Why liberals should support the Second Amendment

Daily Kos has an article entitled, "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment." Personally, I think this goes a little too far, but a more moderate position would be expect liberals, and most particularly ACLU liberals, to support the Second Amendment, whatever they feel about the NRA.

Back in the 1960's, Lyndon Johnson remarked, with reference to those attacking him from the left of his own party, "I'm the only president you've got." Those were different times and many of us probably would not have eased up, even knowing that it might lead to Richard Nixon.

What the ACLU and its supporters should now recognize is that the first ten amendments are the only Bill of Rights we've got. The horse trading ended two centuries ago. Actually, at that time the First and Second amendments were probably not appealing to separate constuencies as they do now, but no matter. They are both in the Bill of Rights.

For two hundred years, courts have been extending the interpretation of the Constitution from its literal form to adapt to modern realities and modern sensibilities. It's certainly true that the framers of the Constitution did not envision powerful and accurate handguns, or assault rifles beyond what anyone would use to hunt game for the family. But they also did not regard burning a flag as speech.

The problem is that by criticizing an expansive view of the Second Amendment, you call into question the expansive view of the First. Frankly, the Second isn't much of a problem. Gun laws haven't stopped gun violence, or even dented it in places like Chicago.

But actually reining it in would be a problem. I worry much more about my government than about my armed neighbors, and a possibly overwrought interpretation of the Second Amendment isn't going to change my priorities.