Great article "The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights"

[UrbanWolf]

The author seems to be an anti-gun pretending to be not anti-gun.

[Bailey Guns]

The author seems to be an anti-gun pretending to be not anti-gun.

Bingo.

[nynco]

I think articles like this can go a long way to changing peoples minds. I think that the recall elections out here in Colorado sent a message loud and clear that voting against the 2nd Amendment costs elections. This is a VERY important lesson that might lead to the end of persecution of the 2nd amendment. Time will tell...

Back to the article.

And for those who did not read the article there are some great quotes that are not taught today.

"In the cauldron of the Klan’s lynching fever, writing in 1892, Ida B. Wells learned and taught a valuable lesson (that George Orwell would later echo):

Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year, the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves … and prevented it. The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.

The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.
(Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases)

Ida Wells: another “wingnut.”"

[nynco]

2A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, p. 32.
As the quote indicates, King never eschewed violence entirely. Early in his career, King’s home was described as an “arsenal” of guns, with armed supporters often posted to prevent a Klan assassination. King even applied for a concealed carry permit, which was refused by the local police in Alabama, who “used any wiggle room in the law to discriminate against African Americans “ – an historical example used by advocates of “shall issue” vs. “may issue” laws about carry permits. (Adam Winkler, “MLK and His Guns.”)

And there’s Gandhi’s famous quote: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The full context doesn’t make it any better for anti-gun-rights faux-pacifists. The quote continues: “If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.” Gandhi was exhorting Indians to join the British army in WWI, as a tactical move that might persuade the British of their loyalty, thereby hastening the repeal of the hated Arms Act, and at the same time getting training that might later be useful in the independence struggle.

The Arms Act was one of a series of measures adopted by the British in response to a serious Indian rebellion, the mutiny of 1857: “[T]the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government … brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a "loyal" subject of the British Empire.” http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/

And let’s not even get into Gandhi’s even more notorious: “We adopted it [the weapon of non-violence] out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.”

[Bailey Guns]

Everyone will have issues they can "bend" on. Everyone has issues they are 100% firm on. This is what normally gets people to vote one way or the other. Generally speaking, Democrats will infringe on your 2a rights. So if the second amendment is on the top of your list, you generally vote Republican. You'll "deal" with other issues with that party you may not agree 100% on because they line up on the most important values you have.

If you vote Democrat and expect that you'll be able to change the general movement they have towards restricting our 2A rights, then you are being naive, in my opinion. You may agree with 99% of everything else they say they want, but at the end of the day, they will try to restrict the 2A. By voting for them, that's only giving them more power to do so.

The people in power don't care what the people want/say. They do as the party tells them to. That was very evident in the recent Colorado gun laws. Democrat, Republican...it didn't matter. ALL the polls showed people did not want the new laws but they proceeded anyways. Why? Because Democrats will always stick to party ideals and gun control is on the top of their list.

This is where we run into people being stuck at party lines. There is no give/take these days. Each party has an agenda and sticks to it. You just have to decide which agenda fits your lifestyle/ideals the most and hope for the best. That is where the problem lies.

Just my $.02.

Pretty much nails it. That's why I agree with the "party trumps person" philosophy. If you vote for the perfect candidate, even if they're elected, it won't matter a hill of beans if that candidate's party isn't in the majority. I understand the "I won't compromise" positions. I also understand that if you vote that way you don't understand politics. Politics isn't about principles...it's about winning elections and the power that comes with that.

Despite nynco's strawman argument, I don't think voting GOP fixes everything. But voting for the republican party gives me the best chance of winning elections and getting a party in power that most closely matches what I believe. It's not ideal...it's just reality.

[nynco]

Bailey I hate both parties in our defacto two party dictatorship system. This is why I turn most of my efforts not into educating people on election reform. One form I think will help solve many issues is Instant Run Off Voting. I want to empower you Bailey or whom ever to vote for who you want to win and not force you to vote against those you want to lose more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[UrbanWolf]

Bingo.

I've seen stupid articles written by smart asses like the author of this article since 2011. According to Colion Noir they all live in a place called Hypothetical Land, where everything in reality turn out the way they are written in paper.

If you only read skin deep, many will fall for a nicely writen article, just saying.

[nynco]

Please point out anywhere in there where the author is arguing against the 2nd Amendment.... please show me

[UrbanWolf]

Political rights are mostly for those in office. Protect oneself is a human right, and when you don't know what kind of threat may appear in any given circumstances, have the most powerfull tool a individual can handle in any given circumstances would just be the individual exercising one's human right. If they really want to make self protection some kind of political right, then it will have to be the victim ordering the suspect to be punished whatever way they like after the harm has been done. But how any victims survive a violent crime?

[UrbanWolf]

Please point out anywhere in there where the author is arguing against the 2nd Amendment.... please show me

Manipulate term such as "Political Rights"... He/she doesn't have to openly arguing against the 2nd Amendment to show his/her true intent.