So I've read the FP article by Angry Mouse, and some other diaries about why Liberals should hate the Second Amendment, and I wanted to humbly submit that there are two separate debates going on here, and that a compromise is perhaps possible.
One is about constitutional rights and whether they deserve our absolute support, and the other is about whether the Second Amendment is substantially a good right for people to have. I don't see why you have to be pro-gun (or anti-gun) on both debates - I think you can be pro-gun on the former question, and anti-gun on the latter.
In the interests of transparency, I don't have a particular dog in this fight - I'm British (most guns are essentially banned since the Dunblane tragedy), and I have recently stopped living in New York, so little of this affects me. With those caveats I hope you don't mind me commenting anyways.
Part of this is thought experiment, but I'd love to get your thoughts.
So, cards on the table - I largely agreed with Angry Mouse's diary (though I'd suggest that comparisons of gun ownership rights with the right to be free from slavery was ill-chosen and in poor taste), and think that Liberals are frequently hypocritical about the Second Amendment rights that citizens have.
I agree with Angry Mouse with respect to her legal philosophy.
But I also think there is some is some fair criticism in many of the responses - I share their lack of understanding as to why people need or want to own firearms, recognise the huge utility in prohibiting citizens from owning and carrying guns, and think that America would probably be a happier place if the Second Amendment had never been written.
I agree with the detractors with respect to their political positions.
So how to I reconcile this?
Very simply, I think Angry Mouse's points are valid as they relate to our (Liberals') reactions to 2nd Amendment court cases and legislation. Like it or not (and I don't) the 2nd Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights, and the diminishment, undermining, or systematic attempts at ignoring any given legal right is a threat to all legally-granted rights.
I don't believe in natural rights (legal positivist) and certainly not a God-given right to own a tool (even if it weren't a tool designed to kill and facilitate violent revolution), but I acknowledge (as I'm sure we all do) that there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that it is legally valid.
As long as that right exists, I think Liberals are wrong not to defend that right. It is not the case that all rights granted by the Bill of Rights need defending equally (the 3rd Amendment seems pretty safe from violations or 'activist judges'!) and I for one would spend much more effort defending the First Amendment than the Second, but where the Second comes under attack, I think Angry Mouse's argument holds and Liberals should side with RKBA activists (excepting restrictions considered consensual - no shouting 'Fire' in theatres, or keeping private nuclear weapons).
However, just because I will defend all existing rights in the Constitution, it doesn't stop me campaigning for one of them to be removed. Politically, I support a repeal of the 2nd Amendment to be followed by the restriction of gun ownership (with grandfather rights and amnesties to remove guns from urban areas).
So - campaign for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, but acknowledge its current legal status and defend it as long as it remains a constitutional right. Is that an impossible position? I don't think it is.
Just because a right exists in the constitution, it does not mean you have to agree with it - even if I think you should support it being enforced. If an Amendment to the Constitution suddenly guaranteed the right to play deafening music at all hours, I would campaign for it to be repealed (I hate loud music) but I wouldn't cheer and support legal means (congressional act or court order) of banning loud music as long it was a constitutional right. To do so would threaten all rights, including ones I politically support. I'd have to support my noisy neighbours if they were threatened by the law for playing loud music, even though I was also campaigning for a change in the Constitution that would make (in the future) such legal threats valid.
By way of example, I imagine few on here had anything good to say about George W Bush, but few denied (at least after 2004) that he was legally and officially the President of the United States. You campaigned against him, opposed him, shouted obscenities at him - but if someone tried to assassinate him (failing) and used as their legal defence against the crime (real or imagined) of threatening the life of the President that he wasn't really the President, would you support that defence? I suspect most would not. You could support the recognition that Bush was the President and had all due entitlements thereof, without liking that he was President or wanting that to stay the same for too long.
For all the talk about original intent of the Framers, one position has always seemed clear to me. They didn't intend for the mere passage of time to invalidate any of their provisions - as much as I'd like to see guns become less prevalent, I simply never found the argument "but the Framers never envisioned semi-automatic weapons" compelling. The Framers knew that parts of the Constitution would become obscelete or wrongheaded over time as society changed, which is exactly why they included an Amendments Clause. If something becomes anachronistic (slavery, prohibition) it can be abolished in a clearly-defined process. With the amendment process so clear, there is no excuse for us supporting means of dubious legality to undermine a constitutional right - if we are honest, it is an act of frustration at our inability to get that right legally repealed by way of a Constitutional Amendment.
The Constitution is not sacred writ. You could be a great constitutionalist, and oppose every one of the Bill of Rights (as a matter of political principle), yet defend each of those rights when they were under legal challenge (whilst simultaneously campaigning for their repeal, so you wouldn't have to defend them).
If we want to see America adopt a more sensible approach to guns, then the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, and that campaign will obviously be run by liberals who favour rational public policy, many of whom live here at Daily Kos.
However, until we are successful in repealing the 2nd Amendment, then using legislation and the courts to undermine a right with which we disagree is dangerous and illiberal behaviour. It weakens our claim of the moral highground when authoritarians of the right attack every other right by introducing legislation and packing the courts with their judges.
So that's my attempt at a compromise position. Support nothing (legislative or judicial) that undermines any constitutional right, including RKBA, but campaign for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Thoughts welcome.