Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment


PDA






Aristodemus
June 6, 2008, 11:01 PM
Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

which is much better than furry animals.

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

If you enjoyed reading about "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rainbowbob
June 6, 2008, 11:32 PM
Aristodemus:

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

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

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

Aristodemus
June 6, 2008, 11:44 PM
First: Many thanks, Bob. I've been lurking for quite some time. Usually in the tactical sections, but now I have this wild hair (hare?) . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thirdly...That article is the best argument for card-carrying liberals to support the 2nd Amendment I have ever read! Brilliant! I will be sending it to several people imediately. Great stuff!
__________________
Best regards,
Rainbowbob

RP88
June 6, 2008, 11:58 PM
that was a very good piece. Thanks for posting that. Also, welcome to THR.

George C Morrison
June 7, 2008, 12:12 AM
Aristodemus welcome to THR and thank you for sharing Angry Mouse's brilliant message!To find an article of that clarity,sanity and reason on The Daily Kos is almost unbelieveable.I hope the author is still well and breathing.
How he snuck it into that sewage pit is almost beyond belief.I'm at a loss for words.I'm making up a list of my favorite liberals to send this to as we speak.The "art work" to forward was a riot also.
I have a feeling you are going to be great asset to this forum.:)

Grey54956
June 7, 2008, 12:17 AM
Welcome to THR.

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

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

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

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

Just my thoughts from my morning drive.

rainbowbob
June 7, 2008, 12:18 AM
Aristodemus:

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

Or...next week I'll be in North Idaho hosting a Seach & Rescue convention shooting competition on our property [here: www.twinriverheights.com]. If you're anywhere around those parts - stop by.

SCPigpen
June 7, 2008, 01:08 AM
I want to know what you were doing at the dailykos??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??????

Bad Aristodemus!!!!!

caseypj
June 7, 2008, 01:11 AM
Liberals don't like the 2nd Amendment because it can hurt people, it doesn't appeal to their illogical emotional issues, such as affirmative action, welfare, universal healthcare, etc. I do like some of your other comments in this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/18/114035/428/127/517544) article on DailyKOS, the article on the other hand is trash.

H088
June 7, 2008, 01:57 AM
meh, not ALL Liberals are anti gun, not ALL Conservatives are pro gun, but thats the stereotype.

I know plenty of pro gun democrats but they seem largely ignored by the people who control the party.

roscoe
June 7, 2008, 02:11 AM
yeah - like me

icebones
June 7, 2008, 02:21 AM
methinks some liberals are antigun because thats the way they were raised, or lack thereof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

just my 2 cents. im signin off... 1000 shotgunshells and 900 clays aint gonna bust themselves tomorrow:D

jaytex1969
June 7, 2008, 02:41 AM
This "liberal" fully supports the Second Amendment and just forwarded the entire text of the blog, with commentary, to about 50 fence sitters and anti's with whom he communicates regularly.

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

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

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

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

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

(/rant off)

H088
June 7, 2008, 02:52 AM
Not meaning any disrespect, but my support of clean air and water and a few other leftist concepts has no bearing on my position concerning our right to keep and bear arms.

QFE, I am half liberal(pro environment, anti outsourcing) and half conservative(pro gun, anti illegal immigration). Many others share this same view and they seem completely ignored.

Cosmoline
June 7, 2008, 02:52 AM
Interesting article. It's worth remembering that we're arguing for LIBERAL gun laws. Liberal in the true sense of the word.

JohnnyOrygun
June 7, 2008, 04:07 AM
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.

gunman42782
June 7, 2008, 05:01 AM
That was a good article, well thought out. It is true not all liberals are anti-gun. But, the vast majority of the elected ones in Washington are, and they are the ones that are gonna be making the rules if elected.

Zoogster
June 7, 2008, 07:20 AM
The problem with leftist liberal's thinking is not that some are not pro gun who have had a life or experience that has specificly shaped that one opinion.
The problem is the philosophy that it is okay to restrict, add constant new legislation to ban or restrict or set government mandates over practicly every aspect of life or any product eventualy ends up at guns.

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

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

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


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

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

It is simply different ideologies.


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

The answers given to that could be used to show just how inclined your child or grandchild raised with similar beliefs is to be anti gun. Of course special 'pro gun interventions' to specificly target that one belief and make it not fit in with the others can be used on an individual basis to skew the results, but without such an intervention the results are rather predictable.

Sapanther
June 7, 2008, 07:43 AM
I think the biggest problem we liberals have is this exact misconception. When I first started looking in to the online gun community I realized that this must be how a republican who just realized they were gay and headed to a LGBT club. It felt like even though I know the truth of the matter, because I was a liberal, I didnt have the right to own a gun. Now though, I don't care what anyone says. I refuse to join the NRA. I refuse to vote for most Republicans. I refuse to back down on human rights issues. I also refuse to back down on 2A issues as well.


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




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

ETA: P.S.S. With the exception of the folks like the one above. <shrug> Nothings perfect though.

71Commander
June 7, 2008, 08:23 AM
Love this from the link.:)

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

John McCain hates children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

John McCain hates children.

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

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

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

[ Parent ]

leadcounsel
June 7, 2008, 08:25 AM
Here's what I don't get:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TexasRifleman
June 7, 2008, 08:53 AM
Great read, thanks for posting it.

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

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

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

I think George Carlin invented the term originally.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
June 7, 2008, 10:28 AM
That article is out-FREAKIN'-standing!!! Wow. One of the best ever. Sent to all my friends, liberal or otherwise.

Originally posted by Aristodemus on the Daily Kos:

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

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

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


You sir, are THE MAN! - I'm not worthy; I'm not worthy. :)

Lichter
June 7, 2008, 11:04 AM
Good Stuff, I sent it to some friends

Biker
June 7, 2008, 11:38 AM
Helluva a good read. I'll be posting this elsewhere, if you don't mind.

Biker

Sebastian the Ibis
June 7, 2008, 12:12 PM
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!

springmom
June 7, 2008, 01:27 PM
I've said it before.... we need an applause smiley!

Welcome to THR, and thank you for sharing that with us. That was awesome.

Springmom

Aristodemus
June 7, 2008, 01:27 PM
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.

caseypj
June 7, 2008, 01:37 PM
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
June 7, 2008, 01:40 PM
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
June 7, 2008, 01:43 PM
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
June 7, 2008, 01:56 PM
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".

goon
June 7, 2008, 02:11 PM
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.

Aristodemus
June 7, 2008, 02:16 PM
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
June 7, 2008, 02:22 PM
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.


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

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

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

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

John McCain hates children.

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

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

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

Aristodemus
June 7, 2008, 02:28 PM
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
June 7, 2008, 03:36 PM
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.

chris in va
June 8, 2008, 12:51 AM
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.

There are two kinds of people in the world: (1) the free; and (2) food animals.

Hope you don't mind, I might use that as a sig line.

goon
June 8, 2008, 02:30 AM
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?


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
June 8, 2008, 03:40 AM
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!

AZAndy
June 8, 2008, 12:39 PM
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

goon
June 8, 2008, 12:56 PM
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?

jojosdad
June 8, 2008, 01:24 PM
Thanks for the great site. I'm passing it on to all of the liberals I know (both of them).
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?
Neither - read the rules for the forum at the top, number 3 to be exact:As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.

rocinante
June 8, 2008, 01:53 PM
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.

SoCalShooter
June 8, 2008, 02:07 PM
I sent that to atleast 15 libs I know and a bunch of other people. Thanks!!

rainbowbob
June 8, 2008, 02:08 PM
I owe you a beer as well as the one I owe to Rainbow Bob. :)

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. :confused:

pilot teacher
June 8, 2008, 02:09 PM
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.

SuperNaut
June 8, 2008, 02:18 PM
I've been forwarding and linking to Angry Mouse's article like crazy.

AZAndy
June 8, 2008, 02:25 PM
goon:

AZAndy - the problem is the democratic leadership.

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.

Matt King
June 8, 2008, 02:42 PM
I wish gun-control became a non-issue, and that neither party would bring it up. IMO, none of the Bill of Rights should be used as a political football.

neviander
June 8, 2008, 03:15 PM
Wow, it's amazing what you can actually pull out of a liberal when they put their guards down, i.e. another liberal putting forth the idea and not the "dumb, hick gun lover."

I didn't read the entire article, but wow, if the majority of liberals really feel that way, then we really need to attack the blankety-blank media for yet another scare mongering tactic. Good article.

George C Morrison
June 8, 2008, 03:52 PM
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.

It's bad out there on the road but not that bad!More like 18,000 drunk driving deaths out of 43,000 overall in 2006.Stats from 2006 on the link:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/217814

Elza
June 8, 2008, 06:57 PM
H088: I know plenty of pro gun democrats but they seem largely ignored by the people who control the party. Bingo!! I don’t often associate with the democrat/liberal element as we tend not to travel in the same circles. However, when encountered it is surprising how many actually do support the 2nd Amendment.

legaleagle_45
June 8, 2008, 07:28 PM
An interesting take on the split in Democratic ranks over the gun issue was done by Dave Kopel.

It appears that Obama has a real problem with gun owners in the Democratic party... some excerpts:

A Tuesday loss in Indiana would have ended the race. But she eked out a 2% victory by carrying the votes of gun-owning households (who made up half of the electorate) in a 22% landslide. In Pennsylvania, her ten-point win brought in ten million dollars of cash that she needed to keep going. Her 25% margin in gun-owning households of the Keystone State (a third of the electorate) turned what would have been a close contest into a runaway.

In North Carolina, she was crushed by Obama. Yet among gun-owning households, she actually won the state by 3%, her 15 point loss being attributable to Obama’s margin in the non-gun households.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DaveKopel/2008/05/08/gun_owners_for_hillary?page=1

Considering the fact that Obama sat on the board of the Joyce Foundation and also considering his record in Illinois, this is really no surprise.

I could say more, but I am afraid that I would incur the wrath of our esteemed, highly intelligent and perceptive mods, who might consider it a drift from legal into political.:uhoh:

Diggers
June 8, 2008, 07:48 PM
I'm more or less in line with H088, I consider my self liberal mostly, but I do have some beliefs that are seen as conservative. But who isn’t a mixture really?

That was an interesting read, HOWEVER Angry Mouse was also some what inaccurate (which is his 1st A right :) ) about some of his examples he gave.

Such as.......

No. 4: It's not like you can use it anyway.

Tell that to the USSR, held at bay for about six years by pissed off Afghanis with WWI rifles.

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



Not exactly what happened with the Afghanis nor what is happening in Iraqi. Both have gotten some pretty high tech help.

Over all though, A.G. makes a lot of good points.

another okie
June 8, 2008, 08:29 PM
I'm a democrat, and I think it would be better to use the word "leftist" for the kind of thinking that is hostile to guns. In my experience a big change occurred between 1963 and 1968 due to the several high profile assasinations during that time, and the civil unrest in major cities such as Watts and Newark. Urban progressives began to see guns as something criminals used to hurt people like them.

Aristodemus
June 8, 2008, 08:47 PM
jojosdad
Senior Member



Join Date: 12-03-03
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 388 Thanks for the great site. I'm passing it on to all of the liberals I know (both of them).

Quote:
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?

Neither - read the rules for the forum at the top, number 3 to be exact:
Quote:
As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.

__________________
A boy doesn't have to go to war to be a hero; he can say he doesn't like pie when he sees there isn't enough to go around.
Edward W. Howe

Jojos Dad:

Nana could say things that would make Caligula blush. I will, however, attempt to work and play well with others. Apologies in advance if I let one slip.

And I'm really glad you too like the article. You guys are GREAT! Both friends and I have met serious negative reaction at other shooting and RKBA sites.

Aristodemus
June 8, 2008, 11:16 PM
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.


Quote:
There are two kinds of people in the world: (1) the free; and (2) food animals.

Hope you don't mind, I might use that as a sig line.

Please do -- I'm not sure if it's original. Dad may have said something like it.

I've done some more reading on Kos and was pleased to see that in most 2A discussions the arguments are dominated by 2A supporters. Read this POS: Guns, Women and Freedom and then look at the comments. Penguinsong (WTH kinda screen name is that -- and NB I refrain from profanity!) gets her treacly little treatise torn apart. Those of *us* who participate over *there* dominate the RKBA discussions.

HeavyDuty
June 8, 2008, 11:38 PM
Linky no worky.

Aristodemus
June 8, 2008, 11:48 PM
A linky that hopefully winkies:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/5/15422/88261/20/514584

Bendutro
June 9, 2008, 12:11 AM
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.

You're not a Democrat, you're a retarded Libertarian! As soon as we shake that nasty case of social engineering out of your system, you'll be good to go.

rainbowbob
June 9, 2008, 12:17 AM
"Guns, Women and Freedom
by penguinsong"

Now why did you have to go and upset me by posting that link? I just ate!

Aristodemus
June 9, 2008, 02:16 AM
Other than it's freezing, you march, it sucks, you march, you freeze, you die. At least Morgan Freeman narrates when you get eaten by a leopard seal.

"Guns, Women and Freedom
by penguinsong (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/5/15422/88261)"

Now why did you have to go and upset me by posting that link? I just ate!
__________________
Best regards,
Rainbowbob

Sorry, dude. Should've warned you to skip to the comments. I agree. What a bunch of horse shi . . . nonsense. Take solace that penguinsong got her black and white as . . . posterior kicked.

Cosmoline
June 9, 2008, 03:24 AM
So what purpose has a gun for a man other than to keep the women in their lives in line?

This is priceless.

mr.72
June 9, 2008, 02:53 PM
After reading that article it occurs to me that the author is not preaching to the right choir.

The article outlines a reasoned support of the typical Libertarian view of the Constitution, and not the typical liberal or democrat view of the Constitution.

He uses the ACLU as an example of an outfit who supports most of the Bill of Rights but in fact I don't think many Democrats really want many of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights including the 2A. The big one is the Tenth Amendment. The whole concept of "liberalism" is to completely ignore the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Like, social security, healthcare, welfare, arts funding, research funding, 99.999% of pork spending, affirmative action, special-interest projects, etc... all of those are not "powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution", and therefore they are "reserved for the States respectively, or the people".

The vast majority of the government and almost the entirety of the Democrat platform (and the Republicans as well) are in direct and stark violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Don't tell me liberals are interested in the Bill of Rights.

Picard
June 9, 2008, 04:00 PM
Awesome link! Thanks!

Aristodemus
June 9, 2008, 07:18 PM
After reading that article it occurs to me that the author is not preaching to the right choir.

The article outlines a reasoned support of the typical Libertarian view of the Constitution, and not the typical liberal or democrat view of the Constitution.

He uses the ACLU as an example of an outfit who supports most of the Bill of Rights but in fact I don't think many Democrats really want many of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights including the 2A. The big one is the Tenth Amendment. The whole concept of "liberalism" is to completely ignore the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Like, social security, healthcare, welfare, arts funding, research funding, 99.999% of pork spending, affirmative action, special-interest projects, etc... all of those are not "powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution", and therefore they are "reserved for the States respectively, or the people".

The vast majority of the government and almost the entirety of the Democrat platform (and the Republicans as well) are in direct and stark violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Don't tell me liberals are interested in the Bill of Rights.
__________________
looking for used Kahr or Kel-Tec 9mms. PM me if you have one for sale.

72:

I agree with you to the extent of the Tenth -- a thorn in many liberal sides. During bar preparation in 1996 students were assured that California had NEVER tested on the Tenth Amendment. Guess what was on the essay portion?

But the ACLU would seem, at least anecdotally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aclu), to support the 1st (all five clauses), the 4th (despite an overwhelming opposition by the prison-industrial complex), the 5th (same opposition), the 6th (same opposition) and the 8th. Bong Hits for Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick) was one recent and widely publicized free speech case.

IMHO, most liberals (let's just say "people to the left", or "Democrats" without parsing progressives, or pinkos, or winos) are ardent supporters of Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8. They just ignore the Ninth/Tenth and rationalize (or attempt to rationalize) away the Second. I'm no constitutional scholar, so we're talking in broad strokes here.

Without sparking controversy, let's examine how a liberal would view the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia). They would probably feel there were some violations of the Fourth, definite violations of the Fifth and Sixth, and definite violations of the Eighth. And if you consider his recordings and broadcasts, "Live From Death Row," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_from_Death_Row), liberals would probably support his right to create and distribute such works.

Is this libertarian? Yeah, it looks that way to me. But that is the nature of libertarianism -- the ability to walk into a room and agree with different halves of the room on certain issues, and pis . . . antagonize the ENTIRE room on certain issues.

Angry Mouse (http://angry-mouse.dailykos.com/) is attempting to market an idea with maximum effect. Hire a media-buying firm and they'll do the same thing -- reach the largest number of your demographic audience at the least cost. If that effort appeals to the libertarian nature of the liberals (and Kos is a liberal blog) in the audience . . . well, to me the only measure is whether it is effective, not why. Angry Mouse does this by appealing to the (social) libertarian leanings held by many liberals.

So, once again (and totaling numbers from friends who've distributed this on RKBA sites), over 3000 shooters have read Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/19133/5152/392/496931). Hopefully they have all forwarded it to liberal friends. Nay-sayers have questioned the efficacy of this exercise. It is, however, worth the ten seconds it takes to forward a URL if two clichés are even the tiniest bit true: (1) the hundredth monkey; and (2) six degrees of separation.

I get to Senator Clinton in two degrees (possibly one), not that she'd change her mind. Each of you can get to someone in Congress or a federal judge in probably no more than four degrees.

Read the article. Pass it on. And then entertain yourself with Aristodemus's Favorite URL to Forward (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=irule).

legaleagle_45
June 9, 2008, 09:22 PM
Aristodemus wrote:
IMHO, most liberals (let's just say "people to the left", or "Democrats" without parsing progressives, or pinkos, or winos) are ardent supporters of Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8. They just ignore the Ninth/Tenth and rationalize (or attempt to rationalize) away the Second. I'm no constitutional scholar, so we're talking in broad strokes here.

I think you are being a bit overbroad if you consider where the support comes from respecting the fairness doctorine, hate crimes legislation, campaign finance reform and the like.

Many people will love the Bill of Rights so long as that support fits with their political agenda.... and tend to disregard it the minute it goes against their political agenda. This is not unique to the left and extends to all flavors of the political spectrum. Even the ACLU governors were deeply divided when they ultimately decided to back the Nazi march in Skokie, and it took some real fancy foot work by some of the rank and file membership of the ACLU to prevent the ACLU from adopting a policy in favor of stricter gun control laws. I am not speaking of their rejection of the 2nd as an individual right. The ACLU was prepared to actively support and promote gun control laws when some wiser and cooler heads told them that those laws could run afoul of the 4th and that gun control is not within the parameters of the ACLU, so the ACLU adopted a neutral stance with respect thereto.

I take it you are a lawyer, given your previous comments concerning the Bar. I also take it that your wife is a supporter of the 2nd and that Angry Mouse is a female. Any possibility that you are related to Angry Mouse by marriage?:)

H088
June 9, 2008, 11:03 PM
The ACLU is dedicated to furthering its own political agenda, they aren't any better then any other group such as the NRA.

Now it will be funny to see what the ACLU will do when heller goes pro gun.

HGUNHNTR
June 9, 2008, 11:20 PM
I'm a liberal, and I loved the 2nd amendment before I read the article.:rolleyes:

legaleagle_45
June 9, 2008, 11:20 PM
Now it will be funny to see what the ACLU will do when heller goes pro gun.

Depends... If it is merely 5-4, I predict they will merely dismiss it as an anomaly caused by a conservative court and not alter their agenda.

Which is exactly why Gura, et al, have set their sights higher. They want at least a 6-3 decision so they can assert super majority status. Actually, I think they have a pretty decent chance to get 6-3... perhaps even more, but sadly I am pretty sure they will not get all 9.

George C Morrison
June 10, 2008, 12:00 AM
Which is exactly why Gura, et al, have set their sights higher. They want at least a 6-3 decision so they can assert super majority status. Actually, I think they have a pretty decent chance to get 6-3... perhaps even more, but sadly I am pretty sure they will not get all 9.

Not to worry.It will be at least 6-3 and possibly 7-2.
You can take that to the bank.:)

Aristodemus
June 10, 2008, 12:33 AM
Eagle:

Many people will love the Bill of Rights so long as that support fits with their political agenda.... and tend to disregard it the minute it goes against their political agenda. This is not unique to the left and extends to all flavors of the political spectrum. Even the ACLU governors were deeply divided when they ultimately decided to back the Nazi march in Skokie, and it took some real fancy foot work by some of the rank and file membership of the ACLU to prevent the ACLU from adopting a policy in favor of stricter gun control laws. I am not speaking of their rejection of the 2nd as an individual right. The ACLU was prepared to actively support and promote gun control laws when some wiser and cooler heads told them that those laws could run afoul of the 4th and that gun control is not within the parameters of the ACLU, so the ACLU adopted a neutral stance with respect thereto.

Agreed. Push comes to shove, people will see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Liberals will have trouble with the tension between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, but I think the Fourth through Sixth are much easier for them. The Eighth might cause a rift, but I don’t know how much internal conflict your “average” liberal (if there is such a thing) would have. Perhaps I’m merely hopeful that a libertarian/liberal intersection is the conduit to transmit reason, rather than emotion.

I take it you are a lawyer, given your previous comments concerning the Bar.

I used to be, but knowledge of con-law is little more than an unpleasant memory.

I also take it that your wife is a supporter of the 2nd and that Angry Mouse is a female. Any possibility that you are related to Angry Mouse by marriage?

My wife is in fact an ardent supporter of the 2nd and she would argue it in much the same way as Angry Mouse. She's also pretty jealous, however. If I were ever stupid enough to say something like "a fellow could do worse than Angry Mouse" I would, as Strother Martin would say, "spend a night in the box." In my house, “spend a night in the box” essentially means "procure a little blue box" -- and a little blue box is easily a Les Baer. I do, however, think we're lucky -- perhaps luckier than we know -- that we have smart and aggressive women on our side.

legaleagle_45
June 10, 2008, 12:53 AM
Aristodemus wrote:
I used to be, but knowledge of con-law is little more than an unpleasant memory.

2nd Amend jurisprudence is a bit more fun, espescially if you are a history buff (which is something your name implies--- the Spartan of the 300 fame or the Greek myth?).

There is so little from SCOTUS on it that you are forced to revert to originalism arguments, revisting the lead up to the Glorious Revolution, the English Bill of Rights, the debates between Madison and Patrick Henry in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, the debates in the 1st Congress concerning the BoR's... Fascinating to me, but then I am a history nerd.

Aristodemus wrote:
I do, however, think we're lucky -- perhaps luckier than we know -- that we have smart and aggressive women on our side.

I will second that!

rainbowbob
June 15, 2008, 10:25 PM
In my house, “spend a night in the box” essentially means "procure a little blue box" -- and a little blue box is easily a Les Baer.

What the... :confused:

Aristodemus
June 16, 2008, 01:46 AM
I said: In my house, “spend a night in the box” essentially means "procure a little blue box" -- and a little blue box is easily a Les Baer.

RainbowBob said: What the... :confused:

Oh, dude, you are soooo lucky if you don't know the Little Blue Box. Let's give our colleagues 24 hours to chime in, if not, I'll reveal the horror to you.

Aristodemus
June 17, 2008, 02:40 AM
The little blue box comes from Tiffany's. The one in Bellevue doesn't even *have* a silver room. It's like the one in Beverly Hills -- all diamonds, all over-priced, all the time. ;-)

Hence, "Little Blue Box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany%27s)" can be a Les Baer, or a Heinie, or a transferrable M249 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249) if you were *really* bad . . . .

If you enjoyed reading about "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!