Mostly, I consider myself a good, progressive liberal. There's very little on the left that I have trouble with, other than not standing up for certain parts our policies. Why are we afraid to admit we want to stand for LGBT rights? I'm not sure, honestly, other than most Americans being afraid of LGBT's rights meaning they have less, or something stupid like that.
One place I've found myself in disagreement in recent years is the right to bear arms, gun control, and all that Second Amendment stuff. I should mention here, however, that I hate guns and would NEVER considering owning one, though I have fired one in my 25 years.
Now, I'm not saying we need to re-legalize the right to bear certain arms. Certainly, if you're hunting for sport, you don't need a damn Uzi. Should you be hunting for sport? No, but those are my morals and not yours. Should be able to own whatever you want? Within some margin of reason, yes, but again I ask, how much do you need for sport hunting/recreation? AK-47's are unnecessary.
However, how do you put the toothpaste back in the tube here? How do you tell Americans they suddenly have to give up guns or anything like that? While I don't like guns and fear people who do own guns (especially those who are so crazy about owning them- Chuck Heston -that they spend their lives worried over the left repealing the Second Amendment), I just don't see how we as a society can go back.
When I saw the Supreme Court's decision on District of Columbia v. Heller, I found my conflict growing. On one hand, why shouldn't D.C. be able to ban fire-arms based on the rights of a local government to enforce its own will. On the other hand, doesn't a flat out ban on firearms conflict with the Second Amendment?
It certainly does conflict, and where there is conflict, the Second Amendment should be followed more closely. However, Antonin Scalia's ability to only read part of the 2nd Amendment and ignore the rest is not surprising. He's an idiot and a conservative asshole who would gladly ban your ability to worship the Flying Spagetti Monster so long as you could own a bazooka while wrapped in an American flag which would be illegal to burn (n.b. I'm STRONGLY opposed to an amendment on flag-burning- it's cloth, folks, grow up!).
So yes, I do feel that the court made the right decision, though I disagree completely on the trigger locks being unconstitutional. Sure you can't ban guns, but why can't you make them nearly impossible to use?
If we're going to spend our time in this country worried about drugs killing white, upper-middle class kids, why aren't we worried about guns? Why is it legal to own firearms for fun and possibly infringe on the rights of others when it is illegal to smoke/inject/snort drugs which generally do not infringe on the rights and space of others? How is scheduling of drugs constitutional at all?
I do believe strongly that there ought to be a change to the Second Amendment, but I know that that will never happen, and perhaps it never should happen. As much as I believe gun laws should allow for some things and not for others, I know full well that gun lobbies are too strong and that there's not much we can do about it. However, as the Second Amendment is written, I believe any outright ban on firearms by a community to be unconstitutional.
I've never understood how the conservatives believe that the non-living aspect of the Constitution only covers the things that they want! We can't change by the Second Amendment because the almighty FOUNDING FATHERS wanted it that way, but they have no trouble adding in definitions of marriage, flag-burning, and a whole host of other stupid Amendments. Oh wait, I forgot that they think they're special and working for God or something silly thing...
Let's just leave it at the following: they'll have their Second Amendment and we'll keep there from being any Anti-LGBT Amendment and we'll remain in this deadlock forever.