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.'

This is retarded. I am quite liberal and I fully support the 2nd Amendment. 'Gun nuts' are the paranoid idiots that spend their entire life worrying about a non-existent threat to the 2nd Amendment and they usually point their fingers at liberals as the threat because paranoid people need to create an imaginary enemy to play as the evil jin that is preparing to grant a hippie wish of 'no guns'.

Fuck gun nuts and their retarded paranoid fantasies.

'This is retarded. I am quite liberal and I fully support the 2nd Amendment.'

This is the same as saying 'I am muslim but don't support terrorism.'. Might be true, but the fact remains that muslims are labeled as terrorist and liberals as anti-gun pansies..

'Fuck gun nuts and their retarded paranoid fantasies.'

do you know the expression, 'Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean nobody is following me.' Do you really feel as though the second amendment isn't under attack? I don't live in the US but I know gun laws in canada are ridiculous. My local gun club just received 12x M4 22 LR. They fall under all the criteria of a non-restricted firearm but is labeled as restricted because it's in the M4 family. If you use Canada as example, gun nuts have a real reason to fear these so called paranoid fantasies.

'This is retarded. I am quite liberal and I fully support the 2nd Amendment.'

Exactly the same with me

This is the same as saying 'I am muslim but don't support terrorism.'

I think the difference is that he said 'i am quite liberal' and not 'I am a Liberal'. I know I consider myself to be very liberal, but I wouldn't want to be referred to by the label Liberal. The word just carries too much baggage.

I have to agree that tak did say 'quite'.. but if I say something like 'that dude is quite gay', does that make him less gay?

Do you really feel as though the second amendment isn't under attack?

No, there are people and politicians that believe the 2nd amendment should be revoked or changed. Sure it's under attack but it's akin to a bear being attacked by a gerbil, it's not in any real jeopardy and never was - nor will it ever be. Disarming America is literally impossible. If legislation was ever passed to remove the rights granted by the second amendment, civil war would ensue. Not only would civil war ensue, but I would be one of the ones volunteering to topple the government and reinstate our inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Also, Canada isn't a fair comparison. Canada doesn't have a country founding document that guarantees, without any shadow of doubt, an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. The US does.

makes you sound a little more gay...

your right about the founding document.. I was just trying to point out the lunacy with the gun control laws in Canada and how tight they are. They actually put a stricter restrictions on handguns because of the shooting at Dawson college (montreal quebec). The irony is the kid killed everybody with his AR15 and offed himself with the handgun. So why the stricter restriction on handguns. Things like this make me wish I was American.

@Saltpeter: wow, that was 'quite' witty...

I think the 2nd Amendment just makes for good sound bytes is all. I don't know if i am liberal or moderate but I do know i have friend who are super liberals (literally they love socialism) think guns are bad and love the entire constitution except the second amendment which i think is unamerican because there is nothing more American than guns

I'm with Wotak. I am quite liberal although I am registered an independent, and I also like guns, even though I am not a 'gun nut' and am very against asshole Neocons. Most gun nuts are paranoid right wingers that blame liberals for every problen in their lives. In my life I have seen more problems arise because of the right as opposed to the left.

This is retarded. I am quite liberal and I fully support the 2nd Amendment. 'Gun nuts' are the paranoid idiots that spend their entire life worrying about a non-existent threat to the 2nd Amendment and they usually point their fingers at liberals as the threat because paranoid people need to create an imaginary enemy to play as the evil jin that is preparing to grant a hippie wish of 'no guns'.

^this

our inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

I wouldn't consider the right to bear arms as inalienable, it'd be kind of a stretch. Also, they aren't in the US, since felons can't own guns and various other laws.

The very idea of having an amendment ensuring this right makes it not an inalienable right

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.

Shall not be infringed = inalienable. This is a right that can not be taken away from an American citizen. Ever.

Felons can't own guns because felons forfeited their rights when they committed a felony. I don't disagree with this but it's also impossible to enforce.

This is the second most lucid discussion i've ever read on LS.

This discussion means nothing without a tablespoon of LOki.

I doubt it'll ever happen to the 2nd amendment, but no rights are inalienable. Just look what a well organized church based in Utah did to California's constitution, vis a vis gay marriage. ...and they did it legally. Nothing's unchangeable, but, that said, the US's very soul is guns and money, and that's not gonna change until it's dissolution.

This is a right that can not be taken away from an American citizen. Ever.

Felons are still citizens, so I guess not? I guess if you take 'shall not be infringed' to mean the same as inalienable then your argument is valid, but I have a feeling Locke wasn't referring to guns.

Felons are still citizens, so I guess not?

Physically, yes they are still citizens. Technically, they forfeited certain rights as citizens when they violated the rights of other citizens. Felons in prisons have almost zero rights and once released they get most of them back. That's fair, IMO... but to see my side of the argument, one must understand that a prisoner is first stripped of their rights as citizens and in reality, their citizenship is removed. They become wards of the state or federal government and are only allowed the restoration of their citizenship at the courts digression... and only under certain conditions. Forfeiture of their 2nd amendment rights is one of those conditions.

digression = discretion. Spell-Check fucked