Liberal Blindness: Gun Rights Are Human Rights

[Guest]

by Mark Horne

Why can’t liberals act like liberals when it comes to privately owned or carried firearms?

When a liberal hears about “enhanced interrogation,” he will usually condemn it as torture. Torture is immoral and barbaric, he will say. No government should use torture to acquire information. A liberal will typically claim that torture will mostly not work to give truthful information, but even if it did, the good results do not justify the practice. People, even if they turn out to be evil, guilty, and dangerous have a right not to be tortured.

I hear a great many liberals object to the nudie scanners and the “enhanced pat downs” that the TSA perpetrates on people in airports.

But what if that scanner stops someone who plans violence on the plane? So far, the TSA’s nudie scanners have proven useless, but what about that one time? Typically, a liberal will insist it doesn’t matter. The Fourth Amendment is clear on the issue and it doesn’t all these types of abuse on Americans.

I have read and heard Leftists or liberals talk about indefinite detention and prisons where people are held without trial. This is evil, as far as liberals are concerned. But what if these people are terrorists who wish to conspire with others so that they kill thousands of people, as has actually happened? Doesn’t matter. People have a right to a trial to decide their guilt or innocence. Yes it is true that observing habeas corpus might result in an evildoer getting his freedom and then harming others, but that is simply a risk that a free country must take. You can’t lock people up without a trial that results in a conviction as the result of due process.

Liberals often condemn warrantless wiretaps. You are supposed to show cause to a judge and then get a search warrant for the specific thing you are searching for. You are not supposed to be able to “toss” a person’s house and you’re not supposed to be able to read his email or eavesdrop on his phone conversations. But isn’t it possible we might intercept a terrorist by spying on all Americans? Sure it is possible, but it is still wrong. When the government acts in this way, it is violating a person’s rights.

Behind all of these principles are the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as well as some other terrorist attacks.

Thousands of people have died because the government did not intercept the terrorists who hijacked the planes. So liberals know that the practice of their principles have real life consequences. But if a warmonger accuses them of getting Americans killed because of the limitations they want to see placed on government, they don’t seem too concerned. While murders are a tragedy, America is better off with a government that risks such loss of life and stays within the bounds of the civil rights spelled out in the US Constitution.

I could add other examples. The ACLU will defend the right of skinheads to express their beliefs in public, even though racist beliefs have led and sometimes still do lead to crimes. They simply insist that we have to live in a free society and deal with the consequences in a way that does not involve tampering with the freedoms.

So what happens to the Liberal brain when it thinks about privately held firearms?

Suddenly everything is reversed. In order to protect children (despite the fact that plenty of children have died in terrorist attacks), guns must be restricted. People should not be permitted to own guns or own certain kinds of guns.

And if you object to this violation of the Second Amendment you can be subject to raging assaults that virtually hold you accountable for the blood of innocents shed by sociopaths. Liberals will attack you as if you personally pulled the trigger. If you suggest any other way that handgun crimes might be reduced, instead of violating the Second Amendment of the Bill of rights, you will be scorned.

I have to wonder if all that emotional scorn is generated as a defense mechanism to keep Liberals from becoming self-aware. Without the self-righteous anger, I think they might have to face the fact that they are being ridiculous.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/12/liberal-blindness-gun-rights-are-human-rights/#ixzz2FzYUPt3S

[Neil D]

And if you object to this violation of the Second Amendment you can be subject to raging assaults that virtually hold you accountable for the blood of innocents shed by sociopaths. Liberals will attack you as if you personally pulled the trigger. If you suggest any other way that handgun crimes might be reduced, instead of violating the Second Amendment of the Bill of rights, you will be scorned.

I have to wonder if all that emotional scorn is generated as a defense mechanism to keep Liberals from becoming self-aware. Without the self-righteous anger, I think they might have to face the fact that they are being ridiculous.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/12/liberal-blindness-gun-rights-are-human-rights/#ixzz2FzYUPt3S

We are "ridiculous"???

Why is it when the people of the US say we need to modify these gun laws, you "hear" that we are out to take your guns away from you? We never said that......

Why is it that when some mental patient get ahold of guns and kills 20 first graders, AND we find those guns are legally purchased, when we say that the gun laws didn't do enough to protect those kids, you hear "we are going to take away your guns".....that is not what we said...

Why is it that gun owners are not safety minded people? They are more interested in thier rights as gun owners than how to make sure that the proper people get those guns....

Why is it that it is ok for ANY person to own a gun, and to have an arsenal of weapons with bullets, when we have crazy people out there? Mentally challenged people, people with grudges, people who think the goverment is out to get them, people who are nervous about thier neighbors [maybe rightly so], people who just are questionable for holding a gun......

Guns are NOT cars, they are designed to kill...Cars, can be made into a weapon, but that is not the designed use...not the same catagory.....different purpose, accepted rules for driving...there are no accepted rules for killing indiscriminately....

And what REALLY bugs me, is that these 'gun rights' owners, who flount thier rights over safety of firearms, are really stupid, IMO. The laws are there to protect them, as well. So why are not gun owners pushing HARD for good laws and the ENFORCEMENT of current laws? To me, this is what they need to be SHOUTING above all the debris arguments.This would get MY respect...if they are interested...

So, Richard, when are you going to come out of your closet and tell us what you really think, instead of hiding behind some ultra-conservative rant rag....

[OzarkWoman]

We are "ridiculous"???

Why is it when the people of the US say we need to modify these gun laws, you "hear" that we are out to take your guns away from you? We never said that......

It is called the slippery slope that many of talk about. I have seen that slippery slope a lot over the past few decades.

[bonnie]

We are "ridiculous"???

Why is it when the people of the US say we need to modify these gun laws, you "hear" that we are out to take your guns away from you? We never said that......

Why is it that when some mental patient get ahold of guns and kills 20 first graders, AND we find those guns are legally purchased, when we say that the gun laws didn't do enough to protect those kids, you hear "we are going to take away your guns".....that is not what we said...

[bonnie]

The job of your people has just become easier. Even includes a map to the house

By Michael Mullins

A suburban New York City newspaper published an interactive map showing the addresses of thousands of local residents with handgun permits and has drawn flak from gun owners, some of whom expressed their anger via the newspaper's Facebook page.

The Monday article in The Journal News was headlined "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood," and was in response to the Dec. 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

"Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves? What a bunch of liberal boobs you all are," wrote one reader.

The sentiments were echoed by another, who wrote, "How dare you guys. You have just destroyed the privacy of these law-abiding citizens and by releasing this list, you have equated them to that of sex offenders and murders. These are law-abiding gun owners, they are no danger to anyone except for criminals. And with this information you have made them targets for both criminals and anti-gun lobbyist who I am sure are going to treat them like monsters. I hope you are sued for infringing on the privacy rights of every single one of these citizens you have just put in harm's way."

One reader, in an attempt to "turn the tables on the Journal and see how they like it," posted the home addresses of the newspaper's president, top editors, and the reporter who wrote the story.

The gun registration information, which is available to the public, was obtained by The Journal News through a through a Freedom of Information Act request.

On Tuesday, in an article written by Journal News Reporter Randi Weiner, the paper defended its decision to post the addresses of handgun permit holders across Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam Counties, the northern suburbs of New York City where the paper is read.

"We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings," Weiner quoted CynDee Royle, editor and vice president of the newspaper. "People are concerned about who owns guns and how many of them there are in their neighborhoods."

Royle said that a freedom of information request seeking the specifics on how many and what types of weapons were owned by people in the above mentioned counties was denied.

"New York residents have the right to own guns with a permit and they also have a right to access public information," said Janet Hasson, president and publisher of The Journal News Media Group.

According to the paper, the controversial map has been recommended on Facebook more than 20,000 times as of Tuesday.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/newspaper...1#ixzz2GC6bzYdq