Have MSNBC become too liberal !

[Raidenx]

We don't dislike the second amendment, we're just not under the delusion that it can't have regulations placed on it. I'm not saying you believe that personally, but that's the vibe I'm getting from many posters in this board and many people I talk to in real life. I'd also like to know why abolishing gun free zones would increase safety. More training I can understand.

Data suggests gun free zones are more likely to be attacked and they're full of soft targets. It's also disingenuous to say many progressives dont dislike the second amendment when they're the ones who propse the harshest of regulations on it. The only people who want It gone are nearly always progressives as well. Obviously not all progressives dislike the second amendment. They just seem to be the ones who most often despise gun owners and the individual right to bear arms. All I want to know is why they want to limit or take away that right when they defend so many others and hate regulations on them.

Like, if I wanted to enhance safety I would require training, background checks, remove gun free zones, and require safe handling practices in the home. None of those would reduce freedom and would help much more than any arbitrary ban would. Most of the problem is because of the drug war, poverty, and mental illness.

[Wells]

Funny, again, the progressive caucus doesn't "want it gone". You're tilting at windmills.

[downnola]

Yeah, but they're not libertarians. I'm just wondering why people's eye saying libertarianism is inconsistent when it's probably the most consistent major ideology in America. It's just about non-violence, respecting freedom both social and economic, and decentralization of authority both governmental and corporate. The only difference is where libertarians draw their lines. Some are more right (like Murray rothbard or Ron Paul), and some are more left (like penn jillette or Ralph Nader).

Libertarianism actually has roots in anarchist ideology, which is pretty anti-capitalist and anti-private property in nature. I'd say libertarianism is inconsistent because it covers a wide range of ideologies left and right, but the common theme is they're all for freedom in one way or another. I don't think that's a bad thing to be honest.

[Garnier Fructis]

Data suggests gun free zones are more likely to be attacked and they're full of soft targets. It's also disingenuous to say many progressives dont dislike the second amendment when they're the ones who propse the harshest of regulations on it. The only people who want It gone are nearly always progressives as well. Obviously not all progressives dislike the second amendment. They just seem to be the ones who most often despise gun owners and the individual right to bear arms. All I want to know is why they want to limit or take away that right when they defend so many others and hate regulations on them.

Like, if I wanted to enhance safety I would require training, background checks, remove gun free zones, and require safe handling practices in the home. None of those would reduce freedom and would help much more than any arbitrary ban would. Most of the problem is because of the drug war, poverty, and mental illness.

I'll take your word on the data since I don't feel like actually reading through any reports at the moment, but I do take issue with your statement that what I said was disingenuous. It can't be denied that we have people who totally want to remove the 2nd Amendment, but supporting regulations does not automatically exclude one from supporting the 2nd Amendment, nor does it mean one automatically hates it. As a whole we don't want the removal of any rights, but like I said, we're not under the assumption that rights can't have limitations placed upon them. I'm sure everyone except for that one guy on this forum will agree that limitations are necessary on the first amendment, and that's arguably the most important right we have.

[Raidenx]

Its not functionality that Heller cares about. Its common use for weapon type. So Heller allows you to ban a specific set of hand guns so long as there are still hand guns available to use for the things you use hand guns for.

Same with rifles. You can ban certain guns so long as there are still rifles you can use for what rifles are for.

I got the interpretation from reading these

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...073953432.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...mendment-allow

---------- Post added 2013-04-20 at 07:58 PM ----------

Funny, again, the progressive caucus doesn't "want it gone". You're tilting at windmills.

Are you going to tell me how they're fierce defenders of the second amendment and therfore individual freedoms concerning guns or not?

Seems to me they pick and choose which freedoms they like, like republicans.

[Wells]

Those are op-eds.

[Raidenx]

I'll take your word on the data since I don't feel like actually reading through any reports at the moment, but I do take issue with your statement that what I said was disingenuous. It can't be denied that we have people who totally want to remove the 2nd Amendment, but supporting regulations does not automatically exclude one from supporting the 2nd Amendment, nor does it mean one automatically hates it. As a whole we don't want the removal of any rights, but like I said, we're not under the assumption that rights can't have limitations placed upon them. I'm sure everyone except for that one guy on this forum will agree that limitations are necessary on the first amendment, and that's arguably the most important right we have.

Fine, maybe ill frame it this way: why do progressives profess to be the paragons of Individual freedom (at least social freedom) but want more regulations and limitations on the second amendment than anyone else? Why do they have problems with that and want more restrictions on it than the other enumerated rights? What makes the secon amendment distasteful to so many progressives?

---------- Post added 2013-04-20 at 08:04 PM ----------

Those are op-eds.

Okay? I've seen legal experts say the same thing (gun control thread has a piece form respected law review site) but you won't watch those videos. You'll dismiss those too.

[Wells]

Fine, maybe ill frame it this way: why do progressives profess to be the paragons of Individual freedom (at least social freedom) but want more regulations and limitations on the second amendment than anyone else?

Because all rights exist in balance and progressives feel an under-regulated second amendment presents too great a hazard to the more important right to life.

They don't dislike the second amendment at all. They just recognize and understand that you have to sometimes restrict certain rights to preserve others.

[Raidenx]

We should note that first amendment limitations don't actually stop people from speaking.

[Wells]

We should note that first amendment limitations don't actually stop people from speaking.

Much harder to restrict speech actions that it is to restrict commerce, as you can't do so without restricting bodily autonomy.

[Sky High]

Fine, maybe ill frame it this way: why do progressives profess to be the paragons of Individual freedom (at least social freedom) but want more regulations and limitations on the second amendment than anyone else? Why do they have problems with that and want more restrictions on it than the other enumerated rights? What makes the secon amendment distasteful to so many progressives?

it's antiquated. back when it was written there was no such thing as a professional american military. which of course is not the case any more. it was made so that the country could have the means to defend itself from a foreign attack but not have a standing army in the mean time. so this is where we are. either tweak the amendment with bills which again as far as 91% of the US population is concerned is in regards to universal background checks, OR disband the army. which one is more plausible and/or tasteful to you?

[Raidenx]

Because all rights exist in balance and progressives feel an under-regulated second amendment presents too great a hazard to the more important right to life.

They don't dislike the second amendment at all. They just recognize and understand that you have to sometimes restrict certain rights to preserve others.

"They don't dislike the second amendment at all"

Come on now, really? I've been called a baby killer supporter so many times since newtown I can't even count. I still want to know what makes the second amendment so different. If they wanted to balance rights they would support things that would actually work and had empirical data to support them. As an anecdotal example I watch the Young Turks because I agree with Cwnk Uygr a lot, but he clearly doesn't like guns or gun owners. He's one of the most reasonable progressives in the media.

If seems like the second amendment is personal, and to progressives it's personal to the effect where they tend to be more against it than for it.

[Verain]

What we do probably know is that pretty much every "Libertarian" on this board is full of hypocrisy.

Because we are all Republicans to you. Not = team blue, MUST EQUAL TEAM RED


Republicans use the mirror logic of that btw.

[Cthulhu 2020]

it's antiquated. back when it was written there was no such thing as a professional american military. which of course is not the case any more. it was made so that the country could have the means to defend itself from a foreign attack but not have a standing army in the mean time. so this is where we are. either tweak the amendment with bills which again as far as 91% of the US population is concerned is in regards to universal background checks, OR disband the army. which one is more plausible and/or tasteful to you?

I also learned something very interesting in a historical context from one of our posters, the right to bear arms was also primarily considered upon for the ability to prevent slave uprisings.

[Hooked]

Heres a few wise quotes from people who understood what can happen when power is left unchecked.

Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
— Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857

Political corruption begins with every voter who votes his pocketbook instead of for what's good for the country. There is little difference between the selling of his vote by an elected official and the selling of his vote by a voter, to whatever candidate promises him some benefit.
— Jon Roland, speech during his campaign for Congress, 1974

In politics nothing gets done until you first create a channel of corruption.
— Jesse Cuellar, cynical observer of the political scene, 1982

When Hitler came for the Jews... I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.
— Pastor Martin Niemoller, Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, vol. 114, p. 31636.

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evilminded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
— Justice Louis D. Brandeis dissenting,Olmstead v. United States

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
— Voltarine de Cleyre

Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of "emergency". It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And "emergency" became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains. — Herbert Hoover.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Because we are all Republicans to you. Not = team blue, MUST EQUAL TEAM RED


Republicans use the mirror logic of that btw.

If two years ago someone considered themselves a Republican, and are now proclaiming themselves Libertarian, chances are good that they're more like Republican Lite than Libertarian. Voting Ron Paul in 2012 doesn't suddenly make someone Libertarian

Far too many "Libertarians" are spouting Fox News rhetoric to be taken seriously as Libertarians.

[Wells]

"They don't dislike the second amendment at all"

Come on now, really? I've been called a baby killer supporter so many times since newtown I can't even count. I still want to know what makes the second amendment so different. If they wanted to balance rights they would support things that would actually work and had empirical data to support them. As an anecdotal example I watch the Young Turks because I agree with Cwnk Uygr a lot, but he clearly doesn't like guns or gun owners. He's one of the most reasonable progressives in the media.

If seems like the second amendment is personal, and to progressives it's personal to the effect where they tend to be more against it than for it.

Yet again, their political establishment, as much as one exists, does not oppose the right to own guns.

[Raidenx]

it's antiquated. back when it was written there was no such thing as a professional american military. which of course is not the case any more. it was made so that the country could have the means to defend itself from a foreign attack but not have a standing army in the mean time. so this is where we are. either tweak the amendment with bills which again as far as 91% of the US population is concerned is in regards to universal background checks, OR disband the army. which one is more plausible and/or tasteful to you?

So what if you think it's antiquated? If I thought smoking weed was antiquated it wouldn't matter. People should be able to keep and bear arms if they aren't threats to society. You want to amend the constitution than go ahad and try. If the country thought it was antiquated it would be gone.

---------- Post added 2013-04-20 at 08:15 PM ----------

I also learned something very interesting in a historical context from one of our posters, the right to bear arms was also primarily considered upon for the ability to prevent slave uprisings.

Yes the first forms of gun control were racist. This is a fact.

[MoanaLisa]

Why do progressives profess to be the paragons of Individual freedom (at least social freedom) but want more regulations and limitations on the second amendment than anyone else?

I'm not all that certain that they do as a whole but in an era where mass killings with guns seems to be a frequent thing in the news there's some validity to having a discussion about the question of when do so many weapons in an environment begin to infringe on others social freedoms: freedom to feel safe shopping in a mall; the freedom to feel safe when viewing a movie or when attending a school.

I don't know the answers to those questions as a legal thing but I do believe that that's a conversation that a society needs to have if conditions warrant it. As well, there's now a considerable amount of factual evidence to show that restrictions on gun ownership in countries other than those named the United States do lower the level of killing on a per capita basis. You can compare the murder rates of two relatively large cities that are not separated by a lot of geography and see it for yourself: Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. They are both relatively low but over time Vancouver, B.C. tends lower than Seattle as do most Canadian cities versus their across-the-border counterparts.

I'm not advocating for anything other than a reasonable discussion in which people actually listen to one another and very definitely shut out the voices of those like Wayne LaPierre who seems to be more an advocate for the gun manufacturing industry than the actual people he's supposed to represent who are members of the NRA.

What this has to do with MSNBC is another question entirely so I'll make a glancing blow at the topic and propose that that sort of conversation is more likely to happen there than anywhere else on cable TV at the moment.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yet again, their political establishment, as much as one exists, does not oppose the right to own guns.

I'm personally getting tired of the "You want to take all of our guns away and abolish the second amendment!",
"No I don't, I just want more common sense gun control and the NRA to stop knee capping the ATF."
"Whatever, constitution hater."

And yes, before someone throws this strawman out there, it IS just as bad as the "You must be racist if you hate gun control" from some of our more extreme lefties.