The author of this article explains to liberals why they should not only protect the second amendment, but to love it. Hopefully some dirty hippies read it. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment
Yeah, I look at the Daily Kos most days. It's not totally useless. In between the standard leftist drivel reliably spewed forth, they occasionally find some good shit. Oh, from the article linked - Yep, liberals will not only interpret existing rights broadly, they'll make up new ones out of whole cloth, and ignore the huge cost to society some of them impose (like a "right" to health care).
That was an excellent argument that no doubt a majority of liberals will flat out ignore and/or ridicule.
And of course I was right. No matter how many times you explain it to them they just ignore it, talk about Republicans trying to destroy everything (which should make the case for gun ownership just on that basis alone), gun nuts (white people) don't want others to own guns so they can shoot blacks and a whole bunch of other shit. Liberals = Dumb
Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with the second amendment. I wish I had the same right in Canada. I'd love to be able to carry, concealed or otherwise. If I'm anti-gun, it's to the extent than I support "restrictions" like conducting basic checks to ensure guns aren't being sold to convicted felons or the mentally ill. Optimally, I'd support requiring a firearms license (maybe as easy to get as a learners license for driving) before you're allowed to own a gun, but I wouldn't support an actual registry of who owns what, for reasons made clear in the Clarence Thomas thread.
You won't find any gun-owner on this board who doesn't support background checks. You don't need a license to own a car.
True, but you need a license (and a plate and insurance) to use a car. With a car, owning doesn't always mean using. If you're using a gun as a deterrent or insurance, then simply owning it is "using" it. That's why I'd put licensing* first in that situation. *I'm thinking you'd have to pass basic safety quiz/background check to earn a probationary license, then a basic skills test/second background check within two years to earn a full license. Nothing fancy, just enough to discourage the obvious undesirables.
I desire everyone to have a gun. I figure family trees would work themselves out real quick like. Further, the gub'mint being able to say who is "undesirable" scares me.
You seem pretty cool with the principle when it comes to immigration. Regardless, when I say "discourage the undesirables," I'm talking about the types of people that aren't going to want thorough background checks run on them. People with outstanding warrants, illegal immigrants, that sort of thing.
The "undesirables" that subject refers to are illegal aliens. Immigration is a legal process. Therefore, illegal aliens != immigrants, except in liberalese. Good set of caveats, but you might want a better word than "undesirables." Whether you intend it to or not, it carries an implication that classism is the reason for barring someone from gun ownership rather than the reason being one of a violent and/or criminal history or mental disorder.
Perhaps in Canada but not in America. As long as the car stays on your property you can skip the license, plates, and insurance. Undesirables are just as capable of handling a gun during a skills test.
Realistically, how many people buy a car they don't want to take off their property? It's mainly the background checks I was referring to.
Some of the comments below the article are alarming. The misinformation propagated by so called liberals on this issue is fairly disgusting.
Depends on your municipality. Some areas require that any vehicles you leave outside have valid plates.
Ok as you know owning a car is not a right. Now owning and carrying a firearm is. So lets look at licensing rights. Not too long ago they had poll taxes and literacy tests to determine if you could vote. Of course those rules were set up to disenfranchise minorities and the SCOTUS and Federal government said you cannot attach a price to the enjoyment of a right. So looking from the perspective of voting rights, a "test" to be able to own a firearm (exercising the right) is not allowed. Now you can try arguing this until you are blue in the face, but as the article points out, you are then just spinning things to back up your personal feelings and damn whats really in the constitution simply because it conflicts with your personal sensibilities.
