Is the Second Amendment a LIBERAL IDEA?

[B Calm]

Poll question: Is the Second Amendment a LIBERAL IDEA?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or having a free press. After more than two centuries, protecting individual rights have always been a very liberal crying call.

For the past eight years LIBERALS have been complaining how the CONSERVATIVES have been shredding our Constitution with free speech zones, habeas corpus, etc. etc.

Women's right to a safe and legal abortion has always been a LIBERAL fighting call. Gay rights another. Because we are liberals, and fighting for our rights, for all of our rights, for all people, is what we do! Liberalism is being broad-minded with a political philosophy that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goal.

[TheKentuckian]

1. There is no other way to define it. An authoritarian government would never empower a citizen that

way.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Do you realize that nearly EVERYBODY in the Soviet Union had a firearm????

Everybody.

[Statistical]

14. Got a link or cite?

The Soviet Union had lots of firearms.... all securely kept under lock and key.

Firearm in the household wasn't uncommon in rural parts of the country but not in urban centers.
Population in urban areas were effectively disarmed.

They trained with firearms, they practiced with firearms, they had firearms but at the end of the day they went back into the armories (under control of the state).

[Captain Hilts]

17. No. Hunting is a Russian tradition. I lived there!

[quaker bill]

31. Afghanistan?

My understanding is that owning a gun is a "rite of passage" into manhood. You can and could get all sorts of hardware pretty freely in the markets and bazaars. This was true even under the Taliban, which I might suggest was a tad authoritarian.

[old mark]

2. Of course it is - but it has been SOLD as a conservative plot by the

"gun lobby". The right to self defense, home defense and gun ownership by responsible individual citizens who so choose is as liberal as it gets.
The handgun control organizations were founded by republicans, and the first gun control laws were to prohibit blacks and immigrants from posessing arms. If you think only the police should have guns, please recall that they were never the friends of the left, and many leftist people over the last 2 centuries depended on guns to save their lives and homes from oppression here in the US.

You are certainly free to decide not to have a gun, but the constitution requires you to respect my right to chose to have one. You don't have to like it, just respect it.
Rec.

mark

[1]

3. we need to interpret the constitution the way the founding fathers meant it...

gun owners should only have the 18th century flint-lock muskets that were available, the technology of the time.

women should only have the 18th century abortion methods that were available, the technology of the time.

the constitution is rigid about this...

[pipoman]

4. and the only free press should be 18th century printing presses..

[1]

5. exactly!

[stevebreeze]

6. the second amendment is totally different from the 1st

The second can only be understood if you read the articles of confederation and article 1 section 8 of the constitution first.
The second amendment has to do with the states rights to form and arm militias. It was never an individual right until an activist right wing supreme court ruled it as such last year.

[armyowalgreens]

7. It's been considered an individual right for well over 100 years.

What you said is truly absurd.

[1]

8. and the first can only be understood if you read the bathroom stalls in philadelphia...

what kind of happy horse shit are you suggesting? that one ammendment is sacrosinct and another is to be interpreted by that other obscure constitutional reference you state? article 1 section 8 has nothing to do with the first amendment. or the second.

which is why, through the entire history of america, the supreme court of the united states has upheld the right of americans to bear arms.

as much as that pisses you off.

it says so, right there in the constitution. no supreme court has ever said otherwise.



but you know better?

really?

you are so much smarter than all of american history.



amazing...

[closeupready]

10. Is the Second Amendment not written in English?

??

[slackmaster]

23. Maybe you are the one who should read some historical documents

States don't have rights. States have powers. Only people have rights.

It was never an individual right until an activist right wing supreme court ruled it as such last year.

You don't understand the basic concept of rights.

All rights are individual rights. The right to keep and bear arms existed before it was enumerated in the Second Amendment. The Heller decision removed an INFRINGEMENT of that right.

[Romulox]

24. The founders didn't say "people" when they meant "state"

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[stevebreeze]

27. I am amazed how ignorant many here at DU can be about history.

The reason for the second amendment was concern about standing armies.
How many here were duped into buying ammo at the beginning of the year? The NRA scare tactics benefited whom? the gun manufactures. Suckers!@

[Fla_Democrat]

9. One would think so, but

judging from many of the posts here concerning guns and individuals..... :shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

11. The other amendments don't lead to the killings of 1000s of people every year.

When the Constitution was written this was a mostly rural country and even cities didn't have police forces.

Handguns need to be severely restricted.

I don't care about ownership of rifles. Like Britain, the law needs to distinguish between handguns and 'long guns'.

What a silly argument to equate the 2nd amendment with freedom of speech, etc.

[Statistical]

16. What a silly idea not to.

[AllentownJake]

18. Well there is a process for changing the constitution

and until that process is complete. The 2nd Amendment stands.

[Posteritatis]

29. How would you suggest the bill of rights be treated, then?

Which elements of the constitution should be treated as less important, and how?

[Xicano]

32. Just like freedom of speech the 2nd amendment is about human rights

I am sorry, but, I don't find that silly.

[baldguy]

13. 220 years ago it was. Just like advocating the abolition of slavery & universal suffrage.

The world has changed.

[AllentownJake]

19. If people's ideas on have truly changed

there would be an amendment to the constitution.

[-..__...]

35. Peoples ideas have changed alright...

and in a positive direction...

In U.S., Record-Low Support for Stricter Gun Laws
Forty-four percent favor stricter laws on firearm sales
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup finds a new low of 44% of Americans saying the laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict. That is down 5 points in the last year and 34 points from the high of 78% recorded the first time the question was asked, in 1990.

Today, Americans are as likely to say the laws governing gun sales should be kept as they are now (43%) as to say they should be made more strict. Until this year, Gallup had always found a significantly higher percentage advocating stricter laws. At the same time, 12% of Americans believe the laws should be less strict, which is low in an absolute sense but ties the highest Gallup has measured for this response.

These results are based on Gallup's annual Crime Poll, conducted Oct.1-4 this year.

The poll also shows a new low in the percentage of Americans favoring a ban on handgun possession except by the police and other authorized persons, a question that dates back to 1959. Only 28% now favor such a ban. The high point in support for a handgun-possession ban was 60% in the initial measurement in 1959. Since then, less than a majority has been in favor, and support has been below 40% since December 1993.

more

Personally... I'm in the "less strict" category.

I'm also very optimistic in looking forward to the SCOTUS decision (expected to be late June), in the Chicago handgun ban case.

Assuming a favorable decision, expect myself and others to put a great deal of effort into repealing/overturning a number of gun control laws at the state level.

[closeupready]

22. Yes, it's an Amendment that is more important than ever.

n/t

[B Calm]

25. There is still slavery and suffrage. . .

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. I like my guns.

I will be glad to spare a few with my Liberal friends who don't if the republicans try to have their revolution.

[AllentownJake]

20. Seriously

If people are watching what these idiots are up to we should be arming ourselves, not trying to ban guns.

[kctim]

21. It may be a liberal idea

but it is NOT a modern day liberal idea. Individual rights take a back seat to what THEY think is best for everybody else.
Thats why they hate us moderate Democrats.

[otherlander]

26. No.

It's revolutionary.

[anonymous171]

28. But it's not a progressive one. Progressives have always had a sort of elitist streak

Their compulsive need to protect people from themselves has always been with us.

[quaker bill]

30. As currently interpreted, no

When read as an entire and complete statement, as opposed to the current parsing, perhaps. The notion of the right to possess firearms to occasionally "water the tree of liberty" is neither liberal nor progressive. Maybe 220 years ago, but no longer.

220 years ago, one could possess the same weapons as the government, "well regulated militias" being the core of our military, in a sense, you did possess the government's weapons. Today the massive disparity in power between the standing army and anything the public could muster, has rendered the notion quaint but a bit dangerous.

[aikoaiko]

33. Power to the People.

'nuff said.

[Xicano]

34. Yes.

Liberal

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

[Paladin]

36. Nope. Completely Co-Opted By The Right Wing. (n/t)