It isn't a liberal position, it is a freedom position.
Put it this way. From what entity, living in Texas as you do, do you fear the most on firearms laws? The federal government, of course. Why? Because you are secure in the attitudes of your state regarding firearms but not those of other states who have some say in your state ONLY because of the power of the federal government.
You argue for protections that you agree are mostly meaningless. So, what is the point of that. A right without a remedy is no right.
If we didn't have this federal leviathan then some of us in SOME places might get to live something more approaching freedom. Yet, anytime anyone suggests distancing ourselves from it in the slightest degree, some of you start screaming about some imagined protections (that you already admit are worthless) that you would lose.
The woman is advocating for the complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment. How in the hell is that a "freedom position?"
If she were advocating for the repeal of the 14th Amendment, then maybe you'd have a legitimate point. There is no way repeal of the 2nd could be viewed as a victory for state's rights and therefore, freedom. All that would do is enable the federal gov't to make private firearms ownership illegal, and with the 14th Amendment still left in place, a precedent in the courts for the fed gov't enforcing a ban on firearms ownership in the states as well. You just said the Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal gov't from trampling on individual rights, and you just said the 14th gave the gov't the ability to dictate "rights" to the states. So, now you somehow assert that repealing the singular protection we have against the federal gov't outlawing private firearms ownership -- the 2nd Amendment, which was upheld as a state mandate in the Supreme Court -- would somehow enhance freedom and states rights? How so?
That is exactly what this woman is saying, and that is indeed a liberal position, because it does nothing to enhance state autonomy as long as abuses of the 14th Amendment continue to exist. It only removes any federal restrictions on private firearms ownership. And, I submit that she knows that. Why only the 2nd Amendment? Why isn't she advocating for repealing any of the other amendments if doing so somehow gives the states more autonomy? Repealing ANY of the Bill of Rights does nothing to enhance states' rights; it only invites more abuses by the federal gov't. It seems to me that repeal of the 14th would come closest to accomplishing what she's advocating, as the BOR only limits federal powers by your own admission, and the 14th is the culprit that allows the feds to stick their noses into state matters, right? As the link I provided above points out, the 14th really wasn't intended to give the federal gov't the ability to tell the states what they can and can't do in the first place. Did you read that piece?
If you interpreted anything I said as me advocating for "meaningless protections," then you either didn't understand the context of my statements or you're intentionally being obtuse just for the sake of arguing. I never said constitutional protections were "meaningless," I said there is a lot of abuse of power in government. That doesn't mean the protections shouldn't exist in the first place because they're being cherry-picked. If you argue that we shouldn't have any legal protections in place at all if rights aren't being recognized, and repealing portions of the Bill of Rights is somehow a victory for freedom, then why stop at the 2nd Amendment? Just repeal all of the Amendments. Hell, just repeal the entire Constitution. After all, "a right without a remedy is no right," right? So the key to have greater "remedies" is to have no laws on the books addressing the very remedy you seek? That makes sense.
How about we just move on, since we obviously disagree and continuing with this debate is pointless?
Have a good day.
