The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights

[East_TN_Patriot]

http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html


"Guns are neither magic talismans against tyranny nor anathematic objects that cause crime and violence. Guns – certainly the personal firearms that are in question – carry a limited but real measure of inherent power, and therefore danger, that everyone should respect. (Indeed it is because they are powerful and dangerous that they are the nexus of an important political right.) But guns are not agents of history. They are not, per se, going to free a polity from oppression or generate unrestrained social violence. Within an insurgent political movement, they can at certain moments be useful, even crucial, for the former outcome; and, within a context of social decay brought on by other factors, they can seriously exacerbate the latter. Their overall positive or negative effect is only determined by the political and social context in which they are used, and the character of the agents who use them."

[East_TN_Patriot]

Odd that people aren't even bothering to look at this article.  I would think that people would be interested in seeing what the side of the political spectrum who typically pushes gun control has to say in support of gun rights.  Like I basically said in the last thread I started similar to this about academic research, I'm not sure why I bother.   :shrug:

[Monkeyman2500]

Good article. A bit long winded, obviously written by a well educated individual. Most libs I've known could either not get through it or would just try to argue they knew some different facts.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, I just saw your post! :D

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"Liberals have to recognize that, when you ban guns, you are not just eliminating a right, you are creating

a criminal offense – in fact a whole set of new crimes."

 

That's the important "other issue" to me. The idea that a politician wants to write another law, for the sake of it,

using the emotion of it is covering his or her own desire for a controlled society with a cheap set of lies to back

himself up. He only wants it so he can control you.

 

The rest of the article is great, knowing there are a few on the more "old fashioned" liberal side of the argument.

 

To me, the gun represents the sword I may have to use to defend my right to self-determination and remain

free.

[Will H]

Same here.  I just saw it.

 

I have said it before and I will say it again.  There is no such thing a pro-gun rights liberal, I don't care how much smarter than me they are.  Being anti-gun is a part of the democrat core platform.  It's like calling yourself Republican and being in favor of unlimited government spending.  It just don't work.  I do not consider them allies in this.

 

Just my .01, which is not even worth :2cents:

Edited April 12, 2013 by Will H

[East_TN_Patriot]

Same here.  I just saw it.
 
I have said it before and I will say it again.  There is no such thing a pro-gun rights liberal, I don't care how much smarter than me they are.  Being anti-gun is a part of the democrat core platform.  It's like calling yourself Republican and being in favor of unlimited government spending.  It just don't work.  I do not consider them allies in this.
 
Just my .01, which is not even worth :2cents:

I can assure you that is a very bad approach. I'm pretty sure the guy who wrote this is a Marxist. That said, I know several people who would consider themselves "progressives" or "liberals" and are solidly pro Second Amendment. The issue is that not all progressive liberals (or Marxists) are statists.

As an aside, Reagan and GW Bush were both Republicans and did a fine job at deficit spending.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Well, I just saw your post! :D

My gripe is that I posted this at about the same time as another thread and it has gotten over 10 times the views. And dozens more responses (because it is the typical "they are coming for all of our guns!" kind of thread). I think it's a really important thing when people we consider the enemy on this issue actually agree and craft very well-stated opinions on he issue. The same holds true for several other threads I've started on the issue. A bunker mentality is detrimental to a cause and this one in particular. When you find people on their side of the political fence who say they are wrong, you have found a strong advocate. Which do you think provides a more compelling argument to the left, Alex Jones or the author of that commentary?

[Randall53]

I think we should have this discussion honestly. If the latter is your position, say it.  If you want to eliminate the Second Amendment right, mount a forthright political campaign to do so.  Do not pussy-foot around with “I am not against the Second Amendment.  I do not want to take your hunting rifles and your shotguns, and your antique muskets,” when you really don’t like the Second Amendment at all, would love to see it repealed, and wouldn’t mind if everybody was forced to turn in every weapon that they owned.

 

I think this is THE major problem with our politicians. Most of them are so used to lying and dealing to get what they want, it's simply the way they do business.  The longer they've been in office the more they get entrenched into this Modus Operandi. Their conscience is seared and calloused.  They think they are special and way above the citizen. They pamper themselves with perks, waste our money with no hint of remorse.  They allow everything to just go on as it has been as long as they get their pork put into a bill for their district so they can point to it at election time to stay in office.  Many of them make me want to puke just to look at them or to listen to them. When fresh blood and true patriot honest people show up in Washington with a true interest and zeal to get the country turned around, they hammer them, just like McCain and Graham did recently within their own party. In the mean time, the Liberals are developing a huge voter base by giving them everyone's money that works and pays taxes.  Our political system was the greatest system the world has known, but human greed has just about taken it down the tubes.

 

Rant over..........Thank you for the article East_TN_Patriot.  It's a shame that more politicians in Washington don't listen to this person, regardless of party.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Randall53

[Worriedman]

Do you hold that the right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right?

 

If that question is asked with a straight face, then I have nothing else to say, or to hear from the author.
 

From our TN Supreme Court in Andrews v. State:

 

"Bearing arms for the common defense may well be held to be a political right, or for the protection and maintenance of such rights, intended to be guaranteed; but the right to keep them, with all that is implied fairly as an incident to this right, is a private individual right, guaranteed to the citizen, not the soldier."

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

My gripe is that I posted this at about the same time as another thread and it has gotten over 10 times the views. And dozens more responses (because it is the typical "they are coming for all of our guns!" kind of thread). I think it's a really important thing when people we consider the enemy on this issue actually agree and craft very well-stated opinions on he issue. The same holds true for several other threads I've started on the issue. A bunker mentality is detrimental to a cause and this one in particular. When you find people on their side of the political fence who say they are wrong, you have found a strong advocate. Which do you think provides a more compelling argument to the left, Alex Jones or the author of that commentary?

No disagreement with that, ET. There are many of them to reference, but do they push their attitude to the people

who need to hear it, or just us? I agree with your bunker mentality statement. Maybe that will change, one day.

 

A lot of people don't realize the troubles we are facing economically and socially that are compounding the problem.

Politically speaking, we are already cooked and in panic mode on just about everything. I don't know how any of this

can right itself without something unimaginable happening. We are our own worst enemy in so many ways and the

cynicism and distrust in one thing leads to another until it becomes insurmountable.

 

We are humans, and when humans quit using reason and logic, instead of emotion to make decisions, we screw up.

 

As to your last question, I'd like to take the liberal's instead, because it shows him using reasoning. Alex Jones may

be right, but his message is too fearful to be taken seriously by many. Did that make sense?

[Will H]

I can assure you that is a very bad approach. I'm pretty sure the guy who wrote this is a Marxist. That said, I know several people who would consider themselves "progressives" or "liberals" and are solidly pro Second Amendment. The issue is that not all progressive liberals (or Marxists) are statists.

As an aside, Reagan and GW Bush were both Republicans and did a fine job at deficit spending.

 

 

Yeah, I think I will keep my very bad approach.  Look man, if it was the 1A on trial up on the hill then I would be a single issue voter, and the 1A would be the issue.  As it is the 2A is the one on trial, so I am a single issue voter on the 2A.  It's that simple.  I will look at other issues, considerations, etc when our basic fundamental rights are not on the line.  Until then as far as I am concerned the blame for all this lies with those that voted in the current administration and then voted again to keep him.  Them claiming they are "pro-gun" liberals is nothing more than them talking out of their collective asses.  They have already signed up to make war on the 2A.  Too late to jump of the bed now Hoss.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Will H

[zapfbroad]

great article, thank you

[East_TN_Patriot]

Yeah, I think I will keep my very bad approach.  Look man, if it was the 1A on trial up on the hill then I would be a single issue voter, and the 1A would be the issue.  As it is the 2A is the one on trial, so I am a single issue voter on the 2A.  It's that simple.  I will look at other issues, considerations, etc when our basic fundamental rights are not on the line.  Until then as far as I am concerned the blame for all this lies with those that voted in the current administration and then voted again to keep him.  Them claiming they are "pro-gun" liberals is nothing more than them talking out of their collective asses.  They have already signed up to make war on the 2A.  Too late to jump of the bed now Hoss.

 

That logic just doesn't wash.  Are all Republicans identical?  Are all As I said above, when someone on the other side of the political fence lays out an argument saying liberals are wrong on this issue is important.  Again, who is going to be more compelling to gun grabbers?  I promise you it's not anyone in the Republican Party or the NRA.  Would you rather debate a Democrat gun-grabber with "Wayne LaPierre said" or reference the words of a person known to people on the political left?  If you can't argue the issue on terms that your opposition can relate to, then you might as well not argue the issue at all.  And that is not an option.

[East_TN_Patriot]

If that question is asked with a straight face, then I have nothing else to say, or to hear from the author.
 

From our TN Supreme Court in Andrews v. State:

 

I think you are taking that quote completely out of context and then misinterpreting what he's trying to say.  He was posing it as a rhetorical question to establish his point that gun ownership IS a fundamental right.  Now put that question in it's complete context:

 

 

 

To have an honest discussion of what’s at stake when we talk about “gun rights,” “gun control,” etc., everyone has to know, and acknowledge, his/her position on this fundamental political principle.  Do you hold that the right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right?

 

If you do, then you are ascribing it a strong positive value, you will be predisposed to favor its extension to all citizens, you will consider whatever “regulations” you think are necessary (because some might be) with the greatest circumspection (because those “regulations” are limitations on a right,and rights, though never as absolute as we may like, are to be cherished), you will never seek, overtly or surreptitiously, to eliminate that right entirely – and your discourse will reflect all of that. If you understand gun ownership as a political right, then, for you, if there weren’t a second amendment, there should be.
 

If, on the other hand, you do not hold that the right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right, if you think it is some kind of luxury or peculiarity or special prerogative, then, of course, you really won’t give a damn about how restricted that non-right is, or whether it is ignored or eliminated altogether.  If you reject, or don’t understand, gun ownership as a political right, then you probably think the Second Amendment should never have been.

 

 

His point is essentially the same as yours, but he goes on to argue the same as I, which is that is the fundamental question that simply cannot be ignored.  Again, it is THE fundamental question here.  Either you believe people have a right to own firearms or you don't.  

The very reason I posted this was to show that it is actually possible for people from a political persuasion that people assume would support gun control to have a pro-gun position.  When a Marxist says that the Second Amendment is a legitimate and essential civil right, then why ignore it or alienate the speaker?  

[jport]

"Them claiming they are "pro-gun" liberals is nothing more than them talking out of their collective asses. They have already signed up to make war on the 2A. Too late to jump of the bed now Hoss."

I hope that you are wrong. I try never to associate myself with either party as both are well suited with their own agendas. Typically the agendas of who has the most coin. I think the whole liberal vs conservative classification has confused people even further than they all ready were. When you are forced to side with another group/persons ideals because they meet more of your standards than the other side, you have denied yourself of one of our most fundimental rights. The right to think for yourself, and control your own life. Siding with one party or the other these days still checks off the common goal. Government control/dependence. I hope to see a much stronger 3rd party emerge by 11/2016. One that demands more than Vannila or Chocolate, although as occupied as we currently are on either sides of our line I hardly doubt it.

When will we remember that this is a republic, not a democracy?

[East_TN_Patriot]

"Them claiming they are "pro-gun" liberals is nothing more than them talking out of their collective asses. They have already signed up to make war on the 2A. Too late to jump of the bed now Hoss."

I hope that you are wrong. I try never to associate myself with either party as both are well suited with their own agendas. Typically the agendas of who has the most coin. I think the whole liberal vs conservative classification has confused people even further than they all ready were. When you are forced to side with another group/persons ideals because they meet more of your standards than the other side, you have denied yourself of one of our most fundimental rights. The right to think for yourself, and control your own life. Siding with one party or the other these days still checks off the common goal. Government control/dependence. I hope to see a much stronger 3rd party emerge by 11/2016. One that demands more than Vannila or Chocolate, although as occupied as we currently are on either sides of our line I hardly doubt it.

When will we remember that this is a republic, not a democracy?

 

As I have said elsewhere on this essay, this is not a "left versus right" issue, but is a statism versus liberty issue.  Contrary to what many people think they know about many on the "left", there is a segment that specifically leans towards the libertarian end of the government power continuum.  They don't like the corporate influence over government and people, but they don't like excessive government oppression either.  I'm not a big fan at all of socialism or Marxism, but not all of those who subscribe to that school of thought agree with the Stalinist or Maoist interpretation of that political philosophy either.  

[Worriedman]

I recognize Libertarian thought, as I generally can be found swathed in it.  Let the chips fall where they may, keep government out of the issues that they are not vested in dealing with by the Constitution.

 

Specifically then, is the unalienable Right to keep and bear arms upheld in that document, and in its path to ratification.  Any vestige of disbelief of that point is in fact, turning a blind eye to the intent and specific wording of the 2nd Amendment, and by no means could it be construed as a Libertarian approach. To deny the individual right is to follow collectivism in its most pure form.