Constitution willy nilly.

The simple fact is that the Constitution means just what it says in plain terms. "Keep and bear arms" means you can have 'em and carry 'em - it is your right. If any group dislikes that, or any other Constitutional provision,there is a simple Constitutional means to change it by an Amendment. Don't like what it says in simple 1790's English - then gather votes to amend it. That should be the end of the discussion and endless talk about which stripe of group or persons can aid the cause of gun owners or anyone else whose constitutional rights are being walked on by big and over bearing government. Nuanced and 'post modern' interpretations are not a Constutional right, nor are they provied for in the Constitution.

Gun control should consist solely of mandatory availability safety and accuracy training for all who so choose, and sending criminals using deadly weapons to very tough prisons for a long, long time. Practical action should begin with repealing or reversing every pro-criminal, anti-gun law and judicial provision sponsored by the ACLU and anti-gunners. The current morass of crap ain't solving any crime problem and serves mainly to entrap innocent citizens.

Oleman
I Love This Country! It's The Government That Scares The Hell Outta Me!
User avatar
gatlingun6
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:14:31

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by gatlingun6 »

Yarddawg wrote:
dems4guns wrote:So what liberty are you sacrificing to get a background check? (BTW, I am not suggesting checks should be any more than it is right now.)
Privacy! It is nobody's business, but mine, how many guns that I may or may not have. It is nobody's business but mine if I am carrying or not. It is nobody's business but mine (and the second party that I am dealing with) if I decide to sell or give away all or part of my collection.

Again, it all comes down to "The RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed!
*****************************************************************************************************************************************
Why do you keep repeating a line that does not mean the right is unfettered. You do not have a God given, or natural right to carry an arm, any arm of your choice where ever you choose. No court, no legislature in history has ever ruled that to be the case. And it certainly can be the state's business to know that people who are carrying meet some minimum standard, that people who know nothing, are felons, or mentally ill do not have a right to purchase and carry a firearm. And that there are certain places such as a court house where you may not carry.

Further as a business owner or a private citizen I have a right to tell you that you may not carry a weapon on my property or into my place of business.

Why do you think your so-called liberty over rides everyone else's?

The right to privacy is also not an unfettered right. In fact, if you are a conservative, and I admit I don't know that, their position is the constitution does not say anything about a right to privacy. Why? because Roe V Wade was decided based on a right to privacy. By the way that line you keep quoting is not an independent clause in the 2A.


Gat6
User avatar
gatlingun6
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:14:31

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by gatlingun6 »

OleMan wrote:I'm truly thankful for anyone, regardless of political label, strongly supporting the Second Amendment. However, the majority of what the media labels as liberal politicians in this country's political system are the very people who instituted "gun control" as we know it today. I see a lot of discussion about "reasonable gun control" creeping in to any discussion of the subject - but little actual proof of what is "reasonable". As we know "reasonable" generally turns out to be just another silly or overbearing attempt to interfere with private gun ownership and use - like one semi-auto rifle being ok and another being an "assault weapon"; or state and municipal laws superceding the Constitution willy nilly.
************************************************************************************************************************************
From Gat6
Reasonable gun control is much discussed these days because SCOTUS used the phrase in both the Heller and MacDonald cases, but they declined to define the term. Not only did they decline to define the term, but they also declined to state which standard should be used to determine "reasonable". Since there is no definition it's only natural that there's a sustained discussion over its meaning and what methodology is used to reach it. It will be determined through litigation. While the ban on assault rifles is no longer in effect, I hope you know that the term "assault rifle" was as defined by the original statue. State and municipal laws do not supersede the 2nd Amendment as a result of MacDonald V Chicago. SCOTUS held for the first time that the 2A was fully incorporated against the states though the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Before that opinion, the 2A applied only to the Federal government.
**************************************************************************************************************************************
The simple fact is that the Constitution means just what it says in plain terms. "Keep and bear arms" means you can have 'em and carry 'em - it is your right. If any group dislikes that, or any other Constitutional provision,there is a simple Constitutional means to change it by an Amendment. Don't like what it says in simple 1790's English - then gather votes to amend it. That should be the end of the discussion and endless talk about which stripe of group or persons can aid the cause of gun owners or anyone else whose constitutional rights are being walked on by big and over bearing government. Nuanced and 'post modern' interpretations are not a Constutional right, nor are they provied for in the Constitution.
**************************************************************************************************************************************
From Gat6
Actually that's not what it means. Whether we like it or not, it means what this and other SCOTUS's said it means. Based on Heller and MacDonald it means that individuals have a right to have a handgun in their home for self defense. The opinions said nothing about the right to carry outside the home openly or concealed, and SCOTUS was explicit about that. No laws concerning CCW or Open Carry were over turned or affirmed by MacDonald. So whatever is on the books in any state on CCW and Open Carry is still in effect.

Historically the SCOTUS opinion necessarily went much further back and forward than 1790 to justify their opinions. The 2A was incorporated through the 14th Amendment, which was not ratified until 1868. The way SCOTUS used history to justify their majority opinion was widely panned by historians, but that's another story. This is not nearly the end of the discussion, it's the beginning. Heller and MacDonald has been called the gun rights lawyer full employment act because it will take scores of cases to pin down just how far 2A rights go. So far over 200 state and local gun laws have been challenged using the MacDonald opinion. Virtually none have succeeded.

*************************************************************************************************************************************
Gun control should consist solely of mandatory availability safety and accuracy training for all who so choose, and sending criminals using deadly weapons to very tough prisons for a long, long time. Practical action should begin with repealing or reversing every pro-criminal, anti-gun law and judicial provision sponsored by the ACLU and anti-gunners. The current morass of crap ain't solving any crime problem and serves mainly to entrap innocent citizens.

Oleman
**************************************************************************************************************************************
By Gat6
Consistent with MacDonald and Heller what if the citizens of CA, or D.C. or WA want different gun control laws than we have in VA. What right do we in VA have to dictate to any other state their gun control laws. I'm not sure what you mean by pro-criminal, or anti-gun laws. Could you please specify, or name the laws in question? I'm not sure why you brought up the ACLU since they have not been involved in 2A cases.

The "innocent civilian" defense is really a red herring because every gun owner is one trigger pull away from being an accused, or a convicted criminal. It's still a fact that in terms of homicide the perp is most apt to be one we know, over a stranger.

The more I read these posts on a variety of topics it seems to me that: (1) There are those who do not like our form of government; (2) They continuously cite the constitution they wish we had, rather than the one we have. (3) If given a chance, most would not vote to ratify the Constitution as is (that's not unusual, my guess is most Americans would vote no as well). (4) Too often people see History as some objective study of the past. (5) Most seem to be Originalist or Textualist, both of which rely on a historical interpretation that is not the field of expertise of either judges or lawyers. If you stop to ask, when was the original moment, or the meaning of the text by whose interpretation both schemes become problematic.

Finally I need to correct an impression, or what I may have wrongly said about the 2A. Luckily I went back and took a few hours to reread Heller and MacDonald and the discussions. The 2A does not confer rights on anyone, instead it CODIFIED a right that already existed, i.e. the "natural right" of self defense. In short man cannot give that which man already has. The odd thing is Federalist No. 84 predicted what would happen if the constitution listed natural rights. That's why the framers voted against including a bill of rights. At one point Fed 84 states: "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?" Isn't this applicable to the 2A argument? Anyway, sorry for the goof up.

Gat6
User avatar
Reverenddel
VGOF Gold Supporter
VGOF Gold Supporter
Posts: 6422
Joined: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:43:00
Location: Central VA

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by Reverenddel »

"Why do you keep repeating a line that does not mean the right is unfettered. You do not have a God given, or natural right to carry an arm, any arm of your choice where ever you choose."

Soooo What you're saying is you trust the government to determine what is "Reasonable", because you cannot trust yourself, or other people.

Okay.

We believe completely different. I will not try to change your mind, stop writing books about how you're right, because in the logics of other's who disagree, you're wrong.

At some point, you're beating a dead horse, Let it go.
User avatar
dems4guns
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat, 14 May 2011 12:42:58
Location: Vienna, VA

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by dems4guns »

Reverenddel wrote:Soooo What you're saying is you trust the government to determine what is "Reasonable", because you cannot trust yourself, or other people.
WE are the government...remember? WE elect our local, state and federal representatives who, in turn, make decisions on what the governments do. You make it seem like the government is not a direct result of decisions YOU personally make. YOU personally make a decision in the ballot box and when you lobby your representatives and when you goin together in organizations to advocate for your positions. But don't forget WE includes your other neighbors and fellow citizens. What they think matters TOO! The net result is a compromise of representation and the laws and regulations that come from our votes and our lobbying. That is the way the system works. That is American as Apple Pie.

I guess you think that since you and your fellow 2A fundamentalists think the 2A gives you an ABSOLUTE and UNALTERABLE RIGHT to bear arms, that means the Supreme Court and the rest of the citizens of America are just supposed to consent?

NO right is unalterable or absolute. The right to assemble requires a permit for large groups. The right to privacy doesn't mean private and public institutions can't collect and hold your private information for legitimate private and public purposes. The right to privacy is not absolute. A journalist can be thrown into jail for not revealing a confidential source, for instance.

Fundamentalism about firearms is the root of the problem here. Once you decide that facts don't matter, and the Supreme Court and Government don't matter and you hold a "belief" in what the 2A means and what is should mean is delusional.

As a democrat and a liberal, I want to help you all understand the political realities of moving gun liberalization forward. Instead of the radical views espoused here about an absolute right, accept the current Court right as it is now defined, and rather that fighting that old fight, start focusing on the laws that matter in each jurisdiction.

Focus on changing laws that restrict transportation of firearms inside a private vehicle. Focus on laws that require guns be unloaded when being transported. Focus on education about firearms and gun safety. You need to help democrats and liberals become comfortable with the idea of liberalizing gun laws in an incremental way. THEN Democrats and Liberals can join the cause. But to go ON AND ON AND ON AND ON about the 2A fundamentalism just alienates people and then Democrats and liberals won't help pass liberalization.

Whether you agree or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is not absolute...govement has a right to regulate. So, help government and Democrats and Liberals see how regulation can be more reasonable.
Dems4guns
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
User avatar
LFS
VGOF Silver Supporter
VGOF Silver Supporter
Posts: 598
Joined: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:14:54
Location: People's Republic of Falls Church
Contact:

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by LFS »

dems4guns wrote: People will abuse the system if there are no rules...history has proven that time and time again.
People will abuse the system even if there are rules... history has proven that time and time again.
You do know that there are rules against rape, robbery, and murder, right? Yet people still do it. Your unwavering faith in just-one-more-law and government is perplexing. Why are you so strident in advocating for more rules and more government, when we can't even get our current government to follow the rules and laws setup for which they are to abide by? Yet here you are arguing for "just one more law to fix the problem". You know what the definition of insanity is, right?

So... one more law to fix all the ills guns visit upon society, huh? Can you point to proof that any of the previous gun laws have worked? And if we grant just this one more infringement upon our freedom with just one more law, do you promise to never ask for another gun law?
User avatar
dems4guns
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat, 14 May 2011 12:42:58
Location: Vienna, VA

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by dems4guns »

LFS wrote:People will abuse the system even if there are rules... history has proven that time and time again.
You do know that there are rules against rape, robbery, and murder, right? Yet people still do it. Your unwavering faith in just-one-more-law and government is perplexing. Why are you so strident in advocating for more rules and more government, when we can't even get our current government to follow the rules and laws setup for which they are to abide by? Yet here you are arguing for "just one more law to fix the problem". You know what the definition of insanity is, right?

So... one more law to fix all the ills guns visit upon society, huh? Can you point to proof that any of the previous gun laws have worked? And if we grant just this one more infringement upon our freedom with just one more law, do you promise to never ask for another gun law?
I can point to thousands of laws that work, you can too, unless you are an anarchist. If you advocate anarchy, then I am afraid we have nothing more to talk about here.

The vast majority of people will follow the rules/laws that are enacted by governments or even cultural rules that are not even written into the law. Your proposal doesn't hold up against the great volume of facts and results of the use of laws and rules in society. If your theory about firearms were true, then NO LAWS WOULD EVER BE NEEDED AT ALL. And that is anarchy and I don't advocate that kind of society for myself or my children. Or are you suggesting that firearms are in some kind of "special case" where the normal rules of reality don't apply?


This is exactly the kind of extremist views that will turn off Democrats and Liberals who would be willing to listen to reasonable proposals to liberalize gun laws. You will miss the opportunity to work together to actually change things to liberalize gun laws and instead sit around and go ON AND ON AND ON AND ON about your fundamentalism of the 2nd Amendment.

Its a waste of time
Dems4Guns
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
User avatar
Yarddawg
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:14:28

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by Yarddawg »

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right
Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: right
Pronunciation: 'rIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English riht , from riht righteous
1 a : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval b : something that is morally just right from wrong>
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession right of liberty> right s — Declaration of Independence > —see also NATURAL RIGHT b : a power, privilege, immunity, or capacity the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law right s > c : a legally enforceable claim against another that the other will do or will not do a given act right to insist on that care —W. L. Prosser and W. Pacific Reporter Keeton>
Engage your brain!
User avatar
zephyp
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue, 05 May 2009 08:40:55
Location: Springfield, VA

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by zephyp »

dems4guns wrote: NO right is unalterable or absolute. The right to assemble requires a permit for large groups.
Great example and if you read your copy of the Constitution it guarantees us that right...regarding unalterable or absolute, well you can thank we the people (our government) for allowing absolute rights like the 1st to be encumbered by a bunch of dumb laws...same with virtually each one of the original amendments in the BOR...not one exists that isnt ensnared and entangled in federal and state laws...

The reason is simply because we the people collectively sat on our sorry asses and allowed twit legislators that we elected to encumber them....

A little too late now...kinda like eating all of your dinner at a fancy restaurant and then then demanding your money back because it was undercooked...
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...

Image
User avatar
dems4guns
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat, 14 May 2011 12:42:58
Location: Vienna, VA

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by dems4guns »

zephyp wrote: Great example and if you read your copy of the Constitution it guarantees us that right...regarding unalterable or absolute, well you can thank we the people (our government) for allowing absolute rights like the 1st to be encumbered by a bunch of dumb laws...same with virtually each one of the original amendments in the BOR...not one exists that isnt ensnared and entangled in federal and state laws...

The reason is simply because we the people collectively sat on our sorry asses and allowed twit legislators that we elected to encumber them....

A little too late now...kinda like eating all of your dinner at a fancy restaurant and then then demanding your money back because it was undercooked...
Nobody sat on their asses....there were people who fought the National Firearms Act and people who argued on behalf of Miller in USvMiller. None of these changes to our rights were simply conceded. The political realities of the times are what created those laws. The gangland crimes of the 1930's created a public demand to curb machine guns, for example. Congress chose to address the problem through the Commerce Clause by adding a very high tax. However, nothing stopped the States from protecting ownership of machine guns, either. The same is true of the firearm ban from DC....it was a reaction to a high number of armed robberies at grocery stores.
Nobody sat around and said, "Let's infringe the rights of gun owners!" or "We don't like gunowners, so let's make laws against them." Nobody set out to infringe anyone's rights. Was that done? Yes, the NFA had to be amended because it was ruled unconstitutional.

But what I am interested in discussing is not the 2nd Amendment...that is a debate for constitutional scholars. I am interested in how we come together to agree on lobbying our representatives to liberalize the laws to make it easier to purchase, ship, transport, carry, and use the firearm for anyone threatened with death or severe physical injury, or within our own homes (Castle laws). And, how do we convince businesses to liberalize their policies to prevent us from running afoul with our employers and civil complaints?
Dems4Guns
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
User avatar
zephyp
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue, 05 May 2009 08:40:55
Location: Springfield, VA

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by zephyp »

@dems4guns - I said we "collectively" sat on our asses...yes some fought and fight the good fight but not enough at the polls....

2nd amendment discussion for national scholars... ?!?!?!?!?!

Surely you arent one of those people that think we the people are a little too ignorant to have such lofty discussions? The language in the Constitution is clearly written and I dont care to hear TWIT SCHOLARS argue about where the commas are...

In case you havent been paying attention, heres the deal...our Constitution is basically in 2 big chunks...1st chunk is the law for government to conduct themselves by and the second...the BOR are the rights bestowed upon the people NOT THE GOVERNMENT OR SOME DUMB LIBERAL TWIT NATIONAL SCHOLAR...we better know what they say and mean...

If you truly need a national scholar to interpret our rights then I feel sorry for you friend....

</rant>
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...

Image
User avatar
dems4guns
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat, 14 May 2011 12:42:58
Location: Vienna, VA

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by dems4guns »

zephyp wrote:Surely you arent one of those people that think we the people are a little too ignorant to have such lofty discussions? The language in the Constitution is clearly written and I dont care to hear TWIT SCHOLARS argue about where the commas are...
If you truly need a national scholar to interpret our rights then I feel sorry for you friend....
</rant>
Sorry, Zeph. Of course I am not saying we should be ignorant of it. But we can't influence what the courts decide unless you are a Constitutional Lawyer. What I am saying is that our time is best spent trying to find common ground on laws and regulations that actually have everyday affect on our gun ownership. We CAN influence legislators...and that CAN result in liberalization....but endless debates about what the 2nd means or should mean or who said what back in 1770's is irrelevant to the very real laws we are living with today.

THAT is why you need Liberals for the cause of the 2A, which I interpret as liberalization of gun ownership.
Dems4Guns
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
User avatar
smc331
VGOF Silver Supporter
VGOF Silver Supporter
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:57:38
Location: Louisa County & Charlotte, NC
Contact:

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by smc331 »

"You know, for the last hundred years there has been entirely too much Promoting of the General Welfare and Creating a More Perfect Union and way too damned little Securing of the Blessings of Liberty."
Tamara K. - view from the porch
"A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin
:packin:
http://macbournes.com/
User avatar
zephyp
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue, 05 May 2009 08:40:55
Location: Springfield, VA

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by zephyp »

dems4guns wrote:
zephyp wrote:Surely you arent one of those people that think we the people are a little too ignorant to have such lofty discussions? The language in the Constitution is clearly written and I dont care to hear TWIT SCHOLARS argue about where the commas are...
If you truly need a national scholar to interpret our rights then I feel sorry for you friend....
</rant>
Sorry, Zeph. Of course I am not saying we should be ignorant of it. But we can't influence what the courts decide unless you are a Constitutional Lawyer. What I am saying is that our time is best spent trying to find common ground on laws and regulations that actually have everyday affect on our gun ownership. We CAN influence legislators...and that CAN result in liberalization....but endless debates about what the 2nd means or should mean or who said what back in 1770's is irrelevant to the very real laws we are living with today.

THAT is why you need Liberals for the cause of the 2A, which I interpret as liberalization of gun ownership.
Dems4Guns
Ok, thanks...but we can influence anything if we the people stand up - en mass - at the same time - and all shout NOT ANYMORE at the same time. We the people can influence a great many things but it takes alot of us moving in the same direction at the same time to get any attention...
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...

Image
User avatar
arkypete
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:08:30

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by arkypete »

Personally I go with the T shirt wisdom:
Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Jim
User avatar
Palladin
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
Posts: 4154
Joined: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:06:43
Location: Louisa

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Post by Palladin »

That'll do, pig.

It's just the way things are...

:hysterical:
Now is the time for all good men to get off their rusty dustys...
Post Reply

Return to “Politics (All other non-firearm related)”