The Daily Kos - who would have thought

[tng27]

you would find one of the best 2nd amendment arguments I've ever seen here of all places - from a self-avowed screaming liberal no less

take the time - it's worth it

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4...152/392/496931

[Mr. Brooks]

I like it, well worth the read.

[Guest nraforlife]

OMG, hell has frozen over.

[KahrMan]

you would find one of the best 2nd amendment arguments I've ever seen here of all places - from a self-avowed screaming liberal no less

take the time - it's worth it

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4...152/392/496931

Interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

[Guest db99wj]

Nice. So if they want technicalities, here's one.

In regards to this area:

But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!

Right?

Wrong.

The United States Militia Code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of

all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age

and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(

The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

.

Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.

Everyone else. Individuals. The People.

I hear do by declare that I have formed a Militia that includes myself, my wife and my 4 kids and whomever I accept into said Militia." And we are unorganized as hell!

[G27]

Wow, great article. Thanks!

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

Amazing. And the comments seemed to be predominantly pro gun. Amazing.

[fury2neon]

It is weird to me that a group of people who keep screaming about rights keep pushing an agenda that at its core is the elimination of individual rights. Everything is about groups rather than just people. Yet this Kos article tries to say they respect individual rights.

Maybe once the "liberals" figure out their platform they can pick one other than a candidate that has talked a lot but never said anything.

[Punisher84]

I hear do by declare that I have formed a Militia that includes myself, my wife and my 4 kids and whomever I accept into said Militia." And we are unorganized as hell!

My militia consists of my woman and the kids and the dogs and me.

[Guest Len]

Excellent Kos diary. I read Kos but missed this one. Thanks for posting it. A couple of broad misconceptions are pointed out in the diary, discussion, and comments here:

1) All liberals have it wrong on the 2A. Clearly not the case.

2) The basis of liberalism is in collective rights. Not quite. A true liberal would argue that expansive individual rights are the heart and soul of a free society and that the role of government is not to take those rights away or "collective-ize" them, but rather to ensure them. With force if necessary. (How we go about giving the govt the power to ensure rights is where it gets real tricky and where reasonable people can disagree.)

3) Liberals think the 2A was there to protect slavery. I would not be surprised at all if many founding-era folks thought that this was at least a nice "side benefit" of the 2A, but there is little evidence to support anything more than that.

Final Thoughts:

1) A little revolution every now and then is a good thing. Any liberal would agree with that, and one of the key tools of revolution, as history has taught time and time again, is the firearm.

2) It makes no sense to individualize every right enumerated in the BoR except one.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Excellent Kos diary. I read Kos but missed this one. Thanks for posting it. A couple of broad misconceptions are pointed out in the diary, discussion, and comments here:

1) All liberals have it wrong on the 2A. Clearly not the case.

2) The basis of liberalism is in collective rights. Not quite. A true liberal would argue that expansive individual rights are the heart and soul of a free society and that the role of government is not to take those rights away or "collective-ize" them, but rather to ensure them. With force if necessary. (How we go about giving the govt the power to ensure rights is where it gets real tricky and where reasonable people can disagree.)

3) Liberals think the 2A was there to protect slavery. I would not be surprised at all if many founding-era folks thought that this was at least a nice "side benefit" of the 2A, but there is little evidence to support anything more than that.

Final Thoughts:

1) A little revolution every now and then is a good thing. Any liberal would agree with that, and one of the key tools of revolution, as history has taught time and time again, is the firearm.

2) It makes no sense to individualize every right enumerated in the BoR except one.

Len, I, however, get the impression you and Kos are more classical liberals than you are "progressive". It seems like the classic liberalism has been pushed aside for "progressive" ideas which seem to be more socialist than anything so liberal is too much of a blanket term now a days.

That is the sad thing though. At least I can sit down with a classical liberal and have healthy debate. With the crazies that claim to be liberal nowadays make it harder to make a point.

Great article BTW.

[Guest jackdog]

excellent read thanks for the post.

[Guest ordonnanzgewehr]

The logic is eyeopening!

Too bad most liberals are sooooooooooo brain washed that they couldn't see the truth if the fell in it.

[The Rabbi]

Len, I, however, get the impression you and Kos are more classical liberals than you are "progressive". It seems like the classic liberalism has been pushed aside for "progressive" ideas which seem to be more socialist than anything so liberal is too much of a blanket term now a days.

That is the sad thing though. At least I can sit down with a classical liberal and have healthy debate. With the crazies that claim to be liberal nowadays make it harder to make a point.

Great article BTW.

A classical liberal is today called a conservative. A Democrat from the 1950s today is called a Republican. It is strange how the terminology has changed so, but it is the case.

[Marswolf]

Over the years, the Democratic Party has changed from a states' rights supporting party, to one split between the conservative southern group and centralist northern groups, to the current largely social welfare group.

The Republicans have gone through a different metamorphosis - in my view not a good one.

Both groups favor a strong central government. The question is not whether they will control the lives of the people, but how they will control them. Since the people have now learned how to loot the treasury for their own gain, and think it is OK to do so, I think the only solution is a revolution. Unfortunately, I don't think that is a possibility either. 2A or not, the revolutionaries would be highly outgunned.

Anyone want to help take over a small country and forbid any social programs in the Constitution?

[The Rabbi]

I was reading David Halberstam's book on the Korean War. Interestingly it became highly unpopular and Truman was reviled and achieved spectacularly low approval ratings. Ca plus change...

Anyway, the Democrats then were the party of individual liberty and strong foreign policy. The Republicans were largely isolationist.

In fact the GOP c.1970 is very different from what it became post Reagan. I would like to think the Reagan Revolution is still alive and some day the party will reclaim that legacy and go back to its small-gov, low taxes strong foreign policy roots.

And just for nostalgia sake:

'Government's view of the economy

could be summed up in a few short

phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps

moving, regulate it. And if it stops

moving, subsidize it.' - Ronald Reagan

Edited June 12, 2008 by The Rabbi

[Guest nraforlife]

Over the years, the Democratic Party has changed from a states' rights supporting party, to one split between the conservative southern group and centralist northern groups, to the current largely social welfare group.

The Republicans have gone through a different metamorphosis - in my view not a good one.

Both groups favor a strong central government. The question is not whether they will control the lives of the people, but how they will control them. Since the people have now learned how to loot the treasury for their own gain, and think it is OK to do so, I think the only solution is a revolution. Unfortunately, I don't think that is a possibility either. 2A or not, the revolutionaries would be highly outgunned.

Anyone want to help take over a small country and forbid any social programs in the Constitution?

A pox on both their houses. Time for a viable third party

[Guest Len]

I'm comfortable with that label, but can't speak for Kos or all the people who contribute -which represent the entire spectrum of what is generally called "the left." I agree with the others who note how definitions and party ideology have changed over the years.

Len, I, however, get the impression you and Kos are more classical liberals than you are "progressive". It seems like the classic liberalism has been pushed aside for "progressive" ideas which seem to be more socialist than anything so liberal is too much of a blanket term now a days.

That is the sad thing though. At least I can sit down with a classical liberal and have healthy debate. With the crazies that claim to be liberal nowadays make it harder to make a point.

Great article BTW.

[Guest nraforlife]

I love how die hard, good, hard working God fearing Dems and Republicans will not leave their party no matter what.

Battered wife syndrome at the political level. Instead of 'I love him and he only hits me when hes been drinking' its 'I love the party not matter how much they abuse me cause they really love me.'

[The Rabbi]

I dont know anybody who says those things.

I am not going to leave the GOP because I don't want to become totally irrelevant to the political process. Like the Libertarians.

[Punisher84]

I dont know anybody who says those things.

I am not going to leave the GOP because I don't want to become totally irrelevant to the political process. Like the Libertarians.

LOL ouch. True, but ouch hahaha

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

I dont know anybody who says those things.

I am not going to leave the GOP because I don't want to become totally irrelevant to the political process. Like the Libertarians.

Practicality vs. Idealism, eh? I'm basically a Libertarian, but I don't wear checkered flannel shirts Actually, I've voted Libertarian several times, but this election I'll vote for McCain. For practical reasons.

[Marswolf]

I am not going to leave the GOP because I don't want to become totally irrelevant to the political process. Like the Libertarians.

There is a possibility that the Libertarians won't be totally irrelevant, just bad news. There is some possibility that they will take enough votes from the Republicans to swing a couple of states. Like Nader did in Florida in 2000.

A pox on both their houses. Time for a viable third party

The magic word is "viable."

[Guest nraforlife]

I dont know anybody who says those things.

I am not going to leave the GOP because I don't want to become totally irrelevant to the political process. Like the Libertarians.

Whats that old saying 'Thank you sir, may I have another' Don't have to stay Republican or Democrat to vote either party IF they have a whore you want to support. Just frick them as far as being associated with them.

[The Rabbi]

The other old saying is about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You can go and say eff 'em all, I ain't voting. That's perfectly within your rights.

But then you have little grounds to complain. Politics means working within a system for change.