Conservatives show love for the 2nd Amendment, but the rest of the Constitution they can do without.

[^_^ 5,021]

Even if we presume that the 2nd Amendment exists partly so that citizens can rise up if the government gets tyrannical, it is undeniable that the Framers built other safeguards into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to prevent things from ever getting so bad as to warrant an insurrection. Federalism was one such safeguard; the separation of powers into three branches was another; and the balance of the Bill of Rights was the last of the major safeguards.

If a "2nd Amendment solution" is ever warranted, it'll mean our system already failed in numerous ways; that "solution" is also easily the most costly and dangerous of the safeguards we have.

...

Yet the conservative movement is only reliable when it defends the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, it is an inconsistent advocate for safeguarding liberty. Conservatives pay occasional lip service to federalism, but are generally hypocrites on the subject, voting for bills like No Child Left Behind, supporting a federally administered War on Drugs, and advocating for federal legislation on marriage. (Texas governor Rick Perry is the quintessential hypocrite on this subject).

And on the Bill of Rights, the conservative movement is far worse. Throughout the War on Terrorism, organizations like the ACLU and the Center of Constitutional Rights have reliably objected to Bush/Cheney/Obama policies, including warrantless spying on innocent Americans, indefinite detention without charges or trial, and the extrajudicial assassination of Americans. The Nation and Mother Jones reliably admit that the executive power claims made by Bush/Yoo/Obama/Koh exceed Madisonian limits and prudence informed by common sense.

Meanwhile, on the right, The Heritage Foundation, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and sundry others are more often than not active cheerleaders for those very same War on Terror policies. Due process? Warrants? Congressional oversight? You must have a pre-9/11 mindset.

It's one thing to argue that gun control legislation is a nonstarter, despite tens of thousands of deaths by gunshot per year, because the safeguards articulated in the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct. I can respect that... but not from people who simultaneously insist that 3,000 dead in a terrorist attack justifies departing from the plain text of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments, and giving the president de-facto power to declare war without Congressional approval.

The conservative movement has a broad, textualist reading of the 2nd Amendment... and nothing else.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/the-strangest-conservative-priority-prepping-a-2nd-amendment-solution/266711/

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Totally agree. The 4th amendment IMO could practically be repealed now with no major changes given its been so heavily damaged.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I actually agree. A lot of Gun proponets are not big on other freedoms. Of course the left is just as bad in a reverse way. So that is why you should vote Libertarian next time you vote and throw all the bums out.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I actually agree. A lot of Gun proponets are not big on other freedoms. Of course the left is just as bad in a reverse way. So that is why you should vote Libertarian next time you vote and throw all the bums out.

Is that how you voted in November?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Is that how you voted in November?

what part of NEXT TIME did you not read LOL

seriously I voted Libertarian in almost any race that had a L candidate, with the exception of the Big one.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

what part of NEXT TIME did you not read LOL

seriously I voted Libertarian in almost any race that had a L candidate, with the exception of the Big one.

I read the "next time" part. It was just a question.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Evylin

[natty bumppo 289]

I read the "next time" part. It was just a question. Christ.

interesting name for RHR.

did you have a vision and this is your way of sharing?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

interesting name for RHR.

did you have a vision and this is your way of sharing?

I edited it out since everything I say is bannable these days.

If I was using it as a name for Herschel, I would have used a comma before the Christ and not a period.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Evylin

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

They like the 10th Amendment as well, especially since they control most of the state legislatures, and most of the governorships.

[natty bumppo 289]

I edited it out since everything I say is bannable these days.

If I was using it as a name for Herschel, I would have used a comma before the Christ and not a period.

um ... sure ... okay ....

fwiw:

i'm not sure you would have deserved a ban for that. the original comment had a humorous touch.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

um ... sure ... okay ....

fwiw:

i'm not sure you would have deserved a ban for that. the original comment had a humorous touch.

Deserved doesn't really matter.

[natty bumppo 289]

Deserved doesn't really matter.

very true.

btdt. always figured if i'm gonna get one i better do it right

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

interesting name for RHR.

did you have a vision and this is your way of sharing?

I kind of thought the LOL after the comment then followed by but seriously would clue most into knowing I was messing around. Guess I was wrong :crying:

[Penny Lane 8,159]

LOL is overused. But I'll stop, don't want to take this off topic and get in trouble ...

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I edited it out since everything I say is bannable these days.

If I was using it as a name for Herschel, I would have used a comma before the Christ and not a period.

I can promise I was not the least bit offended, and my original post was meant light hearted, as in you got me

I can't recall anything you ever said, that would rise to the offensive level.

um ... sure ... okay ....

fwiw:

i'm not sure you would have deserved a ban for that. the original comment had a humorous touch.

Thank you , I was thinking surely anyone that read that could see the playful nature of it. I am never rude to some one unless they are rude first.