# An interesting blog: a liberal finally gets it



## Grenadier (Oct 4, 2007)

A good read, for those who like to see people finally realize the truth:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/a-liberals-lame.html



> *A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all*
> 
> *By Jonathan Turley*
> This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.
> ...


----------



## crushing (Oct 4, 2007)

I realize the wording of the 2nd Amendment can be confusing, especially when taken out of the context of the Bill of Rights.  But when it is within it's context, how can it really be considered anything other than an individual right?  I never understood the leap it took to make the 2nd Amendment a way of granting the government more control.

Also, it's not like finding an eighth continent, it's more like finally realizing that North American has been a continent all along.


----------



## tellner (Oct 4, 2007)

For liberals the Second is unspeakable?

Fair enough.

But no more "unspeakable" than the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth (thanks, Uncle Dick and Gonzo!), Ninth, Tenth and probably Third are to the "conservatives". I put that it quotes because the brand of barely-contained fascism going by the name of "conservatism" today would have given Henry Cabot Lodge and Barry Goldwater apoplexy.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 4, 2007)

I wouldn't categorize this guy as a liberal, even if he thinks he is.  He is a leftist.  There is nothing liberal or, for that matter, "progressive", about leftism.  And I wouldn't actually say he gets it.  It's more like he's decided that "the framers actually intended for individuals to own weapons, the fools".  He's still against it, it's just that he has the intellectual honesty to grudgingly admit that that's what they had in mind.  Which is refreshing in a leftist, really.

This guy "gets it" in the sense that a stopped watch gets the time right.  The difference is that a stopped watch will eventually get it right again.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 4, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> I wouldn't categorize this guy as a liberal, even if he thinks he is. He is a leftist. There is nothing liberal or, for that matter, "progressive", about leftism. And I wouldn't actually say he gets it. It's more like he's decided that "the framers actually intended for individuals to own weapons, the fools". He's still against it, it's just that he has the intellectual honesty to grudgingly admit that that's what they had in mind. Which is refreshing in a leftist, really.
> 
> This guy "gets it" in the sense that a stopped watch gets the time right. The difference is that a stopped watch will eventually get it right again.


 
Exactly. "Liberal" has become a "bad word" due to the extreme left wing philosophies they have developed. Much like conservative is geting twisted by the unpopular polices the Republicans have been cranking out. Todays "liberal" would have Thomas Jefferson throwing fits.


----------



## stone_dragone (Oct 4, 2007)

I read somewhere that the difference between a conservative ideal and a liberal ideal is about 25 years.


----------



## tellner (Oct 4, 2007)

stone_dragone said:


> I read somewhere that the difference between a conservative ideal and a liberal ideal is about 25 years.



Indeed. Back in the early 80s I supported Reagan. Then my eyes opened and I developed some critical faculties.


----------



## dungeonworks (Oct 11, 2007)

Why does a person have a need to be either liberal or conservative?  They both need to come to the middle and re-enter the REAL WORLD! LOL


----------



## thardey (Oct 11, 2007)

dungeonworks said:


> Why does a person have a need to be either liberal or conservative?  They both need to come to the middle and re-enter the REAL WORLD! LOL



Because the nature of our government leads to a two-party system, with extreme views on both ends as the most stable.

It's like having a bar spinning at a high rate of speed, balanced at the middle. A two-party system puts weights at either end of the bar, which, when spinning, gives it stability and predictability, even if the weights move around a little bit.

Now thing of the same bar with all the weight in the middle, if the weight moves a little bit, the whole thing gets off balance in a hurry. This is like a one-party system, or a traditional monarchy.

So, the fights between "left" and "right", are considered (according to this model), a good thing. 

It also allows the common man to be somewhere in the middle, AKA the real world!


----------



## dungeonworks (Oct 11, 2007)

thardey said:


> Because the nature of our government leads to a two-party system, with extreme views on both ends as the most stable.
> 
> It's like having a bar spinning at a high rate of speed, balanced at the middle. A two-party system puts weights at either end of the bar, which, when spinning, gives it stability and predictability, even if the weights move around a little bit.
> 
> ...



Where in the constitution does it even address political parties let alone having just two of them???  There are many more than two parties....Green Party, Libertarian Party, Natural Law Party...ect.

I'm not arguing one way or the other because I dislike both liberals and conservatives, nor am I kicking trees here....just curious.   Actually, I find myself feeling strongly for many issues on both of their agendas hence my centrist/left of center beliefs.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 11, 2007)

dungeonworks said:


> Why does a person have a need to be either liberal or conservative? They both need to come to the middle and re-enter the REAL WORLD! LOL


 
Because there are two kinds of people in the world:  those who dichotomize and those who don't.


----------



## thardey (Oct 11, 2007)

dungeonworks said:


> Where in the constitution does it even address political parties let alone having just two of them???  There are many more than two parties....Green Party, Libertarian Party, Natural Law Party...ect.
> 
> I'm not arguing one way or the other because I dislike both liberals and conservatives, nor am I kicking trees here....just curious.   Actually, I find myself feeling strongly for many issues on both of their agendas hence my centrist/left of center beliefs.



It doesn't. 

It's kind of like how the rules of cage fighting sort of lead to giving ground and pound an advantage. The way our constitution is written sort of works out to a two "major party" system. If the two major parties join together, then another one typically jumps up to oppose them. If three parties compete, one of them usually draws votes from the other, closest to it, while the third party isn't affected, and wins, even though it's not a majority.


----------



## dungeonworks (Oct 11, 2007)

thardey said:


> It doesn't.
> 
> It's kind of like how the rules of cage fighting sort of lead to giving ground and pound an advantage. The way our constitution is written sort of works out to a two "major party" system. If the two major parties join together, then another one typically jumps up to oppose them. If three parties compete, one of them usually draws votes from the other, closest to it, while the third party isn't affected, and wins, even though it's not a majority.



How can a third party's votes be considered stolen it that's what the voter supported with his/her vote?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 11, 2007)

Beacuse 3rd party politicians are "spoilers". The odds of them winning are slim to the extreme and just steal votes from the candidate who shares the same values and could possibly win. Ive got nothing against 3rd party voters though. Vote as you wish.


----------



## dungeonworks (Oct 12, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Beacuse 3rd party politicians are "spoilers". The odds of them winning are slim to the extreme and just steal votes from the candidate who shares the same values and could possibly win. Ive got nothing against 3rd party voters though. Vote as you wish.



So when I willingly cast a vote for a third party candidate I feel represents my needs, he/she is stealing from me?!?!?!?!?!?!?  The nerve of them!!!! LOL

Seriously though, I wonder how strong two major parties would be if everyone voted for who they wanted rather than the percieved lesser of two evils witht he best chance of winning.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 12, 2007)

dungeonworks said:


> So when I willingly cast a vote for a third party candidate I feel represents my needs, he/she is stealing from me?!?!?!?!?!?!? The nerve of them!!!! LOL
> 
> Seriously though, I wonder how strong two major parties would be if everyone voted for who they wanted rather than the percieved lesser of two evils witht he best chance of winning.


 
This is totally off topic, but third party votes have classically been used to express dissatisfaction with the main two parties, and sometimes has its place. An example in recent history would be in 2000 when Ralph Nader almost got enough of a % to get federal funding for the Green Party. This scared the crap out of the dems, and they brought "green party" issues to the table for debate that previously weren't discussed by the main parties before. We can look at a similar example with Ross Perot in 1992 (and Perot had much more of a chance of getting elected then Nader.

So, 3rd party votes have their place. But, fundamentally, you have to not care if the republican or democrate forerunner gets elected, as you ultimately are "throwing away" the vote to make a point (because your thrid party canidate is not likely going to get elected even by a close margin).


----------



## sirdarksol (Oct 12, 2007)

I would like to point out that not all liberals are ignorant of the Second Amendment. I most certainly am not. It's the source of a feeling that I have struggled to comprehend and put into words for the past ten years. I still cannot do it, though I can give little glimpses as to what this feeling is like for me.

Presuming one is willing to use lethal force (I am not, as killing is proscribed in the Ten Commandments), I have nothing against guns in particular. Rather, it is the way that Americans think about guns. A couple of years ago, Minnesota had a big argument over concealed carry. The conservatives said that if we had concealed carry, crime rates would plummet, liberals said that accidental shootings would skyrocket. Surprise surprise, neither happened. But my issue with concealed carry was never about the statistical effects, but the social effects. Now everybody is just a little more worried that the next guy might be packing, and may be ready to snap. This makes us less trusting of our fellow man, and I think that is bad for society.

People talk about the "confidence" that having a gun in the house gives them, but this is false confidence. Real confidence comes from within, not an object you hold. 

Guns make poor home defense weapons, anyway. There is always the chance that a bullet goes through the target (or misses altogether), and hits a wall. Contrary to what Hollywood shows us, drywall will not stop a bullet, unless it's a less-lethal round. Preventative measures, like keeping a clean line of sight all the way up to your house and installing locks and points of entrance that would take at least thirty seconds for an average housebreaker to get past, are far better.

This is all personal opinion. You're all free to have your own opinions on it and keep legal weapons as home defense. I plan to own a gun when I can afford it. It just won't be a home defense weapon. I just like heading down to a firing range and taking shots at a target.
And this is the other side of the feeling. I do not feel troubled by others owning guns for personal defense, or hunting, or whatever, as long as they have the right weapon for the task and are not being stupid about it.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 12, 2007)

You know little about firearms or ballistics. Everything depends on the type of ammunition. Read up.

Start here.


----------



## sirdarksol (Oct 12, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> You know little about firearms or ballistics. Everything depends on the type of ammunition. Read up.
> 
> Start here.




Please don't presume that because I do not believe guns are the ultimate self defense weapon that I don't understand the science of firearms and ballistics. Aside from being a huge fan of firearms shows on the Discovery Channel and the like, I am a scientist at heart, and read about things for its own sake.

But, to humor you, I did go to the site, and I did find the sheet rock test. Lo' and Behold, a .22, pretty much the weakest round that's going to be used (not considering the light loads of holdout pistols), went through the equivalent of three walls. All it takes is going through one wall to then hit a person. Never mind if you've got a .45 as a home defense weapon.

On top of this, the site's scientific method is questionable. The examples they give are based on a single round fired at the medium in question. In the case of ballistics, the forces at work are so great that small differences, such as a nick in the bullet, a slight difference in the angle of a shot, or a harder spot in the sheet rock, have a far greater chance of drastically altering the effects of a particular shot. With regards to firearms, the only reasonably accurate tests involve multiple rounds fired into a target and an average determined among those shots.


----------

