Why are liberals against the second amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
All who refuse to abide the Second Amendment are liberals, though. All who won't abide the First Amendment are liberal as well.
The problem is, that's not what the word "liberal" means when used to describe political affiliation in the United States. The above definition would classify William J. Bennett, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson as "liberals", and classify a lot of pro-gun liberals as "conservatives." By that yardstick, a number of state chapters of the ACLU would be "conservative" organizations as well.

I agree with you that the Constitution means what it says---and not only the Second Amendment, either. I think the ACLU gets it pretty much right on the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, BTW, except for an occasional tendency to forget the free-exercise clause in the 1stA.
 
This is political sport. To the extent that conservatives have supported RKBA, liberals have opposed it in order to score points for their side. What we are witnessing now is phenominal, as RKBA is in the process of transforming away from being the sole providence of conservatives. Witness the 65+ dems that support RKBA as a defining issue for their political success. We have seen many horrendous mass shootings lately, and no significant fall out or political opportunism has resulted from it. The criminals responsible have actually recieved the blame, in stark contrast for how these types of crimes would have been reported on in the past. The more successful we are in seperating RKBA issues from other defining political issues, the more we can hope to accomplish in preserving our 2-A rights. We are in the best position we have seen in a very long time; let's continue to fight for RKBA issues as both liberals and conservatives. As a conservative, I will attend to my other issues as opportunities present, but I will not allow those issues to prevent welcoming pro-RKBA liberals into the fold. I am content to win one issue at a time----
 
Isher

It's simple.

Liberal human behavior = promiscuity; illegal drug use; overindulgence of alcohol; porn; believes life begins when it's convenient; etc.

Conservative human behavior = fidelity, no illicit drug use; limited use of adult beverages; no porn; understands that life begins at conception; etc.

One who takes liberties with the Constitution(a liberal) = condones the excesses with the Commerce Clause; does not believe the Second Amendment protects the RKBA as an individual's right; thinks a plaque depicting the Ten Commandments on a government building is state establishment of a religion; etc.

One who liberally applies the Constitution(a conservative) = understands the Commerce Clause does not give Congress power to limit or prohibit commerce and does not give Congress power to meddle with any form of intrastate commerce; understands the Second Amendment protects the RKBA as an individual's right; understands that a plaque depicting the Ten Commandments on a government building is the free exercise of religion; etc.

Does that clear it up for you?

Woody

If we don't bring back the warmth and light of the Constitution now, it will soon pass beyond the bloodless reach of man's will. B.E.Wood
 
My point is really quite simple. NOBODY believes anything he knows to be untrue. At the same time, no sane person would profess himself to be infallible.
One of you bright boys take it the next step. Let me save a few of the more tunnel-vision afflicted a coniption fit and tell you up front that the point isn't that all opinions are equally correct or valid.
 
Mr. Isher, a lot of scholars have commented upon the Bela Kun/Frankfurt School connection, including William Lind, a really bright fellow, who also happens to be one of my favorite "4th Generation Warfare" theorists as well. Here are some quotes from Lind on the Frankfurt School:

http://alettertothetimes.wordpress....ankfurt-school-and-cultural-marxism-a-primer/

Just because the Frankfurt School itself and Wikipedia minimizes or fails to mention the Bela Kun connection dosen't mean it dosen't exist. My late friend, the Paleo-Con political theorist Dr. Sam Francis mentioned it a lot. Georg Lukacs, a major Frankfurt School theorist, was actually in Bela Kun's government as Deputy Minister of Culture, as I recall. Of course, the theory of how modern American Liberalism was born is indeed quite a bit more complex. I haven't even mentioned Antonio Gramsci, the brilliant Italian Communist who was pretty much barking up the same tree of cultural warfare as the Frankfurt School was.

BTW, I am not implying that the typical American anti-gun Liberal has a Bela Kun poster in his bedroom, nor would 99% of them characterize themselves as believers in a dissident theory of Marxism, that's just where their ideas have their origin, even
if they don't realize it. In the same vein, most conservatives I know have never read either Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk.
 
my thought is that the entertainment and media of the day has caused people to associate violence and crime with weapons, their figuring would be if you remove firearms you remove crime.
 
Woody -

"It's simple.

Liberal human behavior = promiscuity; illegal drug use; overindulgence of alcohol; porn; believes life begins when it's convenient; etc.

Conservative human behavior = fidelity, no illicit drug use; limited use of adult beverages; no porn; understands that life begins at conception; etc.

One who takes liberties with the Constitution(a liberal) = condones the excesses with the Commerce Clause; does not believe the Second Amendment protects the RKBA as an individual's right; thinks a plaque depicting the Ten Commandments on a government building is state establishment of a religion; etc.

One who liberally applies the Constitution(a conservative) = understands the Commerce Clause does not give Congress power to limit or prohibit commerce and does not give Congress power to meddle with any form of intrastate commerce; understands the Second Amendment protects the RKBA as an individual's right; understands that a plaque depicting the Ten Commandments on a government building is the free exercise of religion; etc.

Does that clear it up for you?"


Ok.

In my 58 years of practical experience, what you differentiate as

Liberal and Conservative behavior are equally distributed

"Across the aisle."

Which is to say, it is just as likely that Conservatives engage in

"promiscuity; illegal drug use; overindulgence of alcohol; porn; believes life begins when it's convenient; etc."

As Liberals engage in

"Fidelity, no illicit drug use; limited use of adult beverages; no porn; understands that life begins at conception; etc."

And this by no means covers the entire field of human experience.

As for the Commerce Clause, I assume you must mean this:



Founding Fathers Home Page > Federalist Papers > FEDERALIST No. 12



FEDERALIST No. 12

The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, November 27, 1787.
Alexander Hamilton



To the People of the State of New York:

THE effects of Union upon the commercial prosperity of the States have been sufficiently delineated. Its tendency to promote the interests of revenue will be the subject of our present inquiry.

The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares. By multipying the means of gratification, by promoting the introduction and circulation of the precious metals, those darling objects of human avarice and enterprise, it serves to vivify and invigorate the channels of industry, and to make them flow with greater activity and copiousness. The assiduous merchant, the laborious husbandman, the active mechanic, and the industrious manufacturer,--all orders of men, look forward with eager expectation and growing alacrity to this pleasing reward of their toils. The often-agitated question between agriculture and commerce has, from indubitable experience, received a decision which has silenced the rivalship that once subsisted between them, and has proved, to the satisfaction of their friends, that their interests are intimately blended and interwoven. It has been found in various countries that, in proportion as commerce has flourished, land has risen in value. And how could it have happened otherwise? Could that which procures a freer vent for the products of the earth, which furnishes new incitements to the cultivation of land, which is the most powerful instrument in increasing the quantity of money in a state--could that, in fine, which is the faithful handmaid of labor and industry, in every shape, fail to augment that article, which is the prolific parent of far the greatest part of the objects upon which they are exerted? It is astonishing that so simple a truth should ever have had an adversary; and it is one, among a multitude of proofs, how apt a spirit of ill-informed jealousy, or of too great abstraction and refinement, is to lead men astray from the plainest truths of reason and conviction.

The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury. The hereditary dominions of the Emperor of Germany contain a great extent of fertile, cultivated, and populous territory, a large proportion of which is situated in mild and luxuriant climates. In some parts of this territory are to be found the best gold and silver mines in Europe. And yet, from the want of the fostering influence of commerce, that monarch can boast but slender revenues. He has several times been compelled to owe obligations to the pecuniary succors of other nations for the preservation of his essential interests, and is unable, upon the strength of his own resources, to sustain a long or continued war.

But it is not in this aspect of the subject alone that Union will be seen to conduce to the purpose of revenue. There are other points of view, in which its influence will appear more immediate and decisive. It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty. The popular system of administration inherent in the nature of popular government, coinciding with the real scarcity of money incident to a languid and mutilated state of trade, has hitherto defeated every experiment for extensive collections, and has at length taught the different legislatures the folly of attempting them.

No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance. In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises. Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.

In America, it is evident that we must a long time depend for the means of revenue chiefly on such duties. In most parts of it, excises must be confined within a narrow compass. The genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise laws. The pockets of the farmers, on the other hand, will reluctantly yield but scanty supplies, in the unwelcome shape of impositions on their houses and lands; and personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the inperceptible agency of taxes on consumption.

If these remarks have any foundation, that state of things which will best enable us to improve and extend so valuable a resource must be best adapted to our political welfare. And it cannot admit of a serious doubt, that this state of things must rest on the basis of a general Union. As far as this would be conducive to the interests of commerce, so far it must tend to the extension of the revenue to be drawn from that source. As far as it would contribute to rendering regulations for the collection of the duties more simple and efficacious, so far it must serve to answer the purposes of making the same rate of duties more productive, and of putting it into the power of the government to increase the rate without prejudice to trade.

The relative situation of these States; the number of rivers with which they are intersected, and of bays that wash there shores; the facility of communication in every direction; the affinity of language and manners; the familiar habits of intercourse; --all these are circumstances that would conspire to render an illicit trade between them a matter of little difficulty, and would insure frequent evasions of the commercial regulations of each other. The separate States or confederacies would be necessitated by mutual jealousy to avoid the temptations to that kind of trade by the lowness of their duties. The temper of our governments, for a long time to come, would not permit those rigorous precautions by which the European nations guard the avenues into their respective countries, as well by land as by water; and which, even there, are found insufficient obstacles to the adventurous stratagems of avarice.

In France, there is an army of patrols (as they are called) constantly employed to secure their fiscal regulations against the inroads of the dealers in contraband trade. Mr. Neckar computes the number of these patrols at upwards of twenty thousand. This shows the immense difficulty in preventing that species of traffic, where there is an inland communication, and places in a strong light the disadvantages with which the collection of duties in this country would be encumbered, if by disunion the States should be placed in a situation, with respect to each other, resembling that of France with respect to her neighbors. The arbitrary and vexatious powers with which the patrols are necessarily armed, would be intolerable in a free country.

If, on the contrary, there be but one government pervading all the States, there will be, as to the principal part of our commerce, but ONE SIDE to guard--the ATLANTIC COAST. Vessels arriving directly from foreign countries, laden with valuable cargoes, would rarely choose to hazard themselves to the complicated and critical perils which would attend attempts to unlade prior to their coming into port. They would have to dread both the dangers of the coast, and of detection, as well after as before their arrival at the places of their final destination. An ordinary degree of vigilance would be competent to the prevention of any material infractions upon the rights of the revenue. A few armed vessels, judiciously stationed at the entrances of our ports, might at a small expense be made useful sentinels of the laws. And the government having the same interest to provide against violations everywhere, the co-operation of its measures in each State would have a powerful tendency to render them effectual. Here also we should preserve by Union, an advantage which nature holds out to us, and which would be relinquished by separation. The United States lie at a great distance from Europe, and at a considerable distance from all other places with which they would have extensive connections of foreign trade. The passage from them to us, in a few hours, or in a single night, as between the coasts of France and Britain, and of other neighboring nations, would be impracticable. This is a prodigious security against a direct contraband with foreign countries; but a circuitous contraband to one State, through the medium of another, would be both easy and safe. The difference between a direct importation from abroad, and an indirect importation through the channel of a neighboring State, in small parcels, according to time and opportunity, with the additional facilities of inland communication, must be palpable to every man of discernment.

It is therefore evident, that one national government would be able, at much less expense, to extend the duties on imports, beyond comparison, further than would be practicable to the States separately, or to any partial confederacies. Hitherto, I believe, it may safely be asserted, that these duties have not upon an average exceeded in any State three per cent. In France they are estimated to be about fifteen per cent., and in Britain they exceed this proportion.1 There seems to be nothing to hinder their being increased in this country to at least treble their present amount. The single article of ardent spirits, under federal regulation, might be made to furnish a considerable revenue. Upon a ratio to the importation into this State, the whole quantity imported into the United States may be estimated at four millions of gallons; which, at a shilling per gallon, would produce two hundred thousand pounds. That article would well bear this rate of duty; and if it should tend to diminish the consumption of it, such an effect would be equally favorable to the agriculture, to the economy, to the morals, and to the health of the society. There is, perhaps, nothing so much a subject of national extravagance as these spirits.

What will be the consequence, if we are not able to avail ourselves of the resource in question in its full extent? A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land. It has been already intimated that excises, in their true signification, are too little in unison with the feelings of the people, to admit of great use being made of that mode of taxation; nor, indeed, in the States where almost the sole employment is agriculture, are the objects proper for excise sufficiently numerous to permit very ample collections in that way. Personal estate (as has been before remarked), from the difficulty in tracing it, cannot be subjected to large contributions, by any other means than by taxes on consumption. In populous cities, it may be enough the subject of conjecture, to occasion the oppression of individuals, without much aggregate benefit to the State; but beyond these circles, it must, in a great measure, escape the eye and the hand of the tax-gatherer. As the necessities of the State, nevertheless, must be satisfied in some mode or other, the defect of other resources must throw the principal weight of public burdens on the possessors of land. And as, on the other hand, the wants of the government can never obtain an adequate supply, unless all the sources of revenue are open to its demands, the finances of the community, under such embarrassments, cannot be put into a situation consistent with its respectability or its security. Thus we shall not even have the consolations of a full treasury, to atone for the oppression of that valuable class of the citizens who are employed in the cultivation of the soil. But public and private distress will keep pace with each other in gloomy concert; and unite in deploring the infatuation of those counsels which led to disunion.

PUBLIUS.


Please correct me if I'm not referring to your source document.


Second Amendment: We just might be in agreement there.


Equal expression of Religion, as separate from the Republic:

Publishing the Ten Commandments on a Federal Building

Violates this principle.

Either that, or you're gonna have not only the Ten Commandments,

But also Islamic texts, Buddhist Koans, Japanese Shinto, the

Tao te Ching, ad infinitum

Pasted all over federal buildings.

Our forefathers were wiser than that.

Separation of State and Religion is a wise choice.


So, here's my answer to you

As to the next level of "simple."

isher
 
This thread has compelled me to actually register...

and I'll chip in my own .02 US$ right now.
Why are (some) liberals against the second amendment? Because it is part of the package deal a person gets when you pick one of the two choices this country has for political identies. It's not like Burger King, where you get your Whopper with cheese but no pickels. You get the "D" option or the "R" option.

For those of you who vote honestly and with conviction for Libertarians, Free Soilers, Secessionists, Green Party, CPUSA, Pat Paulsen or any other group with that is ignored on the whole, I don't want to seem flip, but it is what it is. The Mainstream media (the magical creature which is believed by conservatives to have a liberal bias and believed by liberals to have a conservative bias) does not have the time or desire for discourse, they've got a horse race to call.

Anyway, based on a lot of factors like age, cultural affiliation, economic status, race and geographic locale, you tend to lump in with "D" or "R" on a broad spectrum of issues. By my guess, 50% of people who pick "D" or "R" do so based on the package deal. I pick this because on either end of the political scale are about 25% of the population who would vote their party line if a dead squid were on the ballot, based in large part on singular wedge issues - abortion, the environment, guns, gays, terror, etc. Not all, but a sizeable chunk.

And what about the folks that opt for the package deal? Well, I've got an F-150 Ford that has nice fabric seats, an automatic transmission, AC and a decent stereo. I wanted these things, so I picked that package. It's got power windows - I'm not too keen on them. I live with them because the rest of the deal was pretty good.

I vote Democrat like my grandfathers. They were both real smart hombres. One was a logger (who collected history books), one was a railroad man (with a degree in horticulture from the UW). They lived through the Depression, faught the good fight against real, genuine evil. Raised families right, worked hard, played hard, and died well. They made a good wage for honest work, and no CEO outsourced their job so a hedge fund could gain a half a point on the Dow Jones. Now, well, the legacy of the "Greed is Good" chickens are coming home to roost. That's part of my package...

I pay my taxes with *pride* every year, and refrain from bitching about it. Oliver Wendall Holmes, that conservative old Supreme Court Justice, summed it up well - "Taxes are the price of civilization." That blacktop road, those snowplows in winter, that school you send your kid to, the tech school that turns out the next generation of machinists and welders and nurses, the university where doctors and vets and schoolteachers are being minted, I'm proud of that. Another part of my package...

I eat food. I take medicine. I drive to work on roads I share with 80,000lb tractor-trailers. I work in a shop with massive pieces of machinery. We've got all that nanny-state nonsense like the FDA, Dept. of Ag, DOT, OSHA and NTSB sticking their noses into private businesses trying to keep us from eating rat feces. Or injesting pills made out of cadmium and mercury. Or verifying that the brakes on Billy Bigrig's Western Star work. Or dumping cow **** in the river because it's cheaper than building an impoundment. Or that the safety stops on the truck lift, ya know, stop. Or that the boss isn't putting away extra money for a new Escalade by skimping on shoring for the underground crew. I like these acronyms, and I bet a lot of other people do too, if they think about it. Part of my package...

I belive in both God and science. I have faith in both. We have specialized buildings to study each. They are called churches and schools. Science certainly cannot teach morals, but on the other hand the Bible is pretty scant on details about antibiotics and compression ignition engines. Part of my package...

I've got a friend who's mom and her mom's life partner have been together for 34 years. They've raised a child, own a home, belong to the bowing league and volunteer at their church. They sure seem to deserve the same legal protections that a straight married couple who drink all night, cheat on each other and can't hold a job do, at least in my thinking. Part of my package...

I love my country. I love the air, land and water, the birds and fishes and furry little critters, many of which are very tasty. Ol' Teddy R was a conservationist, so am I. Not many in the "drill baby drill" crowd ever gave a damn about their neighbors downstream. Part of my package...

I am facinated by guns. They are the embodyment of mechanical creativity thoughout the ages. They represent freedom, sacrifice and hope both realized and forlorn. They are tools, more powerful in their symbolism than their ballistics. They are at once history and future, forged in steel and carved in wood (and investment-molded plastic too, but that ain't near as poetic). I will not give mine up without a fight. Part of my package...

You can whittle out square holes for the square pegs, sand the square pegs to the round holes, or throw away whatever doesn't fit the holes on hand. Defining a political identity is not easy, especially if you think about it for too long.


Rant off.
 
Liberal human behavior = promiscuity; illegal drug use; overindulgence of alcohol; porn; believes life begins when it's convenient; etc.

Conservatives - fidelity, etc. ....

That's a hoot - check out quite a few GOP politicians and quite a few raving ministers of the right.

Also, maybe the country doesn't need the 'conservative' crotch police as it doesn't need the 'liberal' gun banners - even though as we have seen those are not absolutes except in the mind of some limited groups.

The whole thread is silly by now. Gun ownership can be separated from social conservatism except for those who want a total ideological purity package - like an American Taliban. It will be this way and if you don't totally agree with all our beliefs, we don't you in the club.

Bah.
 
I pay my taxes with *pride* every year, and refrain from bitching about it. Oliver Wendall Holmes, that conservative old Supreme Court Justice, summed it up well - "Taxes are the price of civilization." That blacktop road, those snowplows in winter, that school you send your kid to, the tech school that turns out the next generation of machinists and welders and nurses, the university where doctors and vets and schoolteachers are being minted, I'm proud of that. Another part of my package...

I don't know how anyone could pay their taxes "with pride" these days. Out of control government spending, the Socialization of the auto industry and banking industry, non-ending bailouts, government "stimulus" checks with many going to dead people, are just a few examples of how our tax dollars are flushed down the crapper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top