Why do liberals hate the second amendment?
This question is all about the second amendment. I'd appreciate any liberal answers. Why do some people want to disarm good, law-abiding people. The crime-rate has dropped 50% since the concealed carry permits became available. If you came home, to find an adult raping your daughter, and he had a knife, and you had a gun, what would you do? Guns are central to our country. And by the way, since the constitution says that a well formed militia can have guns, the government can't disarm any of the thousands of civilian militia paramilitary groups because they are legal militias. As a member of the NRA, I will fight to the death for American's right to bear arms. Anti-gun people can leave, because we don't want them. Go to Japan, or Canada, or England, or Australia. You'll fit in. But, Gode damn it, this is America! The Government can't disarm us while we still breathe. They'd have to kill us all.
Why do liberals hate the Second Amendment?
To me, and most Americans, the 2nd amendment means what it says and we can all have an appreciation of it. The extreme majority of anti-gun people in this country though are liberals, and the reason they aren't pro-gun is almost always because they know nothing about guns. They're scared of guns and have been indoctrinated by the left to hold onto this fear without question. Eric Holder explained that notion perfectly in 1995 when he said, "It’s not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and only do it on a Monday. We need to do this everyday of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." when he was talking about how we should scare people into not having anything to do with guns.
Which is worse: liberals who hate the Second Amendment or conservatives who hate the Fourteenth Amendment?
Both are equally awful. Most liberals I know don't hate the 2nd though, they just want more gun control which, to me, makes sense. It's the reason we can't possess nuclear weapons. That is weapon control right there.
Why do liberals misinterpret the 2nd amendment?
Well, first of all, no gun control law has ever caused a drop in crime, whereas almost all of them, world-wide, have lead to crime increases. Even in Ireland, where murder was almost unheard of, after gun-control was enacted the murder rate climbed almost 100%. The second amendment clearly differentiates that the need of a well regulated militia is necessary, but the right is inherent to the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. As Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." More specifically, gun control is not a crime deterrent (criminals are already breaking the law; what's one more law? It's not as if constricting a law changes economic demand, and wherever there is demand, regardless of law, there will be a mechanism to fill that demand; case in point: how easy is it to get marijuana in the US?) As to having machine guns? I'm all in favor. Under no circumstances should a criminal have more firepower than you. I think an H&K MP5N would be a great home defense weapon, but right now, kind of illegal...
Liberals, why do you try to misinterpret the 2nd amendment?
The 2nd amendment and it sends a straightforward message. “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.” The purpose of the amendment was so that civilians could have arms (not just guns) in order to protect themselves from an out-of-control government. Notice that it says people, not soldiers. Some leftists that I came across try to argue that it only applies to the military, since the 2nd amendment uses the term "well regulated militia". However, anyone who knows the history of the revolutionary war (and that period in general) knows that ordinary citizens banded together, organized themselves, and fought against the British. That is what the founding fathers meant by the term “well organized militia”. A “well organized militia” clearly does not equate to a standing professional army that is controlled by the government. Another misconception is that the 2nd amendment applies only to guns. Where in the 2nd amendment do you see the word gun? It uses the term “arms” so that common people would be able to possess all types of arms that would exist in the future. It also states that such weapons are to be used for the preservation of a free state. This means that people should have access to weapons of war (machine guns, armor piercing rounds, explosives, etc). Anyone who knows a little world history is aware of the fact that governments sometimes fail. Sometimes they collapse, sometimes they oppress their people, etc. The United States is not immune to those things. For example, a major natural disaster (such as a world-wide endemic flu or a Yellowstone eruption) could knock the government off its feet. That being said, it’s very clear that the government’s gun control measures are unconstitutional. Such measures only prevent law-abiding citizens from bearing arms.
Why do people in the North hate guns and the 2nd Amendment so much?
We don't hate them.We hate the fact that any talk about using those first two words, "well regulated", gets us labeled as gun-hating fascists intent on tyranny.No, we are really just sick of shootings that could be prevented by having never allowed the sale of kits to convert weapons to fully-automatic functionality.We're sick of hearing "it's a mental health problem" and then the same people saying that we need to reduce the reach of Medicaid.We're sick of the trope that good guys with guns prevent more mass shootings, when in fact there are only two cases with any documentation at hand (and Garrett Murphy covered this really well) of anything of the sort.We're sick of being told "but when handguns were banned in Australia and Britain, stabbings went up!", ignoring the facts that 1) stabbing is significantly less fatal than shooting, 2) a knife can't mow down a crowd at a country music festival, and 3) the number of stabbings increased in each by less than half the number of offensive shootings that stopped.We're sick of people deemed too dangerous to fly still being able to purchase a gun.We're sick of a lack of accountability and insurance, that the victims in Vegas, or Parkland, or Newtown had to cover their own medical bills because of the "civil rights" of a mass shooter.I can go into the history of the "militia" being state slave patrols in Virginia and Georgia and that being why the amendment was proposed, but I don't need to. You can go to Ernest W. Adams for far more depth than I can give.It's not about hating guns: it's that they've been fetishised to the point that more dangerous people are buying them. That needs to stop.