Skip to main content

View Diary: Healthy Minds, Healthy Bodies: 10 Lessons from Guns-in-NPs Fiasco (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Or, just possibly, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas

    it may be that gun control is no longer a definitional issue for liberals.

    It may be the case that one can both be a liberal and support the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment.

    It may be the case that one can be a liberal and place gun rights on the same plane of protection from government interference that the rights of speech, publishing, assembly and worship occupy today.

    It may be the case...

    Because I call myself a liberal, and I am as much an absolutist with respect to the 2nd Amendment as I am regarding the 1st.

    --Shannon

    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

    by Leftie Gunner on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:16:10 PM PDT

    •  You are one of those in my mind when (0+ / 0-)

      I commented on the philosophical gun rights people.  Most sane people (and the SCOTUS) agree that there are a few limits on the First Amendment, e.g., there is no right to cry "fire!" in a crowded theater; the Second Amendment should likewise have reasonable limitations, and those should include national parks.  I understand that you are an absolutist and thus won't agree.

      I will agree with you on one point though -- gun control is no longer a definitional point for liberals.  We lost.  We lost at some point in the 1990s when the shall-issue-permit laws prevailed (see map above).  

      fka indigoblueskies

      by RLMiller on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:44:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A minor point of contention... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas

        I support restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights to exactly the same degree that I support restrictions on 1st Amendment rights.

        No more, and no less.

        This, to me, should have always been the liberal position.

        My quick rule of thumb is this:

        For any proposed gun control law, substitute the words "book" or "vote", as appropriate by context, for the word "gun". If you'd still support the law, then go ahead. If not, then not.

        Basically, I don't rank my rights.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:58:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Better rule for me would be: (0+ / 0-)

          substitute "wilderness" for "gun."  I'm probably garbling your syntax, but I think the translation would look like this: "No restrictions on gun rights development in wilderness.  No means No, d@mmit!"

          I respect your views but still do not agree on this particular issue.  One reason is that NPs have some development/human intrusion in them already, mostly in the touristy sections; so I'll tolerate some development/human intrusion but expect others to tolerate some restrictions on guns.  

          fka indigoblueskies

          by RLMiller on Tue May 26, 2009 at 08:30:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  There are currently more than a few limits (0+ / 0-)

        on firearms. NICS background check, felons can't own, has to be transferred through an FFL if you're transferring between states, handgun registration in certain states, longarm registration in certain states (I believe California for one), I'm with LG on this:

        For any proposed gun control law, substitute the words "book" or "vote", as appropriate by context, for the word "gun". If you'd still support the law, then go ahead. If not, then not.

        Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.00, -3.79

        by KVoimakas on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:52:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site