Things Liberals Believe in

[NickD 203]

I kind of like the idea where only the state can have weapons and the citizens cannot, that way they can come to my home and shoot my family and me. Worked very well in Nazi Germany and in the USSR, should work here as well. But not quite fair that the state can own bigger guns than us, see the 2nd amendment slowly dying. Has to be some good reason why our forefathers gave that the number 2 spot.

So much for the first amendment, but wonder why one politician doesn't sue the other for slander, that would certainly change the outcome of an election. Gives me the opinion that some guy is on top of both of them and is telling them what to do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

[Till 0]

This is Rupa’s husband. I decided to register to deal with this. I’m guessing you do not know much about firearms given your use of the term “automatic assault rifle.” Visit Wikipedia and get an education. Then go out and buy an AR-15, and join us. You can PM me if you need advice on what to look for!

Now, regarding your comments about differing priorities between conservatives and liberals, and liberals getting all butt-hurt over single-issue groups like the NRA for supporting individual gun ownership while supporting groups like the ACLU for supporting free speech—

You correctly note that the ACLU tends to focus on 1st amendment issues such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Usually their high-profile cases are them defending model citizens like pederasts and neo-Nazis, as well as courteous flag burners and agreeable atheists who think the words “in God we trust” on a quarter are tantamount to a witch-burning.

However, ACLU stands for American CIVIL LIBERTIES union--free speech isn’t the only one, and the group knows it. For instance, they have invoked the 5th amendment in property seizure cases; why not support all ten? Gun ownership is offensive to some, maybe even deservedly so if loved ones were shot a la Columbine. However, if one’s Right to X Y or Z is approved by everyone, it’s not a right so much as a privilege, and can be revoked when the masses change their opinion. The ACLU’s selectivity tells me it is just a wheelbarrow for the usual liberal manure, with a few worthy cases sprinkled on top.

Q. How does the ACLU count to 10?

A. 1, 3, 4, 5…

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

This is Rupa’s husband. I decided to register to deal with this. I’m guessing you do not know much about firearms given your use of the term “automatic assault rifle.” Visit Wikipedia and get an education. Then go out and buy an AR-15, and join us. You can PM me if you need advice on what to look for!

trust me, more than a few of us have tried to educate the gun grabbers around here, but to no avail.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is Rupa’s husband. I decided to register to deal with this. I’m guessing you do not know much about firearms given your use of the term “automatic assault rifle.” Visit Wikipedia and get an education. Then go out and buy an AR-15, and join us. You can PM me if you need advice on what to look for!

Now, regarding your comments about differing priorities between conservatives and liberals, and liberals getting all butt-hurt over single-issue groups like the NRA for supporting individual gun ownership while supporting groups like the ACLU for supporting free speech—

You correctly note that the ACLU tends to focus on 1st amendment issues such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Usually their high-profile cases are them defending model citizens like pederasts and neo-Nazis, as well as courteous flag burners and agreeable atheists who think the words “in God we trust” on a quarter are tantamount to a witch-burning.

However, ACLU stands for American CIVIL LIBERTIES union--free speech isn’t the only one, and the group knows it. For instance, they have invoked the 5th amendment in property seizure cases; why not support all ten? Gun ownership is offensive to some, maybe even deservedly so if loved ones were shot a la Columbine. However, if one’s Right to X Y or Z is approved by everyone, it’s not a right so much as a privilege, and can be revoked when the masses change their opinion. The ACLU’s selectivity tells me it is just a wheelbarrow for the usual liberal manure, with a few worthy cases sprinkled on top.

Q. How does the ACLU count to 10?

A. 1, 3, 4, 5…

Thanks much - but I don't need a wikipedia education to make the general point I made (which you chose to ignore). Feel free to read my post again, reply in a less condescending tone and perhaps we can have a conversation

[natty bumppo 297]

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

could you ever be the seditious type and discover the rebel within ?

[Empress of Groovy 373]

The argument that the original reasons behind the second amendment (that a disarmed citizenry would be left vulnerable to a repressive, presumably well-armed government) somehow apply to the present-day United States is absurd. Even a bunker full of assault rifles likely won't protect you and yours from troops, tanks, and air assaults.

And I'm no gun control advocate.

I also don't understand the position that the values of the NRA and the ACLU are diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive. I've considered joining both (still must do further research). I do think the NRA's PR could use some work.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

could you ever be the seditious type and discover the rebel within ?

I dunno - I (and others) have been variously described as "unamerican" for our "liberal" tendencies. I'd say we're already rebels/terrorists in the eyes of some folks.

[mawilson 2,133]

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

The government cannot use the military in a law enforcement capacity within the United States,

except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

[*Robert* 2]

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

The government cannot use the military in a law enforcement capacity within the United States,

except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

I think some people confuse the "National Guard" with the Active Duty Military... so when they think of Kent State and other instances, they think it was "the military" that was involved.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

The government cannot use the military in a law enforcement capacity within the United States,

except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

The government cannot use the military in a law enforcement capacity within the United States,

except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

Julius Caesar was constutionally barred from bringing an army across the Rubicon.

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

The government cannot use the military in a law enforcement capacity within the United States,

except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Yes. A despot in charge of the country wouldn't observe such distinctions (at least going by the historical parallels).

Its hypothetical of course - as you say, an armed citizen would be technologically outclassed by the hardware available to the govt and military if it were turned on them by a dictator.

[Peikko 1,575]

Dictatorships don't really work like that though do they? Climate of fear and tittle tattling on the neighbours is far better than spraying the masses with bullets, cheaper too.

[mawilson 2,133]

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

[mawilson 2,133]

Dictatorships don't really work like that though do they? Climate of fear and tittle tattling on the neighbours is far better than spraying the masses with bullets, cheaper too.

Like the Stasi - the secret police of East Germany. They would have been overrun by angry citizens

much sooner if the citizens had been armed.