From Rady Ananda of OpEdNews comes this brilliant defense of gun rights and the effects of limitations on these rights. What makes this unique is that she is a "progressive." Apparently one who has at least some understanding of what the word "progress" means.
As a progressive, I value, work toward, and believe in an ever-expanding recognition of equality for all peoples. I have no tolerance for intolerance. Owning personal firearms levels the playing field somewhat for those most vulnerable to abuse: women, the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped. I'm a populist because I feel no allegiance to or from elites. Instead, I fear the vast expansion of governmental power over the past decade, at the expense of the Rule of Law, and at the expense of basic human rights -- particularly the 800-year-old Magna Carta provision for habeas corpus. 2A advocacy is an egalitarian issue.
Ananda quotes some of our founders, including Patrick Henry, who I will include as a contrast. She then includes some illuminating quotes from "progressives" of the past and present who sought to limit or ban firearm possession:
"The great object is that every (adult) be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the U.S. Constitution
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Janet Reno, former US Attorney General, 1993"Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York, 1994"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." Dianne Feinstein, US Senator, 1993 (who carries)"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." Adolf Hitler"One man with a gun can control 100 without one.... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." Vladimir I. Lenin
Then comes the big leap.
Gun rights are neither liberal nor conservative, feminist nor patriarchal, Democrat nor Republican, Left nor Right. Gun rights are populist at their core, in defense against government tyranny at their widest application, and in self-defense at their most personal application.
In theory, this should be true. But wishing doesn't make it so. The overwhelming majority of those who favor weapons bans in this country are liberals, or progressives, or whatever other misnomer the leftists are using among themselves this week. The overwhelming majority of those who fight for the sanctity of the second amendment are conservatives, or right-wingers. Very few issues split more easily into leftist vs rightist than gun ownership. It even splits pretty clearly between Democrats and Republicans.
Since 2001, most Americans have favored stricter gun laws, though support has slightly dropped in recent years: 54 percent favored stricter laws in 2001, compared with 50 percent in 2007, according to Gallup polling. Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll...
Nearly all the decline in support for stricter gun laws is from people who don't identify themselves as Democrats. Six in 10 Democrats still support stricter gun laws, but support has dropped 13 points among Republicans and 17 points among independents. Half of all independents supported stricter gun laws in 2007; now only a third of them do.
Quick, rough math accounting for slightly more Democrats polled than Republicans would lead to an assumption that only 2 in 10 Republicans vs 6 in 10 Democrats favor stricter gun laws.
Ananda clearly does not realize that she is rarity. Unlike most of her "progressive" activist friends, she actually views a repressive government as a bad thing. Lenin is not the goal for her. Perhaps she's an optimist, waiting for someone to achieve Marx's vision, but minus all that nasty death and depravity that always comes with it.
Recent Comments