Liberal case for gun rights
In the NYT. Via, well, everybody. I was going to comment on a lot of it but Kevin already did. Randy Barnett has a lot more too.
I will note that it has taken a couple of decades to get people to realize that the collective rights mythology is a load of horse shit.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Doesn’t the word “liberal” derive from liberty? True “liberals” should support the most basic right and choice to acquire, keep and carry the means of self-defense just as much as they support all other enumerated rights of the Bill of Rights and those not enumerated but included in the 9th Amendment.
Also IF the 2nd Amendment sentence is read by the rules of English grammar, it begins with a subordinate clause, ” A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” followed by the main or independent clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The subordinate clause is simply a preamble or explanatory, and is in no way restrictive in its meaning to the main or INDEPENDENT clause which determines the main meaning of the sentence.
If one were to insist that a State militia were somehow restrictive of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it would have to be admitted that since the Bill of Rights were addressed to the. Federal Government, that ALL federal gun laws would be unconstitional and illegal. That should be true anyway since the Preamble of the Bill of Rights called them “restrictive” of the government, particularly the Federal Government and “declaratory” of THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. Those words mean what they say in plain English, that is, according to dictionary meanings in the context of English grammar.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
“Liberal” used to mean that, before the term was co-opted by the “Progressives” – read: “socialists.” Now “liberal” means “collectivist,” and collectivists cannot allow the cogs in the machine to have personal weapons and practice self-defense. Why? Because those who are more equal than the rest of us understand that if we can come after those who wish to criminally harm or rob us, we can come after those who want to do it under color of law as well.