Why liberals should love the 2nd Amendment

[DaVinci 0]

I found this to be a GREAT example of my personal confusion with how a 'liberal' can be for individual interpretations of the BoR's EXCEPT where it applies to the 2nd.

I mean a person who supports the right for gays to marry, the right for individuals to use drugs, the right of an individual to exercise free speech, the right of an individual to be protected against illegal search, the right of an individual...ect. EXCEPT when it comes to the 2nd they wish to claim it is a collective right.

Makes no sense to me.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

points I personally found interesting:

Quote

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.

Quote

Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.

Quote

First Amendment:

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Second Amendment:

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.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

Ninth Amendment:

...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Tenth Amendment:

...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.

Quote

We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.

And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.

Quote

If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?

Quote

Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.

Quote

When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.

Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?

Quote

Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.

And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.

Quote

But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.

Quote

This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.

Quote

Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.

I think a well written piece about a discrepancy that has always amazed me.

1. Can anyone explain why the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th should be considered to apply to individuals, but the 2nd should not?

2. Can anyone explain why the internet/TV/radio should be considered protected under the 1st, but a Machinegun should not be protected under the 2nd?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Cuz guns is bad and the people who want them are scary

Because they are the ultimate in individuality. If you are armed well enough, no one can tell you what to do.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 2]

Gross, over-generalized stereotype.
Those who know my posting history think I'm liberal. Those who know it re: 2nd Amendment know that I've analyzed 2nd Amendment rights to be an individual right, and agree with the analyses of the close majorities of the most recent SCOTUS decisions on the issue.

People's attitudes often tend to closely reflect their upbringing. I was born & raised in the Northeast US where, as a matter of prevailing culture, it was (and still is) fairly rare for a civilian, non-criminal, non-LEO to own a handgun. My legal analysis of the 2nd Amendment tends to run counter to that, because I'm doing my best to set aside sub-cultural bias and be as objective in the interest of intellectual honesty.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Gross, over-generalized stereotype.

Maybe, but it would be acceptable to assume that liberals are pro choice and while not 100% accurate, it still would be OK to make that connection. And we are talking about liberals as a group, not an individual.

Quote

Those who know it re: 2nd Amendment know that I've analyzed 2nd Amendment rights to be an individual right, and agree with the analyses of the close majorities of the most recent SCOTUS decisions on the issue.

Yet most would consider the ACLU to be a 'liberal' organization and they maintain it is a collective right.

Again, in general not based on single individuals.