TexasCHLforum.com

This is an older article from 2008, written by a liberal, posting at the Daily Kos, an ultra-leftist website. Warning up front, it is not ALL profanity, but it does contain a couple of choice words, and the author is definitely a "Bush-hater." Never the less, it is a very well argued essay on why liberals should embrace the 2nd Amendment, and believe it or not, he believes in embracing it for the exact same reasons that we do. If you have liberal friends who need persuading, I would print this out and hand it to them, and only after they've agreed to read it should you agree to discuss it; because you can explain to them that although liberals and conservatives can disagree on matters of policy in government, the points made in this article are things that all liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on. He breaks it down into 5 parts. The first two deal with individual rights and liberty. The second two parts debunk popular liberal arguments against guns. And the 5th part gives the REAL reason for why we have a 2nd Amendment.

You might actually make some conversions.....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/2 ... -Amendment
Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment
by Kaili Joy Gray
MON APR 21, 2008

Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization.

I know liberal couples who give each other pocket size copies of the Constitution for Christmas.

Ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they will invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."

There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

So.

Liberals love the Constitution. They especially love the Bill of Rights. They love all the Amendments.

Except for one: the Second Amendment.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally.......

{SNIP}.....

No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights......

{SNIP}.....

No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties......

{SNIP}.....

No. 3: It's not 1776 anymore......

{SNIP}.....

No. 4: It's not like you can use it anyway......

{SNIP}.....

No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.

Consider the words of that most forward thinking of Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.....

If more liberals thought this way, I would not worry so much about the future of the nation. Anyway, I highly recommend this article.

Hope you don't mind TAM, but I am going to be passing this along. I think the writer spoke very well and hit all the buttons regarding the red hearings used by the Anti's...

I'm sorry, but after long and prayerful consideration, I've concluded that anyone who can be described as a "Bush-hater" is not fit company in polite society, likely suffers from moral hydrophobia, may constitute a danger to himself and those around him, and ought to be avoided, shunned, at every opportunity.

I've met El Diablo, and dined with him, and with his dad. I imagine a great many here have as well, being Texans. I understand political disagreement, that it is impossible for a President to act so as to please all of the constituents, choices must be made etc. Fine. But the level of vitriol that has been directed at these fine men, along with Dick Cheney, is stupefying, and speaks extremely ill of those who engage in it.

There is not a person among us who wouldn't be thrilled to death to have our children grow up to be like these two men, to have the record of accomplishment over many decades. Only in America in these perverse times can a person who graduated from both Yale and Harvard, served in the military flying the most dangerous airplane in the AF inventory at the time, run a variety of businesses, including a major league baseball team which built a new stadium with public approval, raised a family to responsible adulthood, served as Governor of one of the most popular and successful states, and was re-elected, then served two terms as President be regarded as a malicious dummy, especially while Bill J. Clinton is regarded as virtually a national hero.

Usually someone who regards the Second amendment with respect ought to be a welcome friend, but not people like this. They need to examine their views and get them straightened out to have any persuasive value on other aspects of life.

Sorry for the drift.

DevilDawg wrote:Hope you don't mind TAM, but I am going to be passing this along. I think the writer spoke very well and hit all the buttons regarding the red hearings used by the Anti's...

Absolutely use it. I posted it hoping that people would do just that!

JALLEN wrote:I'm sorry, but after long and prayerful consideration, I've concluded that anyone who can be described as a "Bush-hater" is not fit company in polite society, likely suffers from moral hydrophobia, may constitute a danger to himself and those around him, and ought to be avoided, shunned, at every opportunity.

I've met El Diablo, and dined with him, and with his dad. I imagine a great many here have as well, being Texans. I understand political disagreement, that it is impossible for a President to act so as to please all of the constituents, choices must be made etc. Fine. But the level of vitriol that has been directed at these fine men, along with Dick Cheney, is stupefying, and speaks extremely ill of those who engage in it.

There is not a person among us who wouldn't be thrilled to death to have our children grow up to be like these two men, to have the record of accomplishment over many decades. Only in America in these perverse times can a person who graduated from both Yale and Harvard, served in the military flying the most dangerous airplane in the AF inventory at the time, run a variety of businesses, including a major league baseball team which built a new stadium with public approval, raised a family to responsible adulthood, served as Governor of one of the most popular and successful states, and was re-elected, then served two terms as President be regarded as a malicious dummy, especially while Bill J. Clinton is regarded as virtually a national hero.

Usually someone who regards the Second amendment with respect ought to be a welcome friend, but not people like this. They need to examine their views and get them straightened out to have any persuasive value on other aspects of life.

Sorry for the drift.

JALLEN, I understand, and I even agree that the level of vitriol directed against those men is beyond the pale. I would go even further and say that, what Bush II created in DHS and TSA was transformed from a well-intentioned but legitimately questionable in execution attempt by Bush/Republicans to keep the country safe, into an overarching and intrusive monster of subjugation by democrats, having more to do with repressing our people than with keeping them safe. Democrats unionized DHS and TSA, and on and on and on.... Further, I have stated on these pages that I think Bush II and his father are really fine men of the highest moral fiber, and having a deep abiding faith in God, and I admire them both for that.

But that said, unless you're prepared to bring leftist democrats before firing squads—which nobody in good conscience can support—we HAVE TO deal with them as fellow citizens. They vote. They are wrong on so many things, but they vote, and they have the same rights that we espouse. So when one of them makes an impassioned argument in support of the 2nd Amendment, I can rise above my fundamental disagreement with that person on so many other things, in order to use HIS arguments in defense of the 2nd Amendment to persuade OTHERS who are otherwise of the same mind as he is but hate guns.

Let's face it..... when prominent liberal thinkers are saying things like gun owners are all white racists who need to calm down, there are TWO kinds of people whose input can be very valuable to protect and extend our freedoms under the 2nd Amendment: 1) people of color who say the same things we do; and liberals who say the same things we do. If you approach a liberal and try to reason with him on the RKBA, he can and most likely will counter with an entire refutation of everything conservative, including the RKBA. But when an ardent liberal argues for the RKBA, for all the right reasons, the person whom you are trying to convince cannot throw down the conservative boogieman card. When a person of color argues for the RKBA, the person whom you are trying to convince cannot thrown the race card.

WE are today facing the imminent eradication of our rights under the 2nd Amendment. I am not willing to over look a powerful tool in helping to make my case to someone who is anti-gun, just because the author is opposed to me on other things.......not if it will help to make someone change their mind who might otherwise dismiss out of hand anything I say because I am a white conservative. This is the equivalent of allying with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Nasty business, but this is where we find ourselves. If we cannot find allies in the defense of the 2nd Amendment on the other side of the aisle, even if we hate their hatred of Bush, then the 2nd Amendment will ultimately end up on the ash-heap.

If you don't want that, then you need to learn to hold your nose and use such tools if they will further the cause. I value my sacred honor as much as you do, but I would consider myself dishonorable if I deliberately ignored a valuable tool in that defense, and we lost.

That's just my 2¢, and not intended to offend.

The Annoyed Man wrote: That's just my 2¢, and not intended to offend.

And it does not.

I admit it is tempting, any port in a storm and all that, but having lived out here in this socialist hellhole all these years, and heard and read so many hate-filled rants, harangues and diatribes about El Diablo, and measuring the level of bile and vilification directed at him, I've had it. I have washed my hands of these folks, like skin-heads, KKK'ers, and doper dirtball hippies.

I don't like them, I don't trust them. I consider them like lepers, except I pity lepers who can't help what they endure, and these dirtballs can. I wouldn't line them up and shoot them, but I am a bit surprised Barbara Bush hasn't. She must have the patience of a Saint and more besides, all the mean, vicious, unprincipled things that have been said about her kid. I bet she wishes she could!

JALLEN wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: That's just my 2¢, and not intended to offend.

And it does not.

I admit it is tempting, any port in a storm and all that, but having lived out here in this socialist hellhole all these years, and heard and read so many hate-filled rants, harangues and diatribes about El Diablo, and measuring the level of bile and vilification directed at him, I've had it. I have washed my hands of these folks, like skin-heads, KKK'ers, and doper dirtball hippies.

I don't like them, I don't trust them. I consider them like lepers, except I pity lepers who can't help what they endure, and these dirtballs can. I wouldn't line them up and shoot them, but I am a bit surprised Barbara Bush hasn't. She must have the patience of a Saint and more besides, all the mean, vicious, unprincipled things that have been said about her kid. I bet she wishes she could!

Don't forget, I moved here from California just 6 years ago. I'm 60 now, so I had a lifetime of exactly that kind of nonsense; and I know quite viscerally exactly what you mean.

"If citizens feel they need arms for protection, then they can hire government approved armed guards just like everybody else."

- Some rich person

The Annoyed Man wrote: Don't forget, I moved here from California just 6 years ago. I'm 60 now, so I had a lifetime of exactly that kind of nonsense; and I know quite viscerally exactly what you mean.

I'm sorry to hear that. I wish I had. Six years ago I was healthy, a heck of a lot more wealthy, but I just had to stay and try to finish a couple of development projects. What a disaster that turned out to be!

Anyway, you know what I mean, and I know what you mean. Great minds thinking alike is no bad thing!

JALLEN

Thank you!

The Annoyed Man wrote:This is an older article from 2008, written by a liberal, posting at the Daily Kos, an ultra-leftist website. Warning up front, it is not ALL profanity, but it does contain a couple of choice words, and the author is definitely a "Bush-hater." Never the less, it is a very well argued essay on why liberals should embrace the 2nd Amendment, and believe it or not, he believes in embracing it for the exact same reasons that we do. If you have liberal friends who need persuading, I would print this out and hand it to them, and only after they've agreed to read it should you agree to discuss it; because you can explain to them that although liberals and conservatives can disagree on matters of policy in government, the points made in this article are things that all liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on. He breaks it down into 5 parts. The first two deal with individual rights and liberty. The second two parts debunk popular liberal arguments against guns. And the 5th part gives the REAL reason for why we have a 2nd Amendment.

You might actually make some conversions.....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/2 ... -Amendment
Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment
by Kaili Joy Gray
MON APR 21, 2008

Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization.

I know liberal couples who give each other pocket size copies of the Constitution for Christmas.

Ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they will invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."

There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

So.

Liberals love the Constitution. They especially love the Bill of Rights. They love all the Amendments.

Except for one: the Second Amendment.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally.......

{SNIP}.....

No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights......

{SNIP}.....

No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties......

{SNIP}.....

No. 3: It's not 1776 anymore......

{SNIP}.....

No. 4: It's not like you can use it anyway......

{SNIP}.....

No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.

Consider the words of that most forward thinking of Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.....

If more liberals thought this way, I would not worry so much about the future of the nation. Anyway, I highly recommend this article.

The thing is, this guy is not really a liberal in the sense of how "liberal" is applied today. He sounds like more of a classical liberal. There are very few real liberals today. Most of those we call liberals are just tribalists. Their tribe is the Democratic Party. They identify with, speak in the language of, and vote with their tribe. It sounds less primitive to say "I'm a Democrat" or a "Liberal," rather than a tribe member, but it amounts to the same thing.

They don't really care about the Constitution....and in fact, it would be impossible for them to care because they're collectivists and The Constitution is based on the rights of the individual. They care about what their tribal chiefs tell them is good for the tribe. Hence, when Bush was eviscerating parts of the Constitution, they spoke up because their tribal leaders approved; and now that the Great Chief Medicine Man of their tribe is ruling over us, it doesn't matter that The One has gone further than Bush dreamed of, and tramples the law and The Constitution with impunity, because their tribe is in power.

One of the reasons the tribalists hate the 2nd Amendment, is because tribalists are collectivists, and out of all that's written in The Constitution, the 2nd Amendment strikes deepest at the heart of collectivism.