Pro-gun progressives? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? How can you be
a liberal and support the Second Amendment? Aren’t guns for crazy rednecks,
gang bangers, one-world fearing militia members, and violent people?
Hardly! The purpose of this site is straightforward: to end of the myth of
the liberal gun-hater, as well as other myths about gun ownership. The
Democratic Party and the progressive movement, no doubt, bear the brunt of
the blame for the current state of affairs for gun owners in the United
States. Someone somewhere needs to start motivating Dems and liberals to
collectively gut-check and recognize that the default, knee-jerk anti-gun
stance is both a political loser and a morally bankrupt position. My
motivation is to create a resource for progressives, liberals, Democrats,
moderates, and others who share a few core responses to the discussion on
firearms in America today.
1) There are those who are largely single issue voters on the gun
rights issue who do not like voting Republican for a variety of reasons, but
find themselves swinging right for fear of gun rights being retracted by
Democrats on the wrong side of the issue. Now is the time for those people
to have a resource to discuss this dilemma. Many moderate voters frankly
have little affinity for the regressive positions today’s Neocon-dominated
GOP takes on social issues, but have no choice but to pick the lesser of two
evils and vote for the Republicans because they (rightly so) think the Dems
are not to be trusted with something as important as the natural right to
self-defense.
2) Some Progressives do not feel that anything inherent in their
liberalism precludes self-defense. Social liberalism is fundamentally about
bearing an open mind and recognizing that what works for one person might
not work for another, and thus every American needs to be free to make
choices about their personal behavior. Few choices are as intimate, as
personal, and as vital as choosing to protect oneself and loved ones from
violent attack. A truly free and liberal society lets citizens make these
sorts of choices for themselves and encourages citizens to participate in
their own defense. Progressives are on the right side of so many important
social issues in this regard-the freedom to choose one’s mate, the freedom
to chose one’s religion, the freedom to chose and express one’s political
beliefs, the freedom to make choices about reproductive health-and should be
on the right side of this issue as well.
This website is dedicated to providing the pro-gun progressive with a
resource for answering those tough, nagging questions we get from our other
progressive friends who question why we would want to own guns. It is
dedicated to combating the myth that Democrats and liberals are permanently
and forever on the wrong side of this issue. It is dedicated to helping
them find the strength to admit the missteps of the past, and develop the
intestinal fortitude to deny the reactionary right-wing the sole dominance
on this crucial issue-and if there is one issue where the wingnuts are
kicking our teeth in, it is that they are doing a good job convincing
average citizens that they are more concerned with their safety and
security. Most progressives and liberals know this to be, in point of
fact, quite far from the truth; however, collectively being on the wrong
side of the gun issue is the number one thing we do to help the GOP keep
winning votes with that spurious argument. Time for that to stop. Time for
the pro-gun progressives to make their voices heard. Time for people to
recognize that the protection of one’s home and one’s life is not only a
concern to radical right wing Republicans. Time for us to recognize that
the right to self-defense is an inherent right that all human beings should
enjoy.
Another way to phrase it is that no one has a duty to be a victim. If someone knows that someone is out to get him or her (angry estranged spouse, irate neighbor, business competitor, friends of criminal he testified against, Klansman) maybe being armed would help and maybe it would not. Still, that person ought to have the option of doing what he thinks is necessary to avoid becoming a victim.
Comment by Deep13 — December 6, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
Deep13,
I certainly don’t disagree with you, but I would like to point out something perhaps implicit in your comments. Maybe you didn’t intend this, and if not, my apologies. Even if no one is out to get you, you still have a right to arm yourself and protect both you and your loved ones.
Comment by kengrubb — December 21, 2005 @ 9:06 pm
I am, and have always been, a progressive-voting citizen. I believe that government can and must do good and be efficient. I believe in a mixed-economy, social inclusivity, and protecting the poor and others who require safety nets and assistance. I believe government regulations are needed to protect indivuals against faceless corporations and unscupulous people who see profit over people as their life goal. All that said, I believe in the individual citizen’s right to own and use firearms, including self defense.
More simply said, why do we want only those on the right side of the political fence to have guns? Don’t we believe in protecting our families and ourselves?
Thanks for your Web site. I’ll be visiting it often.
Comment by F. — May 8, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
Falling back into the old neanderthal ideas of self defense and the right to bear arms while innocents die left and right? Exactly how many progressive ideals can you abandon while still calling yourself a “progressive”? Two? Three? Ten? All of them?
In my opinion, the number you’re looking for is “zero.” You should probably call the site “pro-gun moderate,” and stop ruining the good name of people who are actively trying to make a real difference, in this and every other issue.
Comment by marvin — June 19, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
Protecting your life is a neanderthal idea? Since when? Heck, even the Dalai Lama said it’s reasonable to defend yourself with a gun if the other guy is trying to shoot you. Guess he’s a neanderthal too.
Far as I can tell, I haven’t abandoned any progressive ideals, since there’s nothing inherent in the progressive ideal that requires me to be a victim.
The only people ruining the progressive name are people like you who choose agenda over free thought, and skew what the word really progressive really means. Hint: it’s got bupkis to do with authortarian measures about who can or can’t own guns.
Thanks for playing.
Comment by Administrator — June 19, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Maybe as an NRA member I can chose someone in the Democratic Party. Its nice to have that choice.
Comment by Rich — August 7, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
First of all, I believe it was Malcolm X who said, “Non-violence can only be a principle in a world that is principally non-violent.”
Second, it is very important for the masses to be responsibly armed and educated especially non-whites, like myself, who suffer the most because of violent crime.
We live in a country that is a plutocracy not a democracy. The system is not here to benefit the masses. This system is here to sedate the masses and benefit the rich. And it’s not just us who are being hurt by this. The people of the third world are the ones who are really paying for it. The rich exploit us, and we, whether we know it or not, exploit the third world. In fact, the rich exploits everyone, we just help them out when it comes to pillaging other countries. We are so afraid to lose our privileges that we are willing to sell out our fellow human being in another part of the world. We allow this system to exist here and spread its cancer all over the world.
This must end. Things have to change. We have the access to the imperial palace, to the master’s house. We owe it to the masses all over the world to begin the liberation of all of humanity from the claws of the “upper class”. Let’s stop beating around the bush and do what needs to be done. Or how much worse does it have to get before we actually mobilize and do something real about it?
Comment by Ronald — August 20, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
Welcome Ronald. Extra points for the El Hajj Malik el-Shabazz quote.
Comment by Administrator — August 20, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
Another gun owning progressive checking in!
I own guns, I work with guns, and I am well-versed in their use… and I don’t vote Republican either… imagine that.
Comment by BIll — August 22, 2006 @ 8:29 am
Excellent. Nice to see someone else breaking down the stereotypes, Bill. Be sure to check in at the forums; shoot me an email if you care to register.
Comment by Administrator — August 22, 2006 @ 8:37 am
I think what made me see the light on this issue was primarily a gut reaction to the GWB administration…that and I have enough of an Anarchist streak running through my Socia*list worldview that I came to the curious realization that even right-wing Populists understand the real political spectrum is Top versus Bottom rather than Right-versus-Left, which is NOT a 1-to-1 correspondence.
I guess I read enough Jim Hightower, enough Michael C. Ruppert and Michael Parenti and it all began to soak in…then I found Van’s Liberals-with-Guns website, with the great quotes from Eugene Debbs (who was living proof positive that you can have 100% home-grown-in-the-US-of-A socia*lism and that it’s not a foreign import in the US marketplace of ideas). Read enough Howard Zinn, too…Ludlow Massacre, all the labor unrest, workingmen clashing with national guardsmen…the only way they had even a chance was by being well-armed. The Black Panthers proudly carried guns in the 1960s, as did the Weather Underground.
As did the Abraham Lincoln Brigade that went over to Spain to fight the fascists in the Spanish Civil War.
Lately I’ve been increasingly pessimistic and leaning more on the anarchist strains in my thought, and anarchist survival tactics more than socia*list dreams. More EF Schumacher and less Trotsky these days perhaps. But even if you move off the grid, homestead, and establish small, democratic, mutual aid collectives, disconnected from the US economy, you’ll still need guns to keep and hold your own against encroachment. Washington is violent enough to those who stray from economic orthodoxy in other countries. They won’t take too kindly to home grown varieties, either.
I used to support half-measures, limiting magazine sizes, etc, outlawing certain types of weapons, etc. Now I believe citizens should have the right to the same level of parity in small arms as any military forces, since they may have to resist same said military forces at some point.
I actually own an NRA shirt I like which says “The 2nd Amendment: America’s original homeland security”. It gets approving nods from the rightwingers I shoot alongside at the range…but they don’t know just how subversive the 2nd Amendment really is. I have to do more research, but I have a theory that “well regulated”, in the 18th century parlance of the 2nd Amendment, meant simply “well drilled”, e.g. citizens who formed together in mutual local self-defense and practiced the art of marksmanship in unison for mutual defense. The founding fathers–most of them anyway–wanted a “well regulated (read: well drilled) militia” and NO STANDING ARMY. That is TRULY radical, and most rightwingers will balk at the idea out of hand, it does not compute to them, but it is in keeping with the original spirit of the signers of the constitution. And it is exactly what I mean when I wear my shirt. I’m not a pacifist by any means, but that doesn’t mean I’m not anti-imperialst, anti-militarist.
The undermining of that ideal of NO STANDING ARMY, unfortunately, began almost immediately, and was first betrayed in a big way with the repression of the Whiskey Rebellion by Federal Troops. The Founding Fathers keenly understood that standing armies constitute basically a state-within-a-state, an instutition unto itself, with its own agenda (most notably self-preservation). President Dwight Eisenhower, for all his faults and complicity with the imperial project of the US ruling classes, knew this keenly, which is what he was trying to warn his fellow Americans about in his farewell speech.
NO STANDING ARMIES is THE utterly radical, driving idea behind the 2nd Amendment. Amaze and scare the shit out of your right-wing friends with that one. ;-D
Comment by JJR — September 29, 2006 @ 12:28 am
Well said JJR, and welcome. Glad to have you! Register on the forums and make yourself known, I particularly like what you had to say about standing armies. That’s a point I have to drive home to so many liberals, moderates, and other non-GOP types frequently–while your motives may be benign (reducing violence, etc), your course of action ultimately means only state agents have the means of self defense, and that ain’t good.
Comment by Administrator — September 29, 2006 @ 7:32 am
Another non-Republican gun owner here; fed up with the typical stereotypes that we all seem to get lumped in.
It’s just a shame there’s so few of us…
Comment by toml — October 2, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Hey Tom,
Glad to have you here. Feel free to register on the forums; there aren’t as many of us as I’d like, but there’s more than most people think. Outside the NE corridor and the LA basin, we’re not nearly as rare as most people think–we’re just not vocal enough.
That’s what this site is about.
Comment by Administrator — October 2, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
I will keep in touch with PGP; I submitted its website to Channel 8 here in Austin as a unique place to visit, and mentioned some of the links. I think a fruitful way to look at the virulent reaction of some libs/progs to Second Amendment issues is to examine the unfortunate tradition of prohibitionism within progressive politics. This tradition stretches from early drug and alcohol prohibition, through modern drug and firearms prohibition (the Shalalas, Hoyers, Feinsteins, etc.), and incorporates tobacco smoking bans in private clubs, anti-hunting initiatives and other legislative short cuts to a “New Man.” Speaking of gender, it is well to note that the core of the anti-hunting movement are liberal urban females, many of whom base their ideologies on a very turgid, academic-sounding form of difference feminism (see Stange & Oyster, in GUN WOMEN). It is heartening, on the other hand, to see that women have gone from 2-3% of the hunting community twenty-five years ago to some 10% now. Guess they don’t want to see guys having all the fun.
Comment by SteveM — October 17, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
Thanks for helping get the word out about the existence of our little movement, Steve. Much appreciated!
Comment by Administrator — October 17, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Wow- So I am no longer the lone Democrat in the duck blind and there are more then two liberals in the state of Maryland who own guns and eat red meat. Kudos for running this site and letting Dems know that owning a gun is a reminder that the governments power comes from me, and in retaining it, I retain some of the power.
Comment by Steve — February 28, 2007 @ 9:53 am
Rock On brother. Any gun ban is a death sentence for citizens and their freedom. I will be contacting my Maryland House and Senate Reps. to voice my anger over this new assualt on freedom.
John
Comment by John Wiley — February 28, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Any person who truly believes in equality can not believe in the elitist, classist, racist gun laws that have been inflicted upon the citizenry of this country.
If you think that armed citizens can’t stand up to an army, then I encourage you to get CNN or pick up a newspaper.
The slave holding bastards that founded this nation were right on a few things and the 2nd was one of them.
Comment by marques — March 25, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Well said. Especially on the armed citizens point…I really find that “you’ll never stand up to our army” argument. Seeing as they’re a little tied up in Fallujah and Baghdad…kinda hard to believe that a tyranny could ever resist the armed citizens of this country.
Welcome Marques!
Comment by Administrator — March 25, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
Gun control is utterly worthless. I dare any anti-gun to find me a gun control bill that had an effect on crime. I think a lot of the anti-gun politicians aren’t doing the anti-gun bills because they actually think they will reduce crime; I think they’re just doing it to try and piss off the Republicans. Unfortunately for them, a good percentage of their party is pro-gun and they piss them off too. Although I always have and always will vote Democrat, who knows what kind of gun control legislation the newly Democrat-controlled Congress will be trying to push? Still, the Democrats are definitely the lesser of the two evils. I’ve gotten fed up with all the right wing nutjobs. I do hope we can start a movement. I have spoken to people at my school on the issue (I am a bay area resident, and 90% of people here are liberal) and have convinced a handful of people to be pro-gun. The key is to ask them what law could have stopped x massacre. If they say something stupid, like “banning all guns” then they’re probably not worth your time, but if they don’t know, then you can start logically destroying gun control and hopefully converting them.
Comment by Gabe — April 20, 2007 @ 12:58 am
Gabe, I’d have to disagree with you. Gun control laws have a major effect on crime rates — it causes them to rise significantly because law-abiding citizens can no longer defend themselves against criminals who have no intention of abiding by any laws.
I’m tired of the ignorant anti-gun morons (I live in Illinois and am hoping that the House is smart enough to stop SB1007, which the Senate obviously wasn’t) trying to take away our right to bear arms. I don’t know why it has become acceptable for criminals to kill, rob, and rape people, yet it is not acceptable to stop a criminal using your right to defend yourself with a weapon.
I’m an atheist. I’m a gun owner and enthusiast. It would be nice to have a party that doesn’t try to take some of our rights away (Republicans with forcing religious ignorance, Democrats with gun control stupidity). Glad to see there is a group out there that is willing to see you don’t have to be a bible-thumper to know how wrong gun control is.
Comment by L — May 11, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
So glad to see I’m not crazy and that there are others who know, like I do, that being liberal and pro-gun are not mutually exclusive! Our liberal compassion for humankind has to be tempered with common sense, understanding of human nature, and knowledge of history. Prohibition simply does not work! The 18th Amendment was a disaster, the “War on Drugs” has been a complete and utter failure, and a one-size-fits-all gun control policy would be a massive and deadly mistake.
Comment by Buddy-Rey — June 1, 2007 @ 2:35 am
My, I sure have been looking for this website. I will be looking for others. Funny, after living for several years in a urban area with immediate access to police, surrounded by, mostly, progressive folks, I had considered purchasing a gun, but never did. I had grown up shooting but never got back to it. Now, I have moved to a conserative, rural area, where the nearest police is a 1/2 hour or more away. I am surrounded by, mostly, gun owning, far right wing, hard drinking, dangereous nuts. Now I own a weapon. Why, because I, and my family, have already experienced hostility and out right threats due to the length of my hair, or other strangely percieved political ideas. I think they believe that their understanding of my politics equates to pacifism. They are wrong.
Thanks for this. I was wondering where I could find support. For the record, I now live in Western MD. Tough place to be who I am, and interested in firearms and self-defense.
Comment by Shane — July 4, 2007 @ 12:57 am
Shane,
Welcome aboard and dro me a line when you get close to Baltimore sometime.
Comment by Administrator — July 6, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Wow! How refreshing to know I’m not the only pro-gun progressive. Thanks for this great webpage!
Comment by Jon — July 25, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
Thanks Jon, welcome! Look forward to your participation here.
Comment by Administrator — July 25, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
great blog!
I will be both purchasing my first handgun and starting a progressive blog very soon.
You should expect pestering inquiries about both on the forum.
I have not had a chance to go through much of the archive but from what I have seen the “pro-gun” ideas are the content priority. Of course that phrase does come first in the title…but since you identify as progressive,perhaps you might include some content that emphasized larger progressive ideals…or perhaps demonstrated the ideological overlap.
Then again I may just find that stuff when I take the time to look
I will be sure to link to PGP in some future blog post.
see you around.
keep up the good work,
skink
Comment by skink — August 12, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
Hi
I heard you on Rons show today , how do I get a bumper sticker?
Dan
Aberdeen / Thurmont Md.
Comment by Daniel Trey — October 25, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
I sympathize with the purpose of the website here-to discuss the issue intelligently without the knee-jerking one finds at any mainstream gun site or at the Brady Center.
The main issue to me seems to be “how do we prevent violent crime?” IMO, the best long term solutions are to reduce poverty, improve education for everybody, and decriminalize many drugs. If all pro and anti gun control advocates spent as much time and money on those issues, we wouldn;t have the ridiculously high crime rates that unfortunately exists. An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Gun control is a red herring and smokescreen that the rightwingers wave to distract us from more important issues. I also find it disgusting that pro-gun folks (on the right wing that is) would prefer to threaten or shoot someone rather than sacrifice a bit of time and energy to help that person not become a criminal in the first place.
I’m a tree-hugging, meat-avoiding, pseudo-soci*alist lefty progressive. I’m not a gun owner but have no problems with lawful folks owning them, or with the right of ANYONE to adequate means of self-defense, provided all reasonable measures are taken to prevent them from being acquired by criminals and nutjobs. I’d like to get into target shooting if I ever own enough land to set up a decent range.
Comment by John McK — October 30, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
Here is another free-thinking, gun-owning progressive who has no doubt that it’s his right and duty to defend his home and his family, when threatened, with whatever weapons come to hand. The Second Amendment does not confine gun ownership to militia members but allocates responsibility for the guarded possession and maintenance of firemarms to ordinary citizens. Trust and respect the citizen.
Comment by Don Bredes — November 6, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
Hi! Great website!
I’ve been searching for a book I saw about a decade ago. I haven’t been able to get it, and I know I’m grasping at straws by posting this, but what the heck.
I’m afraid I can’t recall the exact title, but it had “liberal voices” or “voices from the left” in it. It had pro-gun essays by a civil rights leader from the “Deacons for Defense,” talking about holding off Klansmen in front of a black church; by a womens’ rights advocate about sexual assault defense; and something by the late liberal Senator Frank Church.
Does this ring a bell?
I appreciate whatever anyone can tell me.
Thanks!
Comment by Mark Benson — November 20, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
[…] I am a liberal, I am a democrat, I am a Maryland democrat and I am all for shall issue. I know a few other MD liberals for shall issue and I even know a MD "progressive" who not only is for shall issue, but even has one of the ever so rare MD carry permits. Pro-Gun Progressive » About PGP __________________ Never put off procrastinating till tomorrow when you can procrastinate today. […]
Pingback by Serious Question for Everyone over 21... - Southern Maryland Community Forums — December 14, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
You should get some t-shirts made that say “pro-gun progressive.” I’ll bet they’d sell like hotcakes.
And maybe some bumper stickers too. They could say something like:
“Guns don’t kill people, extremist right-wing policies that perpetuate poverty and crime kill people.”
Comment by New(er)Left — January 8, 2008 @ 6:48 am
Hey New,
I do have bumperstickers, will send you some if you’ll send a SASE and a buck or two to help defray the cost.
Like the Tshirt idea…have thought about it.
Comment by Administrator — January 11, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
When the next great political dispute over elections and power in this country arises, we need to remember that the right-wing has all the guns. That’s the very best reason for the “progressive” left to arm itself.
I use quotation marks around the word progressive because the fundamental and underlying assumption of the leftist progressive movement is expressed in the French Revolution’s slogan, “Libertie, Fraternitie, et Egalitie,” and its contemporary philosophe, Auguste Comte’s, notion of the perfectibility of mankind. The neo-progressive movement - what we have now - is based an the assumption that the soul of mankind is evolving toward a higher state where violence will eventually become a thing of the past. The original progressive movement, which is best embodied in the figure of Republican Teddy Roosevelt, looked toward economics, prosperity and technology to improve man’s lot, not his collective soul. My overarching point here is that, as an idea, “pro-gun progressive” is almost incoherent.
The political left, to the degree to which is does NOT embody the sappiness of a “Kumbaya” sweet, sweet social harmony, would be more accurately known as the radical left. “Armed Radicals” expresses it better.
But, to answer your first questions: yes, “pro-gun progressive” is a contradiction in terms based on the reasonable analysis I have provided. But progressives, in subsuming the rights of the individual to the power and authority of the state — as we are always accused of doing, can support the second amendment by insisting that the significance of its preamble be observed and respected.
“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.”
A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state.
Any militias that exist are not regulated at all.
Thus there is no constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It’s perfectly straightforward and logical, and all other reasoning is sophistry. Ron Paul pisses on the constitution when he ignores the significance of the preamble. He’s a pathetic joke.
But since guns are ubiquitous, and the political right owns most of them, the political left is dangerously unarmed and should scramble to catch up. The presence of guns saturates the culture, nevermind the Constitution. It’s too late.
When the death squads organize, they won’t be left-wing.
“When they kick down your front door, how you gonna come: with your hands on your head or on the trigger of you gun?” — The Clash: “Guns of Brixton”
“When they kick out your front door,
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?”
“When the goons break in,
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting in Guantanamo?”
“You can crush us;
You can bruise us,
But you’ll have to answer to …
Oh, Guns of America.”
“The money feels good,
And your life you like it well,
But surely your time will come,
As in heaven, as in hell.”
“You see, he feels like Ivan,
BORN under the American sun,
His game is called survivin’
At the end of The Harder They Come.”
“You know it means no mercy;
They caught him with a gun:
No need for the armored Suburban.
Goodbye to the American sun.”
“You can crush us;
You can bruise us,
But you’ll have to answer to …
Oh-the guns of America.”
“When they kick out your front door,
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?”
“You can crush us;
You can bruise us,
And even shoot us …
But oh- the guns of America.”
“Shot down on the pavement;
Waiting in Guantanamo.
His game was survivin’
As in heaven, as in hell.”
“You can crush us;
You can bruise us,
But you’ll have to answer to …
Oh, the guns of America.
Oh, the guns of America.
Oh, the guns of America.
Oh, the guns of America.
Oh, the guns of America.”
Comment by Stephendclark — February 17, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
I’m glad to see my fellow Progressives supporting gun rights. When I try to convince some of my liberal minded friends to support the Second Amendment, they argue that only conservatives are opposed to gun control.
Comment by LearnAboutGuns — May 5, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
I want to differ with something here–the notion that shooting animals with guns is “fun.”
I am a concealed-carry-permit way leftist gun owner. But I will NEVER use my gun to shoot anything that can’t shoot back…unless it is very clearly hunting me. Then I think it is fairer to fight back with the tools I can make myself, which doesn’t include my gun.
In my mind guns are only necessary to protect myself from becoming a prey species to HUMANS. When I hunt I do it with tools I make myself. There is no progressivism in victimizing other beings who are defenseless. That includes the elder woman in a wheelchair, and the animal in the forest. I support the Second Amendment for the same reason my Revolutionary War ancestors did: because the state shouldn’t have all the power OR standing armies.
But as soon as we cross the line to use weapons that other people make–especially the high-tech ones that pass for “hunting” gear–rather than ourselves, then we are doing to animals what we claim we don’t want other humans doing to us.
your auntie
Comment by Your auntie — May 21, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
[…] One of my neighbors has been following this case from the very beginning and his Second Amendment saga is an interesting one, to say the least. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, he and I may be in the streets of Pigtown tonight firing celebratory shots in the air. I’m kidding, of course. Doing something like that would be completely irresponsible because ammunition is just way too expensive to waste. […]
Pingback by Are You Paying Attention? « Anger Hangover — June 26, 2008 @ 9:20 am
I am shocked. I am a gun-owning Liberal, and I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID!
Geez, that’s rare. I’m adding you to my blogroll!
Jeff
Comment by Jeff Pulice — July 25, 2008 @ 11:44 am
There is a reason why Pro-Gun Progressives seem like an anathema. West Virginians can tell how well progressive ideology and the one party democratic rule in Maryland work. Every public hunting area and shooting range in eastern West Virginia is full Marylanders. Marlyanders vote away their own freedoms and then have to go somewhere else to exercise the 2nd Amendment rights. Blaming “right wingers” on Maryland problems with education, crime, or poverty is also ludicrous since they make up such a small element of the population. Pro-gun and sportsman residents in VA, PA, and WV jokingly refer to MD as the Peoples or Socialistic Republic of Maryland and carrying or transporting firearms there is verboten. Neighboring states watch the news nightly showing the crimes and murder in Baltimore and Washington and can’t figure out how why they keep putting the same political party in charge that fails to protects its citizens and will not even allow its citizens the ability to protect themselves.
Comment by WVShooter — November 2, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
I haven’t had time to study your site yet, but I’ll toss my two cents in anyway. (By the way, I found you via “Liberalswithguns.”) I am not a single issue voter. I voted Obama, and liberal at the local level, but I have always carried and always will.
My position:
THE single most important word in the Second Amendment is “well.” Quite simply, a regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state. You can have a supremely regulated militia and not have a free state. Examples are legion. Just look at the premier example: Nazi Germany. What a wonderful militia, eh? No; you need more than a regulated militia to have a free state. What you really need is a “well” regulated militia.
This, of course, begs the question: What is a “well” regulated militia? The canons of statutory and Constitutional interpretation prohibit interpreters from going beyond the “plain language” unless there is ambiguity in the subject language. If, and only if there is ambiguity, are you allowed to proceed beyond the plain language and look at primary and secondary authority, historical background, founder’s intent, etc.
So, let’s look at the Second Amendment on it’s face. What is a “well” regulated militia? It’s patently obvious on the face of the Amendment itself: A “well” regulated militia is a militia wherein the right of the people to keep and bear arms has not been infringed.
End of fucking story.
Every man, woman and child in the U.S. should be issued a state-of-the-art hand-held military shoulder weapon and side-arm, and provided unlimited supplies of federally subsidized ammunition.
The public education in the use thereof should begin early, occur often and be intense. It should include heavy education in the Liberal Arts, including reason, logic, how to think (as opposed to what to think), critical and analytical reasoning and reading skills, Philosophy, American History, American Political History, Constitutional Interpretation, Sociology (with emphasis on the social contract), and economic philosophy (emphasis on cost externalization and the “enlightened” in “enlightened self-interest).
And, while anyone should be able to exercise their First Amendment right to freedom of speech, and no government limitations should be placed upon the unfettered right to work in journalism regardless of training, there should be an industry standard that a masters or doctorate in journalism be preceded by, at the very least, a B.A. in Logic.
When the fourth estate is composed of idiots who’s idea of investigative journalism is to give both sides to an argument equal time and then call it good, the public can’t reasonably be expected to know what’s going on with the first three estates.
While the First Amendment is impotent without the Second, it can render the Second impotent by being effective. Contrary to popular belief, the pen/sword jury is still out and always will be. Pens and swords don’t influence people; people influence people. It’s the people that matter. They should be smart people. Education is the key.
Comment by James Burnham — November 7, 2008 @ 11:34 am
More thoughts: The problem with the gun control and gun rights proponents is thier failure to read the two clauses of the Amendment in harmony. Another canon of interpretation is that, whenever possible, a great effort must be made to make sense of a provision and read *seeming* conflicts to actually be in harmony. When pro-gun people focus on the second clause, and pro gun control people focus on the first clause, each thinking that one trumps the other, they miss the point. Pro gun people need to quit running from the first clause. They need to own it. It supports gun rights, as argued above regarding the word “well.”
Let the pro gun control people run from the second clause. It simply can’t be read out of the Constitution.
Oh, and forget all the duck hunting crap, and defense against criminals. The Second was designed to keep assholes like the Neocons in check. Free state.
Comment by James Burnham — November 7, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
I’ve looked at various pages on your blog and I’m looking for your Progressive commentary, not just your gun posts. Where do you put those? This just seems like a plain old gun blog, there is nothing Progressive about it.
Please, point me towards your political posts! There are more issues than just guns!
Comment by Wanda — August 3, 2009 @ 3:52 am
Wanda–this blog is devoted exclusively to the RKBA…I talk about non-RKBA issues elsewhere all the time…
The progressive stuff–not a lot of old school cons devoting their free time to urban renewal in Baltimore.
Comment by Administrator — August 4, 2009 @ 10:00 pm