Why Progressives Should Love The 2A:

[Sir Publius]

Greetings. New to the forum here. I came across a good article I wanted to share with the forum on why liberals, if they were really liberal, should of course be for gun rights, and how gun rights in the end mean equal rights. It forgoes all the stats and whatnot, and simply explains in real simple terms that perhaps SOME on the left can nod their head in agreement to, how gun rights again actually again mean equal rights: https://mattsamerica.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/why-progressives-should-love-the-2nd-amendment/

 

[ATLDave]

There's nothing inherently "liberal" about gun control at all. That gun control in America is largely aligned with the left side of the political spectrum is pure historical and demographic accident. Gun control tends to be more popular in urban areas (where the ratio of legal-to-illegal gun use is skewed compared to rural areas). The modern American left is heavily dependent on urban voters, and is lead/run by people from urban areas.

 

[230RN]

Right on. Now get the gun grabbers to read it.

Just my theory, but they loathe equality anyhow.

They want supremacy for themselves and "their" people. The right people. Hence they are against any form of "equalizer" or "peacemanker." They want the Peacemakers in their (and their peoples') hands.

I respectfully direct you to:

https://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

(March 23, 2007 by Marko Kloos)

Which shows similar thinking. But repeating those concepts whenever and wherever possible is a good idea, and might convince some fence-sitters who are deluged with anti-gun sentiment from all directions nowadays to lean more toward pro-2A thinking

Terry

 

[tipoc]

A slew of better reasons to defend our rights than those offered. Here from the newspaper, The Militant, of the Socialist Workers Party (which does not consider itself "progressive").

http://www.themilitant.com/2013/7701/770101.html

tipoc

 

[barnbwt]

They are not nor have they ever been liberals*. Their whole belief system is based in distortion and misrepresentation --why should the name they choose to go by be any different?

TCB

*I've never heard of anyone who favored individual liberty and equality falling to faith in bureaucracy; only the opposite

 

[Flechette]

One needs to understand that today's "liberals" are nothing like the classical liberals like John Locke and those that founded our nation. Today's "liberals" have completely hijacked the original meaning and are essentially the opposite of the original liberal ideology.

They are trying to do the same with the "Progressive" moniker. The first "Progressive" is arguably Theodore Roosevelt. But think about it, he was pro-gun, pro-hunting, pro-technology, pro-military, pro-America, wanted to expand America's world influence and believed that America is an exceptional nation: American Exceptionalism.

Today's "Progressives" are the exact opposite. Go right down the list and they are against what Teddy Roosevelt believed in.

I really think they do this on purpose in order to confuse people into supporting them.

 

[ToolAA]

One needs to understand that today's "liberals" are nothing like the classical liberals like John Locke and those that founded our nation. Today's "liberals" have completely hijacked the original meaning and are essentially the opposite of the original liberal ideology.

This. [emoji106]

A lot of people have no idea that the foundations of the liberalist doctrines were in response to the oppression of personal freedoms and liberties by monarchy government. Locke proposed that individuals have a right to life and liberty. Basically the foundation of the of our constitution.

You could argue that the right to bear arms is an extension of these personal liberties as a protection against the very oppression that the liberal movement was founded upon.

Oh how times have changed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[barnbwt]

"I really think they do this on purpose in order to confuse people into supporting them."
Because what sane individual would willingly cede their personal political power to the collective to be used against themselves? So you create complex, conflicting, and confusing belief systems, to make them think they never possessed this power in the first place, or are unworthy of it because of who they are, or who others are, and deserve to be controlled. No sane person believes they are incapable of wielding a firearm responsibly, or any other rational exercise of personal responsibility.

 

[RX-79G]

American liberals and conservatives are their own thing, and aren't like he liberal or conservatives from other societies.

Conservatives in most countries would be the ones banning guns.

Liberals in the US are pro-gun fanatics compared to most other countries.


These terms don't have universal meanings and the specific habits of US conservatives vs. Brit or German conservatives are very, very different.

 

[yokel]

"I really think they do this on purpose in order to confuse people into supporting them."
Because what sane individual would willingly cede their personal political power to the collective to be used against themselves? So you create complex, conflicting, and confusing belief systems, to make them think they never possessed this power in the first place, or are unworthy of it because of who they are, or who others are, and deserve to be controlled. No sane person believes they are incapable of wielding a firearm responsibly, or any other rational exercise of personal responsibility.

It’s easy enough for these bond slaves of passion to believe that guns constitute an irresistible temptation to do violence, for they see their own actions as proof of the masterful power of material things. The gun seems fearful to them because they suspect that, at the behest of their own chronically uncontrolled passions, they would willingly abuse the deadly power it represents. They are easily convinced that people can’t be trusted with arms because they quietly believe that, in this respect, they are themselves untrustworthy.

There’s the rub, as Hamlet says. For people thus easily convinced that they cannot be trusted with the deadly power of arms will soon be persuaded that they have no right to control the power of government, which includes, by necessity, control over arms in their most organized and destructive form. So, in the end, by inducing Americans to accept the abrogation of their right to keep and bear arms our would-be progressive despots such as Obama and Clinton prepare the people to endure the abdication of their Constitutional sovereignty.

 

[jlr1962]

Somewhere there is a secret coin toss to see who gets a specific special interest group. I agree with the OP. I would think the left would more appreciate the 2A.

 

[sarge83]

These people are not really liberals in the classical sense. They are essentially fascist. Progressive and fascist with some leaning more toward communism. They seek control and power to implement their ideology which ever it may be and an armed populace is an impediment them, thus they hate the 2nd Amendment more than any other because the others they can and will obliterate to reach their objective with no consequences, but they can't do that with the 2nd.

 

[Elkins45]

Mods must be sleeping late today, for a purely political thread like this one to still be open.

I'm reminded of a T-shirt slogan: "If the liberals treated the 2nd Amendment t like they do the other nine, it would be mandatory to own a gun."

 

[orpington]

I have NEVER understood why the second amendment is a political issue at all???? It is a RIGHT granted by our Constitution, end of conversation! Just like abortion, why is that one a political issue? The Republican party has lost an untold number of votes over that one. Politicians need to stick to fiscal responsibility & getting this country out of debt, supporting a militia/the military, and promoting industry within our borders. And not much else! I am not a politician, and this is probably why, but I don't think the intent was to get elected by a popularity contest, and simply pick issues or interest groups that win you the most votes or not back groups or interests that could lose you votes.

 

[orpington]

One needs to understand that today's "liberals" are nothing like the classical liberals like John Locke and those that founded our nation. Today's "liberals" have completely hijacked the original meaning and are essentially the opposite of the original liberal ideology.

They are trying to do the same with the "Progressive" moniker. The first "Progressive" is arguably Theodore Roosevelt. But think about it, he was pro-gun, pro-hunting, pro-technology, pro-military, pro-America, wanted to expand America's world influence and believed that America is an exceptional nation: American Exceptionalism.

Today's "Progressives" are the exact opposite. Go right down the list and they are against what Teddy Roosevelt believed in.

I really think they do this on purpose in order to confuse people into supporting them.

Well said! My political philosophy parallels that of Theodore Roosevelt, and he was a progressive, but yet I am not a progressive. The definition of progressive has obviously changed over the last century.

Yes, I myself was confused! Why was I not supporting the Progressive cause and yet I admire Theodore Roosevelt and his political views?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

“Liberal” has two meanings. The Classic Liberal of the 18th and 19th Centuries believed in individual liberty and the free market. Thomas Jefferson, who said, “The government is best that governs least” is an example.

The political and intellectual heirs of the Classic Liberals are the modern Conservatives. Modern Liberals have espoused Socialism, which basically denies the right of property. Now to take everyone’s property, the government must be more powerful than the people – which is why modern Liberals oppose the 2nd Amendment.

Progressives go beyond modern Liberalism – they want the government to be progressively more and more powerful. They are closer to Stalinists than to any other ideology,

 

[RX-79G]

So when Republicans want to pass laws limiting people's lives based on religious grounds, are they then being "liberals", since they want to increase government power to regulate what people do?

 

[Leanwolf]

FLECHETTE - " ... Today's "Progressives" are the exact opposite. Go right down the list and they are against what Teddy Roosevelt believed in."

The redefining of the word(s) is what is known as Orwellian "New Speak," as in "Right is wrong, good is evil, up is down," etc., etc., etc.

The modern day "liberal" is a master of "New speak" and gobbledee gook.

L.W.

 

[threefeathers]

Leanwolf you are so true. George O must be sitting up in his grave laughing.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So when Republicans want to pass laws limiting people's lives based on religious grounds, are they then being "liberals", since they want to increase government power to regulate what people do?

Which laws or proposed laws are based on religious grounds?

 

[RX-79G]

Marriage protection, religious health care services, sodomy.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Marriage is the fundamental human social institution. We have proved many times we are not smart enough to tamper with social institutions.

I don't know what you mean by "religious health care services." Are you referring to healing by faith? So far as I know there are no laws dealing with that.

And there is no law against sodomy.

 

[RX-79G]

Marriage is the fundamental human social institution. We have proved many times we are not smart enough to tamper with social institutions.

I don't know what you mean by "religious health care services." Are you referring to healing by faith? So far as I know there are no laws dealing with that.

And there is no law against sodomy.

There isn't a law against sodomy, because the ones we had are unconstitutional.

Religious health care refers to things like Catholic backed public medical systems that refuse contraception, and laws to protect that.

Slavery, male only suffrage, human sacrifice, state religion and polygamy are social institutions, and we have gotten rid of them. Refusing to allow any two people to marry is just as much "tampering" - especially when you are already cherry picking a narrow Christian view of marriage as the social norm. Especially when the argument that what other people do by themselves somehow changes your own status.

Change in social norms over time is the norm - not slavish devotion to the status quo.


Neither party is a one stop shop for human rights.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Religious health care refers to things like Catholic backed public medical systems that refuse contraception, and laws to protect that.

The right to hold to one's own religion is enshrined in the First Amendment.

 

[Sistema1927]

It wasn't new with George Orwell:

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (ESV)