Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

A great argument for the Second Amendment from an unexpected place

Written By: Bob - Feb• 04•13

It’s masterfully done, well-reasoned, and as you may imagine, shredded by her irrational and emotional progressive peers, but one of the best defenses of the Second Amendment I’ve read to date comes from a two-year-old essay at the Daily Kos.

Here’s how it begins:

Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They’ll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words “shredding” and “Constitution” in the same sentence. They might also add “Fourth Amendment” and “due process.”  It’s possible they’ll talk about “free speech zones” and “habeus corpus.”

There’s a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.

And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.

Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as “gun nuts.” They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.

And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.

You may not agree with how she describes liberalism, but she nails how liberals have treated the Second Amendment.

Perhaps Kaili Joy Gray has a bit of libertarian DNA running through her, which is why she can’t join her progressive/communist allies in demanding disarmament.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. Gayle says:

    The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA), the Westchester County Firearm Owners Association (WCFOA), the Sportsmen’s Association for Firearm Education (SAFE) and AR-15.com.LLC have taken the first step in legal challenges to the recently-enacted NY gun law.

    The groups filed a “Notice of Claim” with the Attorney General of the State of New York, a requirement under NY law before commencing tort suits against the State.

    (h/t Le•gal In•sur•rec•tion)

    And… I’d say that 40% of households cited in your article is probably a LOT higher now… ;-)

  2. Comrade X says:

    ….the percentage of households with guns dropped from more than half in 1977 to just more than 30 percent in 2010.

    Gallup, meanwhile, shows a similar drop — though it found 41 percent of households still had guns as of 2010.

    But then something happened in 2011. Gun ownership spiked to its highest level since 1994 — 47 percent.

    The people who suddenly had more guns? Not the white males, the Southerners, and the Republicans most associated with guns. Instead they were mostly Democrats…….

    http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?419297-Who-is-buying-guns-Women-and-Democrats-that-s-who.

    Leadership ain’t always in step with who they think they lead IMHO.

    Death before tyranny!

  3. Comrade X says:

    If we can only outlaw guns all our problem will be solved, why do you ask? because; Psychiatry: The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFkivsEy3CI

    Death to tyranny!

  4. Aharon says:

    The demographics of America are changing fast. As of several years back, already one-third of the people in the USA were born overseas. Many if not most coming from cultures that limited or banned civilian gun ownership. Some migrants (legal or illegal) of them are increasingly supporting gun ownership. The white American population (traditional gun owners) has been dropping for decades. How all this plays out in the long run I’m not going to even try and guess at.

  5. Treker says:

    As a avid hunter you get the sense of the others fear . Obama’s lame picture of firing a shotgun says volumes . He is losing the battle and has angered millions . People have voted with their wallets and Walmart can’t keep a box of ammo on their shelves . I call everyday to find ammo . I can find a couple of boxes of 30-06 but it’s 27 miles away. He has peed into the wind and now will reap the whirlwind.
    I’m slightly older than dirt and near my expiration date and I have NEVER seen this country so angry.

  6. juliesa says:

    I stumbled upon this recently:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/21/a-brief-peoples-history-of-gun-control/

    It surprises me that more of them don’t think this way. I would think the OWS types wouldn’t want to see all firepower concentrated in the “1 per centers” who run the government and the private sector. Power to the People. Stick it to the Man.

    Obviously, most of them are posers who want “the man” to have more power, not less. I think there’s a huge cultural component too. The clerisy who now run the Democratic party don’t like to associate with rubes who like to take on physical tasks like self-defense, and energy production.

  7. Ali_Gator says:

    I’ve thought for many years that it’s inappropriate to distinguish political leanings as “left” or “right”. It is not a line, it’s a circle. On one side of the circle are those who hold individual liberty in reverence. On the other side are those who worship the state.

    As you approach those two sides from opposite directions, you encounter different pet issues of the believer. War on Drugs on one side and War on Energy on the other, etc.

  8. Comrade X says:

    “General Carl von Clausewitz defined the center of gravity as the objective whose achievement results in the enemy’s total defeat. We must therefore identify this single objective or, in a political controversy, a single issue, and concentrate our resources accordingly. In the case of the “assault weapon” debate, this is the basic and natural human right of self-defense. If we present the argument correctly, the other side has absolutely no defense whatsoever……

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_argument_that_wins_the_assault_weapon_debate.html#ixzz2Jy8gLo2o
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    Death before slavery!