Liberal Discover Second Amendment

[SRW]

After 200 and more years of shelping from the first to third amendments with out a second thought, more and more Liberal Law professors have discovered the Second Amendment protected an individual right and not a collective right.

Says Lauernce H Tribe , a low professor at Harvard, My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, an unwelcome surprise, "tribe said,"I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control." The Devel in the details, liberals have always over looked the details of the Second amendment, A well Regulated militia, being necessary to th e security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed. As a Matter of consistency liberals who see a broad reading of other a broad reading of other amendment should also embrace a broad reading of this one.

Adam Liptak New York Times

 

[knot]

LOL -liberals.

 

[Zep]

After 200 and more years of shelping from the first to third amendments with out a second thought, more and more Liberal Law professors have discovered the Second Amendment protected an individual right and not a collective right.

Says Lauernce H Tribe , a low professor at Harvard, My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, an unwelcome surprise, "tribe said,"I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control." The Devel in the details, liberals have always over looked the details of the Second amendment, A well Regulated militia, being necessary to th e security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed. As a Matter of consistency liberals who see a broad reading of other a broad reading of other amendment should also embrace a broad reading of this one.

Adam Liptak New York Times

Could I have that again in English, please?

LOL@knot, LOL'ing at something unreadable, just because it had the word "liberal" in it.

 

[Wolfman]

Conservatives Yet To Discover Grammar and Logic

My goodness...what a terribly unreadable piece of work. I read it through four or five times, hoping to figure it out, but other than the generally safe assumption that it is an attack on "Liberal" support for gun control, I really can't make heads or tails of the rest of it.

And this was written for the New York Times?!? I REALLY hope not; I'd rather assume it is a semi-literate attempt at summarizing an article that they only dimly understood to begin with.

 

[knot]

Google is your friend:

Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?bl&ex=1178596800&en=3362241afe12880d&ei=5087

 

[Wolfman]

Ah, thanks, Knot!

Now, having read the article in question, and understood what is being discussed, a few comments:

1) It is a curiously "Liberal" trait to examine their own beliefs, and question them. As opposed to that curiously "Conservative" trait to simply assume that they are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. I think it speak very POSITIVELY of "Liberals" that they are able to engage in intelligent debate, and have different positions on this issue.

2) A very relevant quote from the article:

He also cited empirical research questioning whether gun control laws cut down on crime; a 2001 decision from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that embraced the individual rights view even as it allowed a gun prosecution to go forward; and the Bush administration’s reversal of a longstanding Justice Department position under administrations of both political parties favoring the collective rights view.

In point of fact, while Liberals (a small number) are questioning the legitimacy of interpreting the second amendment as applying purely to groups (not individuals), the MAIN reason for this court ruling, so far as I can see, is a shift from the CONSERVATIVE side of the argument.

 

[knot]

1) It is a curiously "Liberal" trait to examine their own beliefs, and question them. As opposed to that curiously "Conservative" trait to simply assume that they are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. I think it speak very POSITIVELY of "Liberals" that they are able to engage in intelligent debate

I'm not a conservative nor a liberal - but liberals have an intelligent debate? LOL, I had enough of "intelligent" (more like circular, repetitive) debate with them over whether or not a missile, or another object, struck the pentagon. (at another board which identifies as 89% liberal biased) Incidentally, over 80% of those self professed liberals voted in the poll that "no way a plane struck the pentagon"

 

[skeptifem]

^^uhhhhh ever consider that a lot of conspiracy theorists are liberal, rather than assuming that a lot of liberals are conspiracy theorists? there is a difference.


also, about the use of the word liberal as an insult- its a very large group of people that cant really be stereotyped in such a manner, the only real problem i have is with extremists, and they do not represent the majority of people. I would also refrain from insulting so many other people when your posts are so incoherant.

 

[Wolfman]

I'm not a conservative nor a liberal - but liberals have an intelligent debate? LOL, I had enough of "intelligent" (more like circular, repetitive) debate with them over whether or not a missile, or another object, struck the pentagon. (at another board which identifies as 89% liberal biased) Incidentally, over 80% of those self professed liberals voted in the poll that "no way a plane struck the pentagon"

^^uhhhhh ever consider that a lot of conspiracy theorists are liberal, rather than assuming that a lot of liberals are conspiracy theorists? there is a difference.


also, about the use of the word liberal as an insult- its a very large group of people that cant really be stereotyped in such a manner, the only real problem i have is with extremists, and they do not represent the majority of people. I would also refrain from insulting so many other people when your posts are so incoherant.

Just what I was gonna' say, nails. THAT argument is equivalent to going to a Nazi rally and saying "90% of these white people believed other races are inferior", and then concluding that therefore all whites think this way. I definitely consider that I lean towards the Liberal side, but neither myself or any "Liberal" friend believes that no plane struck the Pentagon.

THAT, by the way, Knot, is "logic", and represents "intelligent debate". Try it on

 

[Zep]

Depends where you are when you call people liberals too, Knot. Out here, it means "conservative".

Try THAT on!

 

[boooeee]

I'm not a conservative nor a liberal - but liberals have an intelligent debate? LOL, I had enough of "intelligent" (more like circular, repetitive) debate with them over whether or not a missile, or another object, struck the pentagon. (at another board which identifies as 89% liberal biased) Incidentally, over 80% of those self professed liberals voted in the poll that "no way a plane struck the pentagon"

This is priceless. Which "liberal" board are you referring to?

 

[Tony]

Could I have that again in English, please?

LOL@knot, LOL'ing at something unreadable, just because it had the word "liberal" in it.

Seconded.

 

[KingMerv00]

Nearly everyone agrees that arms need to be controlled, it is just a matter of what KINDS of arms.

Knives
Pistols
Automatic Rifles
Rocket Launchers
Land Mines
Nerve Gas
1 kiloton bombs
20 megaton bombs
Tsar Bomba

Where do YOU draw the line?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nearly everyone agrees that arms need to be controlled, it is just a matter of what KINDS of arms.

Knives
Pistols
Automatic Rifles
Rocket Launchers
Land Mines
Nerve Gas
1 kiloton bombs
20 megaton bombs
Tsar Bomba

Where do YOU draw the line?

Hmm, the second amendment protecting the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

 

[knot]

Gee, I didn't know the word "liberal" was an insult. I was only laughing at them.

My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here?

 

[Upchurch]

Nearly everyone agrees that arms need to be controlled, it is just a matter of what KINDS of arms.

There is controlled and then there is controlled.

When I was in grade/high school, we were allowed to have pocket knives but not sheath knives (not so rare in a mid-west hunting culture). Otherwise, I see no need to regulate them in the general public.

Pistols and rifles are at least as deadly as a car and I see no reason not to license people to have them, unless they give you a reason like committing a crime.

Automatic weapons have fewer legitimate uses, imho, but I'm not against people who go through a more thorough licensing process being able to have them. Maybe with a re-licensing process every so often to make sure the gun is still in their possession.

Explosives should be handled on a professional level for professional uses. My wife is going through a rather complicated and difficult licensing procedure to become an architect, because if she does her job wrong, people could die. I think explosives should be on the same level.

Beyond that, I see little need to allow the general public access to more powerful weaponry.

 

[KingMerv00]

Gee, I didn't know the word "liberal" was an insult. I was only laughing at them.

My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here?

So "liberal" IS an insult?

 

[Beerina]

Ah, thanks, Knot!

Now, having read the article in question, and understood what is being discussed, a few comments:

1) It is a curiously "Liberal" trait to examine their own beliefs, and question them. As opposed to that curiously "Conservative" trait to simply assume that they are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. I think it speak very POSITIVELY of "Liberals" that they are able to engage in intelligent debate, and have different positions on this issue.

Either that or liberals achieve certainty in their positions based on the moral approval of others.

Witness Lisa Simpson being a vegetarian, talking about how people should not eat meat, and stick to vegetables, fruits, dairy, and eggs. Apu says that he doesn't eat eggs. Lisa, panic stricken, comments, "Oh no! You must think me some kind of horrible monster!"

That's it in a nutshell.

In other words, almost everybody picks and chooses their positions based on emotionality, then works to justify it mentally.

Politics, like religion, is full of fury and hot air, and very little in the way of actual scientific results. Thank god last century was loaded with hundreds of economic "experiments" that showed a strong correlation between freedom and government protecting rights and general prosperity and technological advancement.

Witness France -- they just turned over power, sort of, to a guy who wants to get rid of the 40 hour week. The emotion that got them into this predicament: You get to work less! The back-ended rationalization, that is fraudulent: By mandating people work less, businesses will be forced to hire more, thus lowering unemployment.

 

[Tony]

Witness France -- they just turned over power, sort of, to a guy who wants to get rid of the 40 hour week.

France hasn't had a 40 hour work week in over 10 years.

The emotion that got them into this predicament: You get to work less! The back-ended rationalization, that is fraudulent: By mandating people work less, businesses will be forced to hire more, thus lowering unemployment.

That's quite a discovery. When and where are you going to publish your paper about this newly discovered "you get to work less" emotion?

 

[Tony]

My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here?

And it's my experience with anti-liberal/anti-american demoguoges (like you) that they tend to remember the people who validate their beliefs and ignore the people that contradict their beliefs. Skeptics call this counting the hits and ignoring the misses.