Go read the whole thing.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally. In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of "gun nuts"? Why do they complain about the "radical extremist agenda of the NRA"? Why do they argue for greater restrictions?
Why do they start performing mental gymnastics worthy of a position in Bush's Department of Justice to rationalize what they consider "reasonable" infringement of one of our most basic, fundamental, and revolutionary -- that's right, revolutionary -- civil liberties?
Why do they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote Democrat? Why are they so dismissive of approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns?
And why is their approach to the Second Amendment so different from their approach to all the others?
Well, if conversations on this blog about the issue of guns are in any way indicative of the way other liberals feel, maybe this stems from a basic misunderstanding.
So, allow me to attempt to explain the Second Amendment in a way that liberals should be able to endorse.
To be honest I might shy away from the idea of the "right to revolution". I look at the right to bear arms more of a safety device than anything else. It should be my right to defend myself and my property and not be forced to wait for the police to react when as it turns out they show up and the deed is already done.
Of course that's not to say that people might discuss the 2nd amendment with the idea in mind that the police department, where ever you live, is out of control itself. If citizens want to depend on the police for their protection they should understand that sometimes the police aren't as restrained as they would think they should be. That is should the police even if trained in the use of a firearm or any other form of force should be more trusted than the people they're supposed to serve?
At the end this post makes a great point about guns being dangerous in the hands of someone not trained in its use. Not much different than a car in the hands of an untaught driver. Let's make no mistake a misused gun can cause a lot of harm.
Of course in making an argument against the 2nd Amendment and for more gun control, there are those who will make every use of fear to move their agenda forward. Opponents want the fear of harming a family member with a gun in their own home. Or perhaps a child could get shot, perhaps a gun owner's own child or perhaps their neighbor. Perhaps even a person with a gun controlled largely be fear with little to no reason might be compelled to shoot and unfortunately this person might not be a criminal, but certainly an innocent.
I should also add it seems gun control advocates can't seem to tell the difference between a law abiding citizen and a gun toting criminal who couldn't care about any gun control law. I'm sure a criminal knows that a gun could put them in jail, but certainly in that world a gun is necessary. At the same time the gun isn't the cause of crime. Indeed someone has to have the intent to murder gun or not.
Anyway something to chew on if you're interesting in arguments for the 2nd Amendment.
EDIT: I once again forgot the link.