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

[Bailey Guns]

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

Please point out anywhere in there where I said voting GOP fixes everything.... please show me.

[Bailey Guns]

Besides...I've already pointed out to you where he explicitly stated the 2A was a political right and not a natural or God-given right. If he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand the 2A. It's not my fault he feels the need to dumb-down his writing to appeal to liberals.

[nynco]

I can't find that quote. I came up with 12 instances using "political rights" as my search term. Regardless, I think the author goes on in depth how he intertwines political and human inalienable rights as being one in the same. He uses that wording to reach a different reader who has different mental trigger words.

[UrbanWolf]

Ok, from reading the most recent posts, I believe this pic describes this thread very well...

[Bailey Guns]

No right is “god-given” or “natural” (although there are some that we, for good reason, treat in our socio-political discourse as if they were).

That's what he wrote...right near the end of the article (remember...I didn't read "far enough in"). If he believes that he doesn't believe in the founding documents that our country is built upon. Which means he doesn't believe in the 2A as it was intended. Which means he's another liberal poser.

[Rucker61]

Regardless of whether one believes that one’s rights derive from a divine Creator or are inherent in the human condition, the free exercising of ones rights doesn’t depend on the source, or even that anyone else believe in that right. However, the attempted deprivation of any such right is purely political, and the defense of those rights itself reverts to being a political action.

[nynco]

I second what Rucker said

[Bailey Guns]

Regardless of whether one believes that one’s rights derive from a divine Creator or are inherent in the human condition, the free exercising of ones rights doesn’t depend on the source, or even that anyone else believe in that right. However, the attempted deprivation of any such right is purely political, and the defense of those rights itself reverts to being a political action.

I couldn't disagree more, especially in regards to the "free exercising" of one's rights. For crying out loud...we just went through two recall elections partly over this very thing and we're in the midst of trying a third. I'd argue we the people were put in that position by politicians who thought they were the source certain "political" rights and who made it illegal for us to exercise those rights.

If they believed as the founding fathers did that certain rights are natural and bestowed upon us by a Creator and are thus unalienable I'd also argue they wouldn't have been recalled. We also wouldn't be having the 2A battles we have.

That statement also explains how certain things that aren't in the Constitution suddenly become Constitutional rights like abortion (not bringing up the topic, just using it as an example) and "health care".

[nynco]

I don't believe in your God, does that mean I have no rights or rights don't exist in my mind according to you (Bailey)?

[Bailey Guns]

"their Creator", nynco. You don't have to believe in what I believe. That's the beauty of not being a liberal...you don't force your beliefs on to others.

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?