A liberals lament: The NRA may be right after all

[SemiAutoSam]

D

D

 

[EddieCoyle]

Wow. Finally, one liberal gets it.

 

[OnTheRoad]

Wow. Finally, one liberal gets it.

Now it's time to get to work on the next one.

 

[PaulD]

It's good to see someone in mainstream media write something like that. That said, there's lots of conservatives who treat the other amendments just like liberals treat the 2nd.

 

[Rockrivr1]

He was probably crapping himself the whole time he wrote this. Someone should email this to the Bradys.

 

[calsdad]

I think a lot of the reason why you are starting to see this happen is because there is a feeling among liberals that George Bush has totally overstepped his bounds and is infringing on free speech and a bunch of other constitutional rights. So the big govt. they have been pushing for decades has suddenly gone from their beloved socialist/communist ideals - to one that a lot of liberals call fascist.

In other words the big govt. they wanted is not the big govt. they got - so they start looking for a way out - and lo and behold there is that pesky 2nd amendment sitting there saying that the people have a right to bear arms - and more and more liberals are waking up to see why you might actually want to do that.

Remember these days - it will be interesting to see if these same liberals feel the same way if Hitlery gets into office and tries another assault weapons ban.

 

[KMaurer]

It shows a rather poor understanding of political reality to frame this entire issue in terms of "liberal" vs. "conservative". Sure, most leftists (commonly referred to as either "liberals" or "progressives") tend to be anti-gun. But the simple fact is that most of the leading legal scholars supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms are self-proclaimed "liberals." Don Kates, Sanford Levinson, Akhil Amar, William van Alstyne and Joe Olson --- all liberals. Even if the line-up were all on the conservative side, that still wouldn't make the whole issue black and white. As someone once observed, a liberal is nothing more than someone whose copy of the Bill of Rights is missing the 2nd and 10th Amendments, in contrast to a conservative whose copy is missing the 1st and 9th Amendments. I like mine with all 10.

Ken

 

[SemiAutoSam]

I would be ecstatic to only have the first 10.

Its the 14th and the 16th that I can do without and would like to see the Original 13th reinstated.

It shows a rather poor understanding of political reality to frame this entire issue in terms of "liberal" vs. "conservative". Sure, most leftists (commonly referred to as either "liberals" or "progressives") tend to be anti-gun. But the simple fact is that most of the leading legal scholars supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms are self-proclaimed "liberals." Don Kates, Sanford Levinson, Akhil Amar, William van Alstyne and Joe Olson --- all liberals. Even if the line-up were all on the conservative side, that still wouldn't make the whole issue black and white. As someone once observed, a liberal is nothing more than someone whose copy of the Bill of Rights is missing the 2nd and 10th Amendments, in contrast to a conservative whose copy is missing the 1st and 9th Amendments. I like mine with all 10.

Ken

 

[PaulD]

As someone once observed, a liberal is nothing more than someone whose copy of the Bill of Rights is missing the 2nd and 10th Amendments, in contrast to a conservative whose copy is missing the 1st and 9th Amendments. I like mine with all 10.

Ken

Heh, that's the first I've heard of that one but I'm going to have to remember it. From my observations, our current president doesn't really understand the 4th or 6th Amendments either.

 

[Cato]

As someone once observed, a liberal is nothing more than someone whose copy of the Bill of Rights is missing the 2nd and 10th Amendments, in contrast to a conservative whose copy is missing the 1st and 9th Amendments. I like mine with all 10.

Then you are a conservative. Everyone in either of the other two groups is liberal.

 

[Garys]

It shows a rather poor understanding of political reality to frame this entire issue in terms of "liberal" vs. "conservative". Sure, most leftists (commonly referred to as either "liberals" or "progressives") tend to be anti-gun. But the simple fact is that most of the leading legal scholars supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms are self-proclaimed "liberals."
Ken

This is a change that has occurred over the past several years, lead by Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School who have proclaimed that the Second Amendment, like the First, is an individual, not collective right. Dershowitz in particular scolds fellow liberals for not seeing the First Amendment implications if a collective right view of the Second prevails.

Their opinions are going to have serious impact on whatever the Supreme Court decides wrt Parker.

Gary

 

[KMaurer]

This is a change that has occurred over the past several years, lead by Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School who have proclaimed that the Second Amendment, like the First, is an individual, not collective right. Dershowitz in particular scolds fellow liberals for not seeing the First Amendment implications if a collective right view of the Second prevails.

Their opinions are going to have serious impact on whatever the Supreme Court decides wrt Parker.

Gary

You've got it backwards. Dershowitz and Tribe are actually the Tail-end Charlies of this list. Levinson's key article was published in '89, and most of the others I mentioned had major articles in the early 90's. Tribe only came around with the current edition of his constitutional law text; the 2nd was essentially ignored in previous editions. Taking it out of the legal scholarship arena, Heston considered himself a liberal and was on the platform with Martin Luther King, Jr at the the Lincoln Memorial in 1963.

Ken

 

[calsdad]

It shows a rather poor understanding of political reality to frame this entire issue in terms of "liberal" vs. "conservative". Sure, most leftists (commonly referred to as either "liberals" or "progressives") tend to be anti-gun. But the simple fact is that most of the leading legal scholars supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms are self-proclaimed "liberals." Don Kates, Sanford Levinson, Akhil Amar, William van Alstyne and Joe Olson --- all liberals. Even if the line-up were all on the conservative side, that still wouldn't make the whole issue black and white. As someone once observed, a liberal is nothing more than someone whose copy of the Bill of Rights is missing the 2nd and 10th Amendments, in contrast to a conservative whose copy is missing the 1st and 9th Amendments. I like mine with all 10.

Ken

I think I understand the political reality - even if my post might have been oversimplisticly talking about all "liberals" as being anti-gun. The fact of the matter is that the whole liberal vs. conservative thing has in general been completely oversimplified in our popular culture - but that oversimplification is what is most people are using to make their decisions. I for one am glad that this oversimplification of the left is apparently cracking - just as I am glad that the oversimplification of conservatives as being nothing but war mongering capitalists who want to kill kittens and babies and all minorities - is also cracking with people like Ron Paul gaining more coverage in the mainstream media.

If the left starts hearing more voices against gun control - that can only be good for us.

 

[Garys]

You've got it backwards. Dershowitz and Tribe are actually the Tail-end Charlies of this list. Levinson's key article was published in '89, and most of the others I mentioned had major articles in the early 90's. Tribe only came around with the current edition of his constitutional law text; the 2nd was essentially ignored in previous editions. Taking it out of the legal scholarship arena, Heston considered himself a liberal and was on the platform with Martin Luther King, Jr at the the Lincoln Memorial in 1963.

Ken

Tribe and Dershowitz are both very influential and have impeccable liberal credentials. When they change their minds about an issue as controversial as this, everyone takes notice including Supreme Court Justices. It's a tipping point and a major one.

Gary

 

[KMaurer]

Tribe and Dershowitz are both very influential and have impeccable liberal credentials. When they change their minds about an issue as controversial as this, everyone takes notice including Supreme Court Justices. It's a tipping point and a major one.

Gary

True, but it's hardly accurate to describe them as "leading" the change. The change was pretty much accepted by every major con law writer in the country (except for the few bought and paid for by the Brady Bunch) when they finally jumped aboard.

Ken

 

[PaulD]

I think I understand the political reality - even if my post might have been oversimplisticly talking about all "liberals" as being anti-gun. The fact of the matter is that the whole liberal vs. conservative thing has in general been completely oversimplified in our popular culture - but that oversimplification is what is most people are using to make their decisions. I for one am glad that this oversimplification of the left is apparently cracking - just as I am glad that the oversimplification of conservatives as being nothing but war mongering capitalists who want to kill kittens and babies and all minorities - is also cracking with people like Ron Paul gaining more coverage in the mainstream media.

If the left starts hearing more voices against gun control - that can only be good for us.

It's not just a matter of oversimplification but of changing definitions and multiple definitions. To some conservative means small government. To some it means the Christian right. Plus, the party migrations muddy the water. The most conservative politicians used to be southern Democrats but they've all moved to the Republican party. At the same time you've got people like Guliani and Romney who certainly aren't conservative when it comes to 2A issues.

The previous post about defining conservative and liberal by the Amendments they choose to defend is very apt. I've always found it ironic that NRA members are often the first people to vilify the ACLU when both organizations use many of the same techniques and both follow the slippery slope rule.

 

[Cato]

The definitions of conservative and liberal have not changed. The definition today is the same as it always has been.

People just do not understand the true meaning.

 

[Gabe]

I've always found it ironic that NRA members are often the first people to vilify the ACLU when both organizations use many of the same techniques and both follow the slippery slope rule.

The NRA has no where near the success as the ACLU has had vis-a-vis their respective amendments. The ACLU reminds me of a dog with a bone, while the NRA reminds me of a pampered poodle. I wish so badly that the NRA would step up and attack 2nd Amendment infringements like the ACLU does the 1st Amendment.

 

[drgrant]

Even though a lot of "liberals" will acknowledge the validity and the
reason of the 2nd amendment, that doesn't mean that they
necessarily agree with it. While some have turned over a
new leaf, many of them are out there probably rallying for a repeal
or marginalization of the 2nd amendment by other means. They
will then start the bogus argument that the constitution is a living
document and needs to be modified to fit the times...

Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of gun hating a**h***s
who seemingly embrace the rest of the constitution only do so
because the constitution enables the rest of their agenda- eg, it's
a lot easier for commies to push a manifesto when freedom of
speech is preserved, etc. Don't be fooled, though... in the long
term span once the wrong people get into power, all that stuff
about "civil liberties" will just get thrown out the window. As
it is, this already takes place now- note the opportunistic defense
of constitutional rights only when it suits one of their causes... if
something in the BOR, say, by happenstance, also protected a
person the progressives don't like (eg, a so called "evil
conservative", like a limbaugh or savage) they'll not say a word
about them being protected by it.

Another thing people forget here is that it's not about "liberals"
and "conservatives". The real battle lines are drawn between
those who like authoritarian statism and those who do not; and
neither one of the two major parties is devoid of that... if anything
both have been trending more towards bigger, more powerful
government than not, with the number of holdouts in the
republican party higher than in the democratic; but overall they're
still both trending worse.


-Mike

 

[PaulD]

The definitions of conservative and liberal have not changed. The definition today is the same as it always has been.

People just do not understand the true meaning.

That's the equivelent of saying "you're wrong, I'm right" with nothing to back it up.

So, I'll ask, were the founding fathers liberal or conservative? Before you answer, consider how their religious views would be considered now.

 

[ronbok]

As someone once observed, a liberal is nothing more than someone whose copy of the Bill of Rights is missing the 2nd and 10th Amendments, in contrast to a conservative whose copy is missing the 1st and 9th Amendments. I like mine with all 10.

Ken

There's nothing about "Conservatives" that would make them want to ignore the 1st or the 9th. It's the "Liberals" running around trying to close down "Talk Radio" with the "Fairness Doctrine", so I would add the 1st to their list.

We can toss around these terms all day, but it doesn't help.

Bottom line, and I think we agree, you either believe in the Constitution or you don't. If you do - stay and be an active part of it. If you don't - get the heck out and go live somewhere else, but don't bother me with your ignorance and stupidity.

 

[n1zfg]

The definitions of conservative and liberal have not changed. The definition today is the same as it always has been.

People just do not understand the true meaning.

You ought to read the chapter entitled "Who, Whom" from "The Road To Serfdom" by F. A. Hayek

He writes that the term "liberal" was adopted by the collectivists (socialist, communist, nazi, etc) to make themselves look good.

A Liberal, in the classical sense (like the late 1800s), would probably be considered a libertarian of today.

 

[LoginName]

An interesting addition to OPs article...

The 2nd Amendment and the Future of Gun Control

Second Amendment interpretation and the future of gun control laws in America were the focus of a September 27th debate between Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet and Clark Neily, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. The event, sponsored by the Harvard Federalist Society, came in response to the expected certiorari grant for Parker v. District of Columbia- the March case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down Washington D.C.'s controversial gun ban.

Neily, who served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs challenging the ban, explained that while some view the Second Amendment as a "collective right," the view that the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to own guns is likely to prevail. He explained that most legal scholars on the subject support the individual rights theory, and that efforts to advocate the "collective rights" theory appear hypocritical.

"There has been a remarkable diversion to individual rights theory by professors, even liberal ones," Neily said. "Guns are not a big part of my life, but it bothers me when an entire part of the Constitution can be written out when you apply a constitutional theory that liberals would never apply to a right they actually care about. If you imagine the right at stake is one you care about a lot. I think you'll be offended to see a court take it as lightly as they take the Second Amendment."

However, Tushnet explained that there is support for the collective rights theory in the wording of the Constitution. The "militia," he said, could likely be referring to the National Guard.

Rest of story here...