Why do liberals hate the second amendment?

Question

This question is all about the second amendment. I'd appreciate any liberal answers. Why do some people want to disarm good, law-abiding people. The crime-rate has dropped 50% since the concealed carry permits became available. If you came home, to find an adult raping your daughter, and he had a knife, and you had a gun, what would you do? Guns are central to our country. And by the way, since the constitution says that a well formed militia can have guns, the government can't disarm any of the thousands of civilian militia paramilitary groups because they are legal militias. As a member of the NRA, I will fight to the death for American's right to bear arms. Anti-gun people can leave, because we don't want them. Go to Japan, or Canada, or England, or Australia. You'll fit in. But, Gode damn it, this is America! The Government can't disarm us while we still breathe. They'd have to kill us all.

Answer 1

Citizens without guns are slaves.
That's what Democrats want: slaves.
On the old Democrat Plantation.

Answer 2

Personally I think it's part of a bigger picture. It's not that they hate the second amendment, it's the easiest one to attack. They point to the criminals with guns and cry "if we had more laws, they wouldn't have guns," "Little Johnny wouldn't have been shot if the Smith's didn't have a gun in their house," or in the litagous society where it seems no one wants to be responsible for their actions,, "My son is dead because the police shot him, and even though he had a gun pointed at the police, they shouldn't have known he wouldn't have fired, so I'm suing the gunmakers because they're the ones who put the gun in my son's hand." There are people who will take advantage of this knee-jerk reaction to further their agenda.

As the new "super-highway" from Mexico to Canada nears comletion, I think you will see more attacks on the second amendment as the government seems to want to be more inline with Canada and Mexico and eventually join them in an ubercountry (hence the reason of the invasion of America), to me there doesn't seem any other reason all the butt-lkissing America is doing to Mexico that makes much sense. Yes, I said Governement, I think it crosses all party lines. Why else has the United States Military been put und the UN command and flag at times?

Once we lose all are soverignity, I don't know what will happen, but, I do know you will kiss the constitution and the Bill of Rights good-bye, sadly, I think it will happen this generation.

Answer 3

Is it a question seeking an answer or just a rant?

I'll answer. First off I'm a liberal and I don't hate the second amendment. It has to have limits, however. The right to bear arms these days could mean carrying a gun, a bomb, a stick of dynamite, a nuclear weapon, a dirty bomb, neurotoxins, biological agents, rocket launchers etc. etc. on & on. I don't see a lot of 2nd amendment supporters pushing for any of these. Why not? The second amendment specifically says "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." Shall not be infringed!

Why aren't you pushing for all these other weapons? Of course the reason is because they are a huge risk to public safety. The same goes for handguns and assault weapons (automatic and semiautomatic weapons). The crime rate may have dropped but the murder rate and the suicide rate in the US (highest gun ownership rate in the world) is far above any other country in the world. Furthermore NRA types claim that guns are central to defending onesself. The statistics show, however, that there are far more murders, suicides, and accidental deaths of people living in homes with guns than in those without. Also, these murders, suicides and accidental deaths far outnumber the number of times they are used defensively. Check the link. Johns Hopkins center on gun policy is an independent research team that studies gun laws, policies, and statistics.

Answer 4

It is obvious that the founding fathers of our country could not see the major technical advances of warfare and the military as it is today, did they mean, back when the constitution was written that "the peoples right to bear arms" included cannons or any other weapon at the time? Yes they certainly did. If the military were called on today to enforce the suspension of the constitution and the rights of ordinary citizens I would venture to say they would honor their oath to protect and defend the constitution and not the government, that is, at the present time. Could that change in the future? Yes perhaps, lets hope not, for the sake of the people, and their rights.

Answer 5

Your right, guns are what keep people free. There's a quote I like that goes, "The man with a firearm is a citizen, the man without is a subject"- John Lott Jr. The first thing any dictator does is disarm the population, because trying to opressing armed peoples is insane and idiotic. Adolf Hitler even said..."The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

Look at the genocides and mass murders that have occured because a government took away peoples arms...

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, approx.
20 million people were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies and others were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948-1952, 20 million political
dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. from 1964-1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians
were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975-1977, one million “educated” people were rounded up and exterminated.

Since Britain enacted severe gun control I wonder how the people would fight back if their Parliament decided it wanted to be a dictatorship? The answer, not much.

As to the people who say we don't need assault rifles, If the government or an invading army tried to take over, do you really think that bolt action rifles, or even semi-autos would be very effective against advanced military hardware? We should be at least armed equally if not greater than any opposing force.

If someone could prove to me that my government would not take total control I would gladly give up my guns, but since that day will never come, I will continue to own and train with firearms to protect my freedom, as every American should.

Answer 6

Liberals, huh? You shouldn't generalize quite so much. I can only speak for myself but I was never raised around guns. My family doesn't have them, no one that I know does so guns scare me. The scariest part is you don't know who is in the right mind to have a gun. I am sure that plenty of people are okay to have guns, but then there are so many wackos who shouldn't... look at all the shootings in the past 2 weeks. I am not saying that every person who has a gun will use it in a bad way, it's just that the people who do are scary and how do we differentiate good from bad in this case?

Answer 7

Thanks for the question and expressing your views. Far too many questions here just seemed to be rants and not actual attempts at civilized discourse.

I'm a liberal. Personally, I don't have a problem with the second amendment. We are a country with a long history of guns. Unlike many modernized countries, the early settlers of our country simply would not have survived if not for guns. Guns are etched into the very fabric of our culture as a symbol for independence and self-autonomy, and many people feel safer and more in control with guns, and many use them for recreation.

But having said that, I can also understand the more widespread liberal position on this issue, as I have many liberal friends who feel strongly about it. Essentially, their position is simple, guns are dangerous, and far too many accidents occur because of them, particularly involving children. Furthermore, guns and anger don't mix, and far too many people have died because in moments of anger someone shot them whereas had they not had a gun they would have just used their fists. Most gun related deaths are not the result of premeditated murder. If that were the case, then there would be no issue here, since you can kill a person in many more ways than just using a gun. The problem is that using a gun is as simple as pulling a triger, which is easy to do for even a child, or an adult when they are angry and not thinking rationally. A simple example is one I saw on TV once. A woman, who was a lawyer, was driving to work and another woman did something that pissed her off, I'm not exactly sure what, I assume she cut in front of her. When they reached the stop light, the first woman got out of her car to confront the second woman. I think the second woman, who was a mother of five I believe, did something like cuss at her, or spit in her face, or something nasty, and the first woman in a moment of sheer rage pulled out her gun and shot the second woman in the face, killing her. To this day she despises and struggles to live with herself, because it wasn't otherwise in her character, it was an act of uncontrolled, irrational anger that would have resulted in a yelling match . . . except for the fact that she happened to have a gun.

So the liberal argument is essentially guns are dangerous, just like drugs are dangerous. Theoretically we could legalize drugs and have a similar attitude about them as we do guns, that each individual should have the right to them and should use them responsibly, and when they don't its their fault. But the problem is that drugs, like guns, hurt other people, not just yourself. That mother of five wasn't being irresponsible. Maybe rude, but hardly worth losing her life over. And those children losing their mother weren't being irresponsible. Yes, the first woman was irresponsible, but society cannot insure that people act responsibly, we can make sure that when they act irresponsibly they are punished, and we can also make sure that when they act irresponsibly that they aren't capable of great harm. We would never imagine giving individuals access to weapons of mass destruction in hope that they act responsibly, likewise why should we allow people to have guns in hope that they act responsibly?

That is at least the argument. Honestly, I can see the value in both sides. There are benefits to guns, such as protection of ones property and family, and recreational uses, but there are also detriments, such as the fact that someone who loses their temper could end up killing someone you love, or that a child from a broken home could end up coming to school and killing your children -- something that simply would not happen if not for guns (pulling a trigger is easy even for a child, planning a murder using knives or poison is far more difficult, and out of character with even the most base of children, and thus much more rare).

So both sides have legitimate points, and I think that has to be remembered.

Answer 8

HOLD IT... you have it all wrong! I'm a libertarian (not necessarily a liberal in all matters... but...) I'm for the right to bear arms!

Poor ol' Samuel Adams, his palsy didn't interfere with his thinking; here's what he said about the right to bear arms (quite eloquent, isn't it?):
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom... go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --- Samuel Adams.

Read the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the US of f/ing A. It's very, very simple. We have police, state troopers, armed forces and our elected officials to look out for our rights, liberties and freedoms... but who or what protects us from the police, state troopers, our armed forces and our elected officials when THEY decide to become tyrannical or usurp our Constitutional rights, freedoms and liberties...? And, if someone is breaking into your home... how long does it take the police to drop their donuts and come to our rescue...? (They usually wait around in hopes of not running into the intruders that might harm THEM... s h i t, they know what side of the bread is buttered).

Automobiles kill and maim more people than guns (illegal and legal combined) and what about drunk drivers? ILLEGAL weapons are a menace to the populace when the owners do not know how to handle a gun properly or has never had formal education on the responsibilities of carrying a weapon. Remember, I said, "ILLEGAL weapons."

If criminals have guns, we might as well learn to handle guns and protect our homes and property against home invasions, car-jackings, robberies, hold-ups, etc. When they outlawed guns in Australia, the break-ins, burglaries, home invasions, robberies and assaults, murders and forcible rapes almost quadrupled overnight! Ever wonder why? When guns were legal, the criminal elements were afraid of trying to invade or rob or burglarize a home for fear of coming face to face with a gun or shotgun or rifle... but now...?

Just remember, "God did not make men equal: Samuel Colt did!" So, now the law-abiding people will not have guns to protect themselves... but the criminal elements WILL have (illegal) guns... where does that leave the citizenry? What's wrong with this picture? The criminals have guns and WE don't... damned, something is wrong here!

Ever notice how the rich can get all sorts of gun permits but they do NOT want us to be able to protect ourselves? That was how the idea of outlawing weapons came about during the late 1800s in most major cities where slumlords were abusing tenants and the likes of robber barons like the JD Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Carnegie, et al, who were stealing lands from the poor and defenseless farmers throughout the country. Think about that for a moment.

And, while you're at it, also think about the fact that kids that grow up knowing how to handle guns NEVER have "accidents" and that those kids in those school shootouts all obtained guns ILLEGALLY, like common criminals. So, if they would not have had access to gun and rifles, they would've devised some other means of going on a killing rampage... like bombs or knives or whatever. And if there had been a couple of armed security at the entrance...?

If some limp-wrist pansy doesn't want to bear arms and would rather bear his fanny when some intruder breaks into his home and rapes his wife and daughter or slaughters his family... that's on HIM. Me? Hey, here's what I say to any would-be intruder or home invader... "Here, kitty, kitty... come and get it between yer eyes and up yer butt!"

I extend a warm brotherly handshake to you and I stand proudly by your side.

Answer 9

I'm a liberal, and I love the second amendment....maybe you should open your mind and re-think your question. Not all liberals have that kind of view, not all conservatives do either....

Answer 10

you are right i worked with this big gay lib he said liberals are for people rights i said no they are not what about the 2nd amendments he said" we don't need that one anymore" so much for peoples rights

Answer 11

It's not the good, law-abiding people that we need to worry about.

It's the trigger happy criminals.