The Liberal Gun Club.

[Remmah2]

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

"The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a voice for gun-owning liberals and moderates in the national conversation on gun rights, gun legislation, firearms safety, and shooting sports. We serve as a national forum for all people, irrespective of their personal political beliefs, to discuss firearms ownership, firearms use, and the enjoyment of firearms-related activities free from the destructive elements of political extremism that dominate this subject on the national scale. "

Another open minded 2A liberal group. "What do you think?"

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/2012/07/14/the-lgc-is-now-a-cmp-affiliate/

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Obviously...

...you can't be pro-gun and progressive. They must be a front for the NRA.

[Loudly]

2. If they want to fantasize about a non-existent "right," so be it.

They have a genuine right to do so under the 1st Amendment.

[glacierbay]

3. You keep saying it's a non existent right w/o providing any proof of what you claim.

Here's your chance, provide proof that the Second Amendment is a non existent right.

[Loudly]

5. The 2A speaks for itself. It has been ridiculously adorned with superfluous attributes.

And it was mooted by an armed rebellion called the Civil War.

The burden is on those who believe there is a "right" of access to the means of convenient murder.

The burden is on those who believe the American people are empowered by the U.S. Constitution to extinguish all the genuine rights of each other.

[glacierbay]

6. The burden of proof is on you

you claim it's a non existent right, back up your claim with solid evidence instead of platitudes.

[Loudly]

7. Unassailable logic is no platitude, glacierbay.

I have pretty good reading comprehension skills, and I take the plain meaning of the words comprising the 2A at their face value.

I'll say furthermore that its presence in the bill of rights was to appease skeptics of a central government.

And that it was put forward in the guise of national defense at a time when a U.S. military establishment was just getting started.

[glacierbay]

10. Are you or are you not going to provide the proof?

It's OK to admit that you don't have any proof besides your feelings.

[Loudly]

11. The proof is in the Amendment itself.

Read it and explain why you think it says something else.

[glacierbay]

16. Just one more time

you made the claim that the Second Amendment is a non existent right, the burden is upon you to provide the proof of what you claim, if you cannot, then just admit it and let's move on.

[rrneck]

12. I get so tired

of this same vapid litany, shares. If you really cared about gun violence you would offer something more meaningful than this gray boilerplate. You obviously don't care at all.

[Flyboy_451]

39. I'm glad you mntioned the language of the 2nd amendment

While I cannot say whether your reading and comprehension skills are adequate or not, I think you may well be wrong in this instance. The following is a grammatical analysis of the 2nd Amendment provided by two experts in the English language, it's history, and use. Both of these experts disagree with you. Can you provide any opinions from similarly qualified individuals that contradicts this?

http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html

If you have a contradictory viewpoint espoused by someone with similar qualifications, I would be very interested to read it.

Quote from the link provided:

I asked whether this sentence could be interpreted to restrict the right to keep arms to "a well regulated Militia."

He said, "No."

According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people are the militia, and that the people have the right which is mentioned.

I asked him again to make sure:

SCHULMAN: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right can be restricted to a "well-regulated militia?"

BROCKI; "No, I don't see that."

SCHULMAN; "Could another professional in English grammar or linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"

BROCKI: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."

I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional reputation on the opinion, and be quoted on this.

He said, "Yes."

[Atypical Liberal]

9. It does not matter whether the right is moot or not.

And it was mooted by an armed rebellion called the Civil War.

The burden is on those who believe there is a "right" of access to the means of convenient murder.

It does not matte whether armed rebellion is feasible or not. The Constitution still provides for the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use so that they can engage in warfare if necessary.

Whether or not the people can or will do so is irrelevant.

Just like no troops have been quartered in anyone's home since the civil war - that does not make the 3rd amendment moot.

[Loudly]

14. The BOR is shaped and fashioned by history.

What becomes inapplicable is cast off.

Progress results in Constitutional exigency.

Expectation of privacy under the 4A for example. Very much in flux over time.

[Atypical Liberal]

17. And provisions were made to amend the Constitution.

What becomes inapplicable is cast off.

Yes, and provisions were made to amend the Constitution.

But until that happens, you cannot cast off rights enumerated in the US Constitution!

Even if you think they are inapplicable, even if they are inapplicable!

The US Constitution is the law of the land.

And right now, the law of the land says that the people may keep and bear arms appropriate for military use so that they can engage in warfare if necessary.

This is the law. Whether you think it is applicable, feasible, or possible or not is irrelevant.

[Loudly]

20. There is a much more common alternative to amending.

And that is to correctly interpret what's already in the document.

The American People would never repeal the 2A.

It can, however, be correctly interpreted for their own good.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. Current case law is not in your favor.

And that is to correctly interpret what's already in the document.

The American People would never repeal the 2A.

It can, however, be correctly interpreted for their own good.

It's hard not to interpret to mean any less than this: The citizens of the United States can keep and bear arms appropriate for military use so that they can engage in warfare if necessary.

Surely even you agree with that much?

Beyond this, it has also been interpreted to mean that people can use such weapons not only for military service but also for personal defense, hunting, and sporting purposes, and even carry them on their person with special permission in most cases.

Case law is on the gun-rights side, and getting more liberal all the time. If you are waiting for a reversal in this you will probably be waiting a long time.

[glacierbay]

26. Your phrase "for their own good"

scares the hell out of me. Haven't dictators throughout history used that same phrase?

[Loudly]

32. The American People have repeatedly been dragged kicking and screaming into modernity.

For their own good.

[holdencaufield]

33. There's a word ...

... for dragging people against their will into your way of thinking.

Can anyone remember what that word is?

[Loudly]

34. Progress?

Shelly v. Kraemer

Brown v. Board of Ed.

Griswold v. Connecticut

Miranda v. Arizona

[beevul]

35. An oldie but a goodie..."The modernity shuffle".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=kicking+and+screaming+into+modernity&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search%21&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. for their own good ??

lord, I hate that phrase. you can bet your bottom dollar that whatever comes after it will NOT be good at all.

you sound like a snake oil salesman peddling cheap gin disquised as a cure-all Tonic.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

37. Who are You to decide what -I- need to do for my "own good" ??

fuck that noise.

you ain't my daddy and you don't pay my bills.

what kind of crap are you trying to sell?

stinks to the High Heavens.

[Oneka]

13. Mooted =\= repealed

The bill of rights,as part of the constitution,
does not empower anyone. The bill of rights limits power, governmental power.

[Loudly]

15. I don't disagree that that's true.

But those limits change.

Domestic tranquility and the general welfare depend on it.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. They do not change without Constitutional amendment. n/t

[Loudly]

22. Exception: The Courts.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Thus far the courts have been very friendly to firearm rights.

This could change, of course, but it does not seem likely any time soon.

[PavePusher]

29. Untrue.

The Courts can not declare a Amendment to be "null and void".

Not even close.

[spin]

30. Some view firearms ownership as " a "right" of access to the means of convenient murder." ...

and some wish to have a means of self defense against such people and often do so successfully.

This is the point that you chose to ignore. In order to understand any problem you need to look at both sides of the equation.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. And a genuine right to exercise it under the 2nd amendment.

[Loudly]

18. If it weren't for the inherent problem:

No such "right" can exist consistently with our genuine rights.

[Atypical Liberal]

21. Sure it can.

No such "right" can exist consistently with our genuine rights.

Sure it can. I have owned firearms my entire life and they have coexisted quite nicely with all my other rights.

And I reject the notion that the second amendment is not a "genuine" right. Any more than the right not to have government troops live in my house is not a "genuine" right.

You seem to think that because the second amendment can get people killed it's not a genuine right and is incompatible with other rights.

Look at what the first amendment did to Chris Stevens. Do you think we should curtail the first amendment because it got people killed, too?

[Loudly]

23. The 1A didn't kill the ambassador. An armed mob did.

And what you have enjoyed all these years along with your genuine rights is a political indulgence of your access to guns and ammunition.

A highly influential and unduly popular political indulgence of a particular personal kink.

That's all it is and could ever be.

[glacierbay]

27. And it wasn't a gun that killed the Ambassador

it was smoke inhalation.

[Atypical Liberal]

28. LOL - "political indulgence"

The 1A didn't kill the ambassador. An armed mob did.

And what inspired that armed mob? The first-amendment-protect religious ramblings of an idiot. The person or persons responsible for making that film with the specific intent of inflaming Muslims is, as far as I'm concerned, just as responsible for the deaths as the armed mob is. Just like a person yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

And what you have enjoyed all these years along with your genuine rights is a political indulgence of your access to guns and ammunition.


The second amendment was created just for people with your sort of attitude - that my rights can be considered a "political indulgence".

The Bill of Rights is not a political indulgence. No part of it is.

A highly influential and unduly popular political indulgence of a particular personal kink.

That's all it is and could ever be.

I can't believe a liberal could utter such things. That sounds just like the argument against gay marriage.

[ErikO]

36. Believe it

I've heard all kinds of interesting things come out of fellow Liberals when their gun fear kills their thought process. Sometimes it's harder to convince a liberal that gun owners can be liberals than it is to convince fellow gun owners that liberals can be gun owners.

Erik Olsen
Director of Merchandising - The Liberal Gun Club
Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. No points for you Shares!

[liberallibral]

4. ^^^^^ Proud Liberal Gun Owner Here!!!

[Mandell]

40. Another owner...

...and I live in John Dingle's district, who has been getting reelected as his father was from a very mixed district that has been increasingly pushed farther into the Republican suburbs every reapportionment. For 56 years now he's been able to hold on to the office, and a large part of that is his support for 2a issues in an area where the hunting population is large. I believe that if 2a issues were taken away from the NRA, GOP, TP and their spawn then they would be fatally weakened and we could get on with fixing what screwed up in this country. It a huge energizer for the Republican base, and for some reason Liberals and Progressives fail to understand they continuously revitalize the Rethugs base for them on this issue.

[Xela]

41. LGC member

Love the place. Great people too

Xela

[Straw Man]

42. Shares United: the zombie walks!

What is this, your third incarnation? Fourth? Shtick never changes, though.