Blackmoor Vituperative

I consider myself “liberal”. I support the rights of individuals to live and love as they see fit, as long as they do so peacefully. I also consider myself a strong supporter of the right of law-abiding individuals to own and carry firearms. It puzzles and saddens me that people who vigorously defend free speech, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, equal rights for all law-abiding adults, and the separation of church and state do not also defend the right of law-abiding individuals to own and carry firearms. It seems a bizarre omission.

Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse has a good article on Daily Kos summarizing why liberals should love the Second Amendment:

Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They’ll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words “shredding” and “Constitution” in the same sentence. They might also add “Fourth Amendment” and “due process.”  It’s possible they’ll talk about “free speech zones” and “habeus corpus.”

There’s a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.

And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.  

Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as “gun nuts.” They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.

And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.

Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.

So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.

And this is why:

No. 1:  The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

If you’ve read the Bill of Rights — and who among us hasn’t? — you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them:  “the people.”

First Amendment:

…the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…

Ninth Amendment:

…shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Tenth Amendment:  

…are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.

We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about “separation of church and state,” although there is no mention of “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment.

But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.

We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.

And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.

If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the “Fuck Bush” bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment’s use of “the people” has the same meaning?

But it’s different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to “bear arms,” join the National Guard!  

Right?

Wrong.

The United States Militia Code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term “militia” does not mean “National Guard,” even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.

Everyone else. Individuals. The People.

The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.

And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value.

No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.

All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowd. You can’t threaten to kill the president. You can’t publish someone else’s words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.

But we don’t like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.

We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.

But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.

Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are “reasonable.” The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns — all handguns — is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.

Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

What if a member of Congress — say, a Republican from a red state in the south — were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It’s not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There’s no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn’t intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What’s the big deal?

Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.

And yet…A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million — about one third — are handguns.

Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.

No. 3:  It doesn’t matter that it’s not 1776 anymore.

When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.

Of course, they couldn’t have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O’Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?

Actually, yes. They did. Bill O’Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann’s Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.

Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don’t agree with something doesn’t mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one’s personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one’s personal dislike of Bill O’Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.

And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn’t protect the right of the people as individuals.

Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.

They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes.

But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that — red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right — to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.

No. 4: It doesn’t matter if you can use it.

Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It’s not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.

Tell that to the Iraqi “insurgents” who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.

The Second Amendment is obsolete?

What other rights might be considered obsolete in today’s day and age?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, “I’ll be staying with you for the indefinite future”?

It’s probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you’d dust off your Third Amendment and say, “I don’t think so, pal.”

And you’d be right.

What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they’re not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn’t we just delete the damn thing altogether?

Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote — to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them.

And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate — until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.

And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.

No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Let me say that again:  It is the right of revolution.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.

To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.

The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.

We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept — that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.

And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is “excessive” or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.

So.

What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.

No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights — for all of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, “I just don’t like guns.”

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, “No one needs that much ammunition.”

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, “That’s not what the Founders meant.”

This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.

This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration’s trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)

This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.

This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.

Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights — for all of our rights, for all people — is what we do.

Because we are revolutionaries.

(from Daily Kos, Why liberals should love the Second Amendment)

Gun Owners of America rejoices in the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Otis McDonald and against the city of Chicago. In doing so, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the right to keep and bear arms (in the Second Amendment) to all 50 states.

“This is great news for Otis McDonald in Chicago and even greater news for citizens that are languishing under restrictive gun control laws across the country,” said Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America.

GOA is still pouring through the ruling and will have a more detailed analysis later. But in brief, the Court ruled that:

* “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.”

* “A survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrates clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation’s system of ordered liberty.”

These are arguments that GOA has been making for years. In fact, Gun Owners of America submitted an amicus brief in this case and was pleased to see that Justice Clarence Thomas made some of the exact same arguments (found in our brief) in his concurring opinion.

The decision by the Court today will have tremendous ramifications for the restrictive gun control laws in California, New York City and elsewhere.

(from Gun Owners Of America)

This is good news for people all over the USA: the states are required to respect the Bill Of Rights. Frankly, I never expected to see this happen.

Philip Berne has an interesting opinion piece on SlashGear about the death of journalism as a profession. Have expertise and informed opinions become irrelevant?

From Gun Owners Of America:

The Washington Post corroborates what Gun Owners of America has been hearing on Capitol Hill. Top Democrat leaders in the House are trying to make another go at the DISCLOSE Act… and they think they are very close to getting the votes to pass it. According to the Post article from yesterday:

Democrats are “in striking distance of getting the votes” for the package, which would require corporations, nonprofit groups [like GOA] and unions to disclose details about their political spending.

The big news last week was a “carve out” that Democrat leaders made to exempt the NRA from the provisions of the bill. This week, in order to gain more votes, there is talk about exempting many more non-profit organizations — which may include GOA.

Our answer to Congress is simple and is found in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” In other words, NO DEAL.

The NRA claims, in a widely circulated letter, that “some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations.”

To the contrary, sacrificing a First Amendment principle will end up putting the Second Amendment on even more precarious footing.

The restrictions on government power contained in the Bill of Rights do not exist in a vacuum. For instance, the First Amendment protections are what allow groups like GOA and people like you to complain to the Congress about anti-gun legislation, while the Fourth Amendment keeps the government from coming into our homes without a warrant to seize our guns.

The DISCLOSE Act will impose a host of new restrictions upon groups like GOA, effectively limiting our ability to hold individual congressmen accountable in the weeks leading up to an election.

Your activism against this bill so far has been OUTSTANDING, and it is the reason why liberal Democrats are trying to mute the voice of the gun lobby. While other groups might acquiesce to a deal, GOA will oppose this bill so long as even one gun owner’s voice is silenced.

The Democrat leadership is trying very hard to round up the votes to pass the bill this week.

ACTION: Please keep up the pressure. We must continue to contact our Congressmen in opposition to the DISCLOSE Act and urge others to do the same. If we are going to defeat the Obama gun control agenda, we have to be able to speak out against the politicians who are sacrificing our rights on the altar of liberalism.

1. You can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762; or you can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

2. Also, urge the NRA to change its position on the DISCLOSE Act and stand with Gun Owners of America. All the gun groups need to stick together on this. You can call the NRA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683).

I think this should be very educational to those that thought the Democrats were the good guys just because the Republicans were in power. Democrats have the power now, and what has changed? We are still at war in every third-world hellhole we were in six years ago. Congress is still trying to push through a neverending series of unconstitutional laws. The President still wants to pack the Supreme Court with judges who are hostile to the Bill Of Rights.

Neither of the “two-party system” political parties care about you or the Bill Of Rights. Their only difference of opinion is the color of their neckties.

From the VCDL newsletter:

Nancy Pelosi has janked the campaign finance bill, HB 5175, FOR NOW. It could be back later next week, so we are not out of the woods yet:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38698.htm

Here are more links to articles on the NRA and HR 5175. Some defending the NRA, some blaming the NRA:

Timothy P. Carney: NRA isn’t the villain in the free-speech fight

Democrats’ NRA Ploy May Kill Shady ‘Disclose Act’

The NRA’s Political Sellout – Why is the gun rights lobby helping Chuck Schumer help unions?

Conservatives Go to War Against National Rifle Association

Response from David Keene, NRA First Vice President, to DISCLOSE Act Criticism

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox’s Message on H.R. 5175

*** I will note in this one that Chris Cox is saying that the NRA does not SUPPORT H.R. 5175. We understand that. But we want the NRA to OPPOSE it ACTIVELY and AGGRESSIVELY***

Talk show host Lars Larson, in pit bull mode, puts Wayne LaPierre on the hot seat:

AUDIO part 1

AUDIO part 2

Does anyone else find it odd that Democrats (supposedly the “liberal” party) are working to destroy First Amendment, while (for the moment, at least) the “conservative” Republicans are fighting to defend it?

The fact is that neither party gives one whit about your civil rights. All they care about is protecting their own power. The only party that cares about your civil rights are the Libertarians.

Congress is trying to come up with a new law to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on campaign finance rules (in which they said that no, Congress can’t simply throw the Bill Of Rights into the trash just yet). The NRA had objected to the proposal, but then secured an exemption for themselves from the legislation, and have dropped their objection.

House Democrats have offered to exempt the National Rifle Association from a sweeping campaign-finance bill, removing a major obstacle in the push to roll back the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

The NRA had objected to some of the strict financial disclosure provisions that Democrats have proposed for corporations and politically active nonprofits and that had kept moderate, pro-gun Democrats from backing the legislation.

But if the NRA signs off on the deal, the bill could come to the House floor as early as this week. The NRA said it would not comment until specific legislative language is revealed.

An NRA official also noted that the group would not be supporting the bill but would not actively oppose it if the deal with the Democratic leadership holds up.

[...]

The new agreement would exempt organizations that have over one million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states, and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations, from the disclosure requirements. The NRA, with four million members, would fall into the exempted category and will not oppose the DISCLOSE Act now, according to Democratic sources.

(from Dems close to campaign finance deal, Politico)

So if you are a new group of citizens who want your voices heard, tough luck. No freedom of speech for you.

If this offends you as much as it offends me, you should contact your Congressional senators and representatives and let them know that you think the First Amendment is off-limits. If you are a NRA member, you might consider letting them know that you aren’t too fond of hypocrisy.

Gun Owners of America has more info.

Opponents of self-defense and civil rights are attacking the Virginia General Assembly for funding gun-safety programs in Virginia elementary schools.

When I was eight years old, I found a revolver behind the couch at someone’s house (the adults were not around). I was there with three other children, all younger than I was. It did not for one moment occur to me that the gun I found was real — I assumed it was a toy. I picked it up, pointed it at nothing in particular, and was astonished at the noise it made. The room filled with smoke, and I was deafened by a ringing in my ears for several minutes. Afterward, when adults had returned, I learned that the bullet from the gun had gone through an easy chair and bounced off of a wall. I do not know where the bullet ended up. No one was killed, although the three other children in the room very easily could have been hit.

The Eddie Eagle gun safety program is not “Joe Camel with feathers”. It does not promote guns. It does not promote the right the bear arms. It is not a tool of the “gun lobby” (whatever that is). The Eddie Eagle program does one thing and one thing only — it teaches children what to do if they find a gun.

 
 
If you see a gun:

STOP!
Don’t Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.

The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn’t to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program. Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they’re treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it’s a stance that makes sense.

Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention — ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members.

(from What is The Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program?)

The fact that no one died when I found that pistol was sheer luck. That could have been a tragedy. The Eddie Eagle gun safety program has one goal: to prevent that kind of tragedy.

People who oppose this award-winning safety program, putting their political agenda ahead of the safety of children, are contemptible.

I think it’s time to address the elephant in the room. We all know it, and no one wants to say it. Well, I am done with the charade.

Babies are stupid and ugly. No one’s baby is “beautiful”. No one’s baby is “smart”. They are misshapen, shrieking lumps that can’t read or write or tell what is edible and what isn’t. Not only that, but they smell bad: a combination of poop, stale sweat, and spoiled milk.

I don’t mind if you bring your baby to a movie — you are the bad parent, not me. But if it makes noise, I can and will ask you to take the ugly, stupid, foul-smelling creature outside. Having a baby to take care of does not give you special permission to ruin a movie for 400 other people. You chose to have it: we didn’t. We didn’t bring our barking dogs and pneumatic wrenches to the movie, did we? Why do you suppose that is? Think real hard.

That goes for anywhere else in public, too. If you can’t keep your larva quiet, keep it somewhere where it isn’t causing a nuisance for everyone else. Home, your car, or wherever: just not near me.

Bad news for people working at Hasbro on their D&D game line: more layoffs. Actually, rumour has it that Peter Schaefer left voluntarily, as did Andy Collins, but Jesse Decker seems to have been plain old fired. At least Hasbro didn’t do it right before Christmas, as they have in the past. Not like there is ever a good time to lose one’s job, but some times are worse than others. My best wishes to everyone, and I hope you land on your feet and find rewarding positions elsewhere.

On the bright side, experts seem to agree that whenever the Great Recession finally comes to an end, there will be a strong demand for skilled people in a variety of jobs in the USA. Check these out.

• The future’s 15 most wanted workers
• The 25 best-paying jobs for women

In almost entirely unrelated news, Jason Durall (who has done great work on a wide variety of games) answers a battery of questions about his Lords of Gossamer and Shadow (Diceless) game. Interesting stuff.